[Martin.Lindquist]

In an accident....Truck Drivers are presumed Guilty until we can prove ourselves innocent!....... Sucks...doesn't it?

If your company wants you to run illegal...tell them to blow it out thier AS@! In an accident, They may get sued in a trial...but you'll go to jail!

If they fire you...there are alot of other companies out there, looking for good drivers!

There is no load worth dying for....or screwing up your life and your families lives for!

I,ve done this for a long time and have learned!

Two accident in 2.5 years????

Why do you think OOIDA is going after DAC so hard right now. DAC can put anything they want into our reports and refuse to correct them even when faced with a court order. My DAC from Mikey Millis show I laugh at this 6 service failures and 3 accidents with them and yet the dates listed are not even from the days I was working with the company.

[geeshock]

not saying that I'm always by the book or in compleate compliance with the rules but if I take the load I bear the toll, as well as when I decilne a load. I've done both, but only after much thought

[Fozzy]

Why are they after DAC? It's an informational and background reporting service. DAC doesn't put ANYTHING on paper that is not given to them by the company. If you have a greivance, get lawyered up and go after them... of course most of the reports have merit and the problem is that there is a service that a trucking company can use to protect itself from bottom feeders.

[kc0iv]

Originally Posted by Fozzy

Why are they after DAC? It's an informational and background reporting service. DAC doesn't put ANYTHING on paper that is not given to them by the company. If you have a greivance, get lawyered up and go after them... of course most of the reports have merit and the problem is that there is a service that a trucking company can use to protect itself from bottom feeders.

OOIDA filed suit on the following points:
Specific language that OOIDA is challenging in its complaint includes the phrases "company policy violation," "unsatisfactory safety record," "excessive complaints," "cargo loss," "equipment loss," "quit/dismissed during training/orientation/probation," and "not eligible for rehire."

In a nut shell DAC created the form used by the carriers and the complaint claims there is no way can understand what the phrase(s) means. Example what does the phrase ""quit/dismissed during training/orientation/probation" mean? Did the driver quit? Was he fired? Did he leave during training? During orientation? During probation?
No one knows by reading the DAC report.

The same goes for the other phrases.

As far as being an independent reporting service. Look at the address of DAC. USIS's District of Columbia office was opened in 2002 within the ATA location there.

kc0iv

[GMAN]

OOIDA lost that lawsuit. The problem with employment information available in DAC is that it is too general to be of much value. What about the one that DAC reports that an employee's work history is "satisfactory," but "not subject for rehire?" That doesn't even make sense. If I saw that I would think that the employee is not suitable for hiring. Information in DAC is too general. It should be more specific. I think one reason why it is so general is that employers are tired of being sued by disgruntled employee's. Employer's have been sued for telling the truth and sometimes for not telling the truth. I would like to see more specific information placed in DAC, if it is to be used as a hiring tool. There are some who receive satisfactory points on DAC who should never have been allowed in the business. There have also been some inequities where drivers have been unjustly blackballed. You have a right under the Fair Credit guidelines, to place a letter in your file explaining any untruths or things which you feel are unfairly reported. Until DAC changes the way in which information is reported, that is about your only alternative.