Something else I just found interesting......
 

Talking with the couple who bought into that 9 mo lease/fleece with Swift, was talking about how my 8 mo are about up, and how i could sign an actual lease to purchase after those 8 months. They told me something interesting, and wanted to pass the info along.....

They signed up for that 9 month deal a few months ago. They were asked to resign a new contract with something new added to it. It is an "anti-competition clause". When i asked them what that was, they told me that if a driver quits or gets fired, they cannot work in the same industry for 2 years.

Is this a new 'standard' trucking companies are doing in general, or just swift...........


and please.....no smart arse comments about how swift sucks, or how bad their lease deals are. we've hashed that out, and wasted time with that before. So lets leave that out this time, can we?

why anyone would do a L/P through Swifty is beyond me

why do you keep asking stupid questions...you really got a boner to do this swifty lease deal, don't ya? swift sucks, there fleece purchase deal sucks, etc. you ask these questions about the deal. you know the answers you are gonna get, you even refer to that each time you ask your questions. you know the answers you are gonna get, so why keep asking? how many times do you have to be told that this lease purchase is a terrible idea? i think we are to 15 now, how many more till you get it through that head of yours that this is not a good idea...and you are hearing it from guys that have been in this and owned trucks alot longer than i have even been driving.

[

It is an "anti-competition clause". When i asked them what that was, they told me that if a driver quits or gets fired, they cannot work in the same industry for 2 years.

Is this a new 'standard' trucking companies are doing in general, or just swift...........


Non compete clause. Pretty hard to enforce a persons ability to work in a non specialized field.

Given that they were dumb enough to sign a lease purchase, it doesn't surprise me that they don't understand the contract they signed. Basically what the anti competition clause means is that they can't solicit any of Swift's customers directly for a period of two years after termination of the contract. If they do, they have to pay some serious change to Swift. This is standard fare in a trucking contract, to prevent your drivers from negotiating with your customers to haul directly, then getting your own authority to do it.

If the non compete clause were in place as they claimed it were, it would be terribly easy to get it nullified, as it would be extremely vague. But that's not what it is saying at all.

P.S. Swift sucks, and any company that does lease purchase sucks.

[QUOTE=Rev.Vassago;451961]Given that they were dumb enough to sign a lease purchase, it doesn't surprise me that they don't understand the contract they signed. Basically what the anti competition clause means is that they can't solicit any of Swift's customers directly for a period of two years after termination of the contract. If they do, they have to pay some serious change to Swift. This is standard fare in a trucking contract, to prevent your drivers from negotiating with your customers to haul directly, then getting your own authority to do it.

QUOTE]
It would still be very hard to enforce a nationwide non compete from a driver to sales(unless the driver was involved in sales) I've had to try and enforce salespersons before,courts take a dim view of impeding a persons ability to make a living.

Rev. that is what i was thinking. The way my friends had explained it, was that you cant drive a truck for 2 years. Thought that was a bit harsh. and wanted someone with some good experience to help clear it up. I would venture that would be a pretty smart idea for ANY company, to have their drivers sign that. As far as getting your own authority goes, ya know.

JD and mike, i wouldnt have figured you'd come up with anything to actually support the topic of the thread. Keep delivering those pizzas, boys.

CRST tried that BS a while back with their students. They put a deal in their employment contract that if a student did not complete the contract they could not work as a driver for 2 years. It didn't hold up at all in court.

Thats the one thing I like about you Kevin, you never miss sarcasim....good job.

It would be ridiculous (and unenforceable) to try and keep a DRIVER from -DRIVING- for 2 years.

Methinks there's a little more to this clause than is being elaborated here.

That being said - as EVERYONE HAS SAID BEFORE (multiple times, on multiple threads) - only a FOOL LEASES A VEHICLE FROM HIS EMPLOYER.

Rick