It happened again. Yet another case has developed where a married couple team, new to expediting, signed up with a fleet owner without knowing the experiences of previous drivers who have been burned by him.
Now burned themselves -- perhaps even financially destroyed -- the drivers are in a bad way, financially and emotionally. But because people are embarrassed and/or afraid to openly speak and name names, the fleet owner remains free to re-offend with the next victim that answers his ad.
With the circumstances publicly posted and the carrier named, and with the drivers making complaints and pleas for help to the carrier, the carrier to whom the fleet owner leases his trucks cannot not know this is going on; yet the carrier washes its hands of all responsibility.
It's not just this carrier. It seems to be most of them, if not all. The carriers' purpose is to minimize their liability in cases like this. They calculate that the best way to do that is to turn a blind eye to the fleet owner's evil practices and a cold shoulder to the drivers' pain, thereby allowing the fleet owner to not only continue, but to do so under the cloak of the carrier's good name.
It is indeed strange how things work out when, because of the influence of the legal department, carrier employees check their ethics and human compassion at the door when they go to work each day. They take intentional action to ignore or otherwise brush off the harmed drivers, and focus instead on minimizing the carrier's liability.
"Do the right thing" gives way to "Do the right thing only for the company that pays you, no matter how morally repugnant and cold the carrier's priorities may be."
What, if anything, can be done to stop predator fleet owners?
Civil action taken against the fleet owners by the drivers is an option, but not really. Because the drivers are financially weak the legal-action route is rarely pursued. Small claims action is more viable but it too is rarely pursued because the drivers lack the skill and/or desire to fight. Predator fleet owners know and use that fact to their advantage.
With the carriers choosing to do only what is right for them and taking positions that actually help the predator fleet owners recruit new victims and lure them in, little help can be expected from the carriers. And with people afraid to speak up and name names, and legal action by victim drivers not commonly pursued; can anything be done to stop predator fleet owners?
Maybe so.
I had a new thought today and offer it for consideration and discussion in the Open Forum.
What if EO or another entity or person created a fleet owner reviews and ratings service similar to Angie's List?
Please take a thoughtful look at that site. People there have no problem naming names and sharing their circumstances. If Angie can name names and publish reviews of "roofers, plumbers, house cleaners, dentists and more!" could the same model be used to review and rate fleet owners too?
The fleet owner universe is microscopic compared to Angie's user base so a fleet owner reviews and ratings site would not have to be anywhere near as involved. Yes, there is a lot to think about, but in general, might it work?
Now burned themselves -- perhaps even financially destroyed -- the drivers are in a bad way, financially and emotionally. But because people are embarrassed and/or afraid to openly speak and name names, the fleet owner remains free to re-offend with the next victim that answers his ad.
With the circumstances publicly posted and the carrier named, and with the drivers making complaints and pleas for help to the carrier, the carrier to whom the fleet owner leases his trucks cannot not know this is going on; yet the carrier washes its hands of all responsibility.
It's not just this carrier. It seems to be most of them, if not all. The carriers' purpose is to minimize their liability in cases like this. They calculate that the best way to do that is to turn a blind eye to the fleet owner's evil practices and a cold shoulder to the drivers' pain, thereby allowing the fleet owner to not only continue, but to do so under the cloak of the carrier's good name.
It is indeed strange how things work out when, because of the influence of the legal department, carrier employees check their ethics and human compassion at the door when they go to work each day. They take intentional action to ignore or otherwise brush off the harmed drivers, and focus instead on minimizing the carrier's liability.
"Do the right thing" gives way to "Do the right thing only for the company that pays you, no matter how morally repugnant and cold the carrier's priorities may be."
What, if anything, can be done to stop predator fleet owners?
Civil action taken against the fleet owners by the drivers is an option, but not really. Because the drivers are financially weak the legal-action route is rarely pursued. Small claims action is more viable but it too is rarely pursued because the drivers lack the skill and/or desire to fight. Predator fleet owners know and use that fact to their advantage.
With the carriers choosing to do only what is right for them and taking positions that actually help the predator fleet owners recruit new victims and lure them in, little help can be expected from the carriers. And with people afraid to speak up and name names, and legal action by victim drivers not commonly pursued; can anything be done to stop predator fleet owners?
Maybe so.
I had a new thought today and offer it for consideration and discussion in the Open Forum.
What if EO or another entity or person created a fleet owner reviews and ratings service similar to Angie's List?
Please take a thoughtful look at that site. People there have no problem naming names and sharing their circumstances. If Angie can name names and publish reviews of "roofers, plumbers, house cleaners, dentists and more!" could the same model be used to review and rate fleet owners too?
The fleet owner universe is microscopic compared to Angie's user base so a fleet owner reviews and ratings site would not have to be anywhere near as involved. Yes, there is a lot to think about, but in general, might it work?
Last edited:
