Protesting truckers seek safer work c...

Protesting truckers seek safer work conditions

There are 8 comments on the Long Beach Press-Telegram story from Mar 2, 2009, titled Protesting truckers seek safer work conditions. In it, Long Beach Press-Telegram reports that:

More than 60 truck drivers protested outside one of the harbor's largest trucking companies early Monday, alleging that the carrier fired several drivers who demanded safer working conditions.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Long Beach Press-Telegram.

LB Republican

Long Beach, CA

#1 Mar 4, 2009
So read the following, and then decide who had a serious viable plan:

"To date, L.A. port authorities have paid out more than $40 million in incentives to local trucking companies that include Swift, Knight Transportation, Cal Cartage and Southern Counties Express.

Long Beach adopted a different program providing subsidies and incentives primarily to independent contract drivers who agree to buy a new truck.

However, just 30 drivers have taken Long Beach up on the offer so far, said port spokesman Art Wong."

How embarrassing! What a dramatice rdeuction in pollution by the geniuses at the port of wrong beach. They should have followed the LA plan, but maybe the thought of success at something was too difficult to accept.
Manny

Anaheim, CA

#2 Mar 4, 2009
Funny how the article doesn't mention how much money Swift and Knight got to purchase new trucks while they have hundreds of trucks parked in other states so they could get the bond money.

There is a dramatic drop in pollution since the shippers are going to northern ports because of the extra costs the City of LA has tacked onto container fees so there aren't as many trucks and rail moving freight. Now you'll see Teamster and Longshore layoffs since there won't be as many containers moving through Southern California ports any more.
jlef

Newark, NJ

#3 Mar 4, 2009
my son is driving for Swift and he has told me how they have these new trucks parked and still wrapped in plastic because they do not want to use them. instead they continually send the old , unsafe trucks out that keep breaking down and if the drivers complain they are fired.

my sons truck broke down on 3 separate occasions with the same problems because they do not repair them right and over weight
LB Republican

Long Beach, CA

#4 Mar 5, 2009
The subsidized equipment was to be equipped with an RFID device to track their movements and ensure utilization in the port.

Isn't it unlawful to fire a driver who refuses to drive unsafe equipment?
theresa

Chicago, IL

#8 Mar 8, 2009
This is just typical for Swift. They send their drivers out in blizzards and expect ON TIME delivery and then penalize you when you are not on time! Their driver managers are inept and rude who do not answer their telephones or pagers. They don't give a shit about their drivers and whether or not they sleep, eat or take a crap. Furthermore, they make drivers wait for DAYS for loads! What the hell do they think....that we are charities?

PLUS, get this.....OWNER OPERATORS HAVE NO MORE HEALTH INSURANCE! AS OF APRIL 1, 2009. WHAT KIND OF BRILLIANT MANAGEMENT ASSHOLE CAME UP WITH THAT????

SCREW THEM-THEY DESERVE ALL THE LAWSUITS! HOPE THE EMPLOYEES WIN ALL THOSE LAWSUITS AND DON'T GO BACK TO WORK FOR THEM. THERE ARE BIGGER AND BETTER PLACES.
Midnightrider

Geneva, IL

#9 Mar 9, 2009
LB Republican wrote:
Isn't it unlawful to fire a driver who refuses to drive unsafe equipment?
Yes, but they don't admit firing anyone for that. They make up some phoney reason. They can fire for any reason or no reason at all, as long as they don't admit it was for an ILLEGAL reason.
theresa

Chicago, IL

#10 Mar 9, 2009
Too bad that driver didn't have a voice activated tape recorder on him when that happened. I know it's inadmissable in court but at least he'd have it on tape, even for himself. Swift is shwred!

You know they give an "independent contractor", owner operator a contract to sign--which states that he cannot drive for another carrier or get his own loads SO they are treating him as "theirs only"...like an employee....they give him health insurance. THEN, with no forwarning THEY cancel the health insurance (give him 30 days notice) and tell him that he is not eligible for COBRA because he is NOT an employee!!! OKAY, so what about this stupid contract that states he is "theirs"? THEY LIE, LIE, LIE!!!!!!!!!!

YOU KNOW THEY ARE TREATING THEIR DRIVERS WORSE THAN COMMUNISTS! WE LIVE IN AMERICA AND THIS IS A FREE COUNTRY AND WE CAN SAY WHAT WE WANT AND DO WHAT WE WANT.
Ronny

Chicago, IL

#11 Mar 9, 2009
I agree. Swift treats those who kiss their butts well but if you cross them then you are doomed. Better to quit than to put up with their crap. There are good carriers out there who are just waiting for good workers.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Swift Transportation Co Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
swift drivers beware (May '10) 2 hr Sandman 37
swift rehiring (Jan '09) Feb '16 843 mac 44
News Arizona Chamber Honors Jerry Moyes With Inaugur... (Aug '07) Jul '15 peewee 28
News Swift Transportation fires more truck drivers f... (Sep '09) Mar '15 what about OOIDA 182
News Swift Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over Indepe... (Mar '10) Feb '14 terry 77
News Lakeville man at center of latest alleged Ponzi... (May '10) Oct '13 keeper 2
News Shortage of truck drivers leads to increase in ... (Jul '13) Sep '13 jessicarobin 2
More from around the web