The way it works is, if you are out of service for two consecutive Mondays, and/or do not otherwise run a load within the week between those two Mondays, whether you are in-service or out-of-service, you are automatically placed on Check Hold.
For example, Christmas Eve I was in-service but I did not get a load. Remained in-service until a few days after Christmas when I got sick and then went out-of-service and stayed out of service until after the New Year. So, the entire time between Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve I did not run any loads. That's two consecutive Mondays without running any loads in between.
They don't know why you're out of service for that length of time, nor when you plan on coming back. Automatically being placed on check hold makes sense, because that's really the only way to ensure there is enough money around for the weekly deductions, like QC, insurance, etc.
However, what doesn't make sense in the rude, inconsiderate and thoroughly unprofessional manner in which it it implemented.
The considerate thing to do, the professional thing to do, is to make a phone call informing you that you have been placed on Check Hold. Not only does that inform you of the fact, but it also will give them the opportunity to find out why you are out of service and when you plan on coming back.
Plus, in order to be removed from Check Hold you have to call Safety and tell them you are back in-service and ask to be removed from the Check Hold, but because they failed to inform you that you were on Check Hold in the first place, you don't know to call Safety and ask about it. Thaaaat's retarded.
If being placed on Check Hold is automatic, then at least one of two other things must be just as automatic. One is, the phone call to inform you of the status change. The other is, when you accept the next load, and are therefore quite obviously back in-service, you should automatically be removed from Check Hold regardless of whether or not you called Safety. If it's automatic on the front end, it should be just as automatic on the back end.
Someone came up with this automatic policy, but failed to implement it so that what should also be just as automatic on the back end was put into place. No one at Panther will admit to being the one to come up with this brilliantly incompetent policy. The truly astounding part of all this is, those at Panther who have to deal with it, and have the power to change it, know they policy is flawed, but can not, or will not, change the policy so that it is implemented in a professional manner. It's something that can be changed right now, today, this very minute, but it remains flawed and in place. Astounding. Truly.
