GIVE UP
- Thread starter chuckwagon
- Start date
themagicoen
Expert Expediter
Help us out instead of bashing are responses! Give us a time line of what happened! So you signed up with X owner, who offered you X truck at X rate to drive with X carrier. At X point X happened. At some point X owner didn't pay X amount for driving X truck for X carrier. You then took X truck home to get X amount from X driver. See where the problems is? We have no idea whats going on!
DannyD
Veteran Expediter
I don't know all the facts here. Maybe something's missing. Maybe not. I do believe though, that if a driver isn't being paid that at the very least the owner can come pick up the truck.
I don't think a truck is considered stolen if it was given to a driver. I realize two wrongs don't make a right. But there's a limit to how nice a person can be when they get crapped on. He didn't go postal on the owner, from what I can tell he simply said nuts to the owner & that the guy could come his own dang self & get his truck. Hardly a crime from what I gather.
I don't know the company (don't tell me, so my comments are about companies in general). But it seems that a company can't help a driver who's not getting paid yet at least in this case they seemed to rush to the aid of an owner who boned over a driver.
If the driver didn't pay Chuck cuz he wouldn't return the truck then yea that's viable & understandable. But if Chuck didn't return the truck cuz he wasn't getting paid that's also viable & understandable.
With the company that didn't pay me (not EGL, but a different one I took 3 runs for) I seriously considered accepting a run & then not going & getting it. Kinda like I wanted to tell em "since you changed the terms of the last run I'm gonna change what I feel like doing on this one". I didn't do it, but I can't say I didn't think about it. Would it have been an over-reaction to something? That's up in the air. But it wouldn't have been a reaction to nothing.
Maybe the guy made some mistakes, but ya can't keep getting dumped on & being a swell guy about everything. Somewhere in there ya have to take a stand.
I may have the story wrong but if Chuck didn't get paid before he refused to return the truck I don't think he did anything wrong. I wouldn't have returned it either until I got paid. I'm not spending my time, gas, etc to make it convenient for someone who just boned me. If he didn't return the truck first, & then didn't get paid, then yea he messed up.
Take care,
Danny
I don't think a truck is considered stolen if it was given to a driver. I realize two wrongs don't make a right. But there's a limit to how nice a person can be when they get crapped on. He didn't go postal on the owner, from what I can tell he simply said nuts to the owner & that the guy could come his own dang self & get his truck. Hardly a crime from what I gather.
I don't know the company (don't tell me, so my comments are about companies in general). But it seems that a company can't help a driver who's not getting paid yet at least in this case they seemed to rush to the aid of an owner who boned over a driver.
If the driver didn't pay Chuck cuz he wouldn't return the truck then yea that's viable & understandable. But if Chuck didn't return the truck cuz he wasn't getting paid that's also viable & understandable.
With the company that didn't pay me (not EGL, but a different one I took 3 runs for) I seriously considered accepting a run & then not going & getting it. Kinda like I wanted to tell em "since you changed the terms of the last run I'm gonna change what I feel like doing on this one". I didn't do it, but I can't say I didn't think about it. Would it have been an over-reaction to something? That's up in the air. But it wouldn't have been a reaction to nothing.
Maybe the guy made some mistakes, but ya can't keep getting dumped on & being a swell guy about everything. Somewhere in there ya have to take a stand.
I may have the story wrong but if Chuck didn't get paid before he refused to return the truck I don't think he did anything wrong. I wouldn't have returned it either until I got paid. I'm not spending my time, gas, etc to make it convenient for someone who just boned me. If he didn't return the truck first, & then didn't get paid, then yea he messed up.
Take care,
Danny
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
"The safety manager told me that she did not know the circumstance regarding the incident. Her words were "the end result is all I care about and what I was told is that you refused to bring the truck back. So I do not care what led up to this the point is you refused to bring the truck back.""
"She added this was her job to do the DAC reports and she would not change it. She claims she has to report this accourding to DOT regs."
Read the first sentence of the first paragraph, then the first sentence of the second. I doubt anyone would just write up a DAC incident without knowing the facts behind it, as they can be held liable for slander. I'm thinking that if there is a DAC report, you did something more than just abandon a truck by parking it at your house.
"If I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know." - Kansas
"She added this was her job to do the DAC reports and she would not change it. She claims she has to report this accourding to DOT regs."
Read the first sentence of the first paragraph, then the first sentence of the second. I doubt anyone would just write up a DAC incident without knowing the facts behind it, as they can be held liable for slander. I'm thinking that if there is a DAC report, you did something more than just abandon a truck by parking it at your house.
"If I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know." - Kansas
A couple weeks ago Chucky Boy claimed that the he only had a verbal agreement with the owner. Is it possible that would give him a legal advantage as there is no contract for him to break?
But you know Chuckster, you said that you feel like you're wasting your time. Despite your name calling and ridicule, members of this forum have given you advice over the past few months, and yet you managed to get yourself in this mess. Yep, I agree. You're wasting your time here. You should forget about us and talk to a lawyer.
But you know Chuckster, you said that you feel like you're wasting your time. Despite your name calling and ridicule, members of this forum have given you advice over the past few months, and yet you managed to get yourself in this mess. Yep, I agree. You're wasting your time here. You should forget about us and talk to a lawyer.
Chuck, you mention that DAC is a game. I've heard other drivers say that. A lot of drivers that have a blemish on their report feel like it's a game. I don't think I've talked to anyone that felt they deserved it.
Mr Wagon:
The following italicised words you posted in a deleted thread are interpreted by me that you indeed wish to embark on a personal vendetta against the carrier (name deleted) to which your former owner was leased, so for you to accuse me of being unfair, by stating such, is inappropriate:
"...Therefore, this is the start of my personal mission to find any and everything corrupt and dishonest about (carrier name deleted) and turn my findings over to the feds.
They refuse to correct my DAC report and I now refuse to end my mission to bring (carrier name deleted) to the forefront of corrupt and dishonest carriers.
I will in this post also mention the o/o by name for all others to avoid this dirtball as well as (carrier name deleted). If anyone has any additional info on (carrier name deleted) please contact me through my profile or post your complaint and comments here."
That sounds like vendetta to me and it sounds like you want our forum members to join you by providing negative information.
Furthermore, It would seem that you had two responsibilities concerning the owner's truck. You were responsible to exercise due care in operating the truck; and, return the truck to the owner at the point at which you first took possession unless, you mutually agreed upon a different location. To not follow through on one or more of those responsibilities is, at the very least, a civil wrong and possibly a criminal wrong. Your law enforcement background would allow you to determine which; unless you're in denial mode.
The following italicised words you posted in a deleted thread are interpreted by me that you indeed wish to embark on a personal vendetta against the carrier (name deleted) to which your former owner was leased, so for you to accuse me of being unfair, by stating such, is inappropriate:
"...Therefore, this is the start of my personal mission to find any and everything corrupt and dishonest about (carrier name deleted) and turn my findings over to the feds.
They refuse to correct my DAC report and I now refuse to end my mission to bring (carrier name deleted) to the forefront of corrupt and dishonest carriers.
I will in this post also mention the o/o by name for all others to avoid this dirtball as well as (carrier name deleted). If anyone has any additional info on (carrier name deleted) please contact me through my profile or post your complaint and comments here."
That sounds like vendetta to me and it sounds like you want our forum members to join you by providing negative information.
Furthermore, It would seem that you had two responsibilities concerning the owner's truck. You were responsible to exercise due care in operating the truck; and, return the truck to the owner at the point at which you first took possession unless, you mutually agreed upon a different location. To not follow through on one or more of those responsibilities is, at the very least, a civil wrong and possibly a criminal wrong. Your law enforcement background would allow you to determine which; unless you're in denial mode.
It is too bad you did not get the carrier rep stating the following on tape because when a carrier says you WORK for them they have opened a whole new can of worms.
>She also added she does not care that I wasn’t paid, the carrier works for them so in turn I work for them, thus she felt I was doing them over, so she nailed me with DAC. Even though she also added right after that is my agreement with the o/o is between me and him not me and the carrier. <
>She also added she does not care that I wasn’t paid, the carrier works for them so in turn I work for them, thus she felt I was doing them over, so she nailed me with DAC. Even though she also added right after that is my agreement with the o/o is between me and him not me and the carrier. <
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Highway, you said;" Chuck, you mention that DAC is a game. I've heard other drivers say that. A lot of drivers that have a blemish on their report feel like it's a game. I don't think I've talked to anyone that felt they deserved it."
Well I feel it is a scam with no oversight and open to abuse. I have read about games and threats that have taken place and a lack of mechanism for a driver to contest some issues.
I most likely don't have a record and really don't give a **** *** if I did but I have to ask does it really matter?
Even though the carrier has the ablility to report violations of their contract with the O/O, as a sub-contractor, I can't see how the carrier can get involved with an issue like this mainly because of the liablity of being sued for not properly documenting or at minumal contacting the sub-contractor directly to inform them of the complaint. What I mean is that if I am sub-contracted to owner X who is contracted to carrier Y and owner X claims to the carrier Y that I violated the contract as retaliation for refusing a load which goes on my DAC report and in the future prevents me from employment or generating revenue, than I feel carrier Y is at fault for this due to not contacting me.
But in Chucks case we are hearing one side and there are a lot of assumptions - not beating up on you Chuck, just fact.
Well I feel it is a scam with no oversight and open to abuse. I have read about games and threats that have taken place and a lack of mechanism for a driver to contest some issues.
I most likely don't have a record and really don't give a **** *** if I did but I have to ask does it really matter?
Even though the carrier has the ablility to report violations of their contract with the O/O, as a sub-contractor, I can't see how the carrier can get involved with an issue like this mainly because of the liablity of being sued for not properly documenting or at minumal contacting the sub-contractor directly to inform them of the complaint. What I mean is that if I am sub-contracted to owner X who is contracted to carrier Y and owner X claims to the carrier Y that I violated the contract as retaliation for refusing a load which goes on my DAC report and in the future prevents me from employment or generating revenue, than I feel carrier Y is at fault for this due to not contacting me.
But in Chucks case we are hearing one side and there are a lot of assumptions - not beating up on you Chuck, just fact.
You may be right Greg. I have no experience with DAC. I would wonder what the motivation would be for someone to file a false report. Most of us do this relatively easy job in a relatively competent manner and probably have no worries. The people I've talked too have admitted they did something wrong, truck abandonment being the most popular, but have some story as to why it was justified.
On the flip side, I've heard of people who did the cliche "you can kiss my..." on the way out the door, without notice, and have no report.
On the flip side, I've heard of people who did the cliche "you can kiss my..." on the way out the door, without notice, and have no report.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Highway; you said;"I would wonder what the motivation would be for someone to file a false report."
well stupidity for one, the other is stupidity.
I worked in one regulated industry as my specialty with business continuity and disaster recovery, nothing so nice and easy like this and there is a reporting system used in that industry that actually keeps track of workers and contractors to ensure no bad things happen. I helped with some audits on the system when it went into operations. There has been abuses in that system where people for some dumb reason will make false claims against someone else - one I heard about in an audit report was over a can of coke. The result of false claims is simple - moneitary forfiture, mainly your paycheck and termination of employment.
In that case we dealt with professionals on a professional level, in a carriers case you can create a safety manager with a book and someone who can breath, no real intelegence needed - opening the door for stupid things to happen.
well stupidity for one, the other is stupidity.
I worked in one regulated industry as my specialty with business continuity and disaster recovery, nothing so nice and easy like this and there is a reporting system used in that industry that actually keeps track of workers and contractors to ensure no bad things happen. I helped with some audits on the system when it went into operations. There has been abuses in that system where people for some dumb reason will make false claims against someone else - one I heard about in an audit report was over a can of coke. The result of false claims is simple - moneitary forfiture, mainly your paycheck and termination of employment.
In that case we dealt with professionals on a professional level, in a carriers case you can create a safety manager with a book and someone who can breath, no real intelegence needed - opening the door for stupid things to happen.
chuckwagon
Seasoned Expediter
davekc
There was no statement in the agreement that specified I had to drive his truck to his location.
rollnthunder
I would have loved to name the o/o and the dishonest carrier as well. But this site feels it would place them into a possible legal situation and they can not risk that. I understand and agree with that.
themagicoen
I selected this owner because the carrier said he was a very nice guy, honest and a Christian. The agreement was I paid him $525 per week for the truck and 15% of the line haul. I also had to cover all maintenance cost. There was not performance clause in the agreement. No, I did not just get up and say I was not making money and left. I said I was not getting paid I was not staying out away from home. Besides at about this time I had to get home for my father's funeral.
THawk -
I have explained several times what I did and the carrier told me that is what prompted them to file such a report with DAC. I know that you have never heard of a carrier ever doing this to a driver but that is what happened. I know that carriers stay out of disputes between drivers and owners but what you say - but I live in the real world and carriers DO screw drivers. Also, no matter what I say or claim you have always defended the otherside, the carrier, the o/o etc, so I could care less about your fancy little claim that may story has holes in it that something that has holes in it doesn't hold water. WOW - how long did it take you to come up with that copy righted sentence.
terryandrene
You are taking quotes from a post that EO took down! You are correct though - I am on a mission to correct this injustice, to make ##### sure carriers now longer get away with this action. Call it what you want a vendetta, a mission, a goal to bring a carrier to its' knees - I dont care what you call it. I am getting hosed here and will not just stand by and take it up the cake hole. Nor will I sit here and take your attack on my moral and ethic standards. Everyone deserves a day in court but you seem to think everything I say deserves no attention. By the way - you should not be allowed to use parts of post that this site has refused to allow me to show everyone - PERIOD!
highway star
Yes, I do believe that the DAC reporting service is a game - I also think it is a joke. I think it is nonsense and not just to allow one side to tell their story but not get the story of the otherside. Then again, the carriers pay a fee to be a member of the DAC service - so from a business side they have the upper hand right there. So why would the DAC service allow someone who is not paying them to change the end result of what a paying member wants. If you honestly think that carriers only intention is to report the TOTAL truth you are blinded somehow. If you have caused them any problems their only intent is to get even with you the best they can and take away your future in driving. NOW DO YOU THINK THAT IS RIGHT?
I have found on a simple Yahoo search plenty of court cases where the courts have questioned the DAC reporting service but little has been done against them. It seems that the courts agree that it is open for nothing more than personal thoughts being accepted into the reports with the proof of actual facts.
There was no statement in the agreement that specified I had to drive his truck to his location.
rollnthunder
I would have loved to name the o/o and the dishonest carrier as well. But this site feels it would place them into a possible legal situation and they can not risk that. I understand and agree with that.
themagicoen
I selected this owner because the carrier said he was a very nice guy, honest and a Christian. The agreement was I paid him $525 per week for the truck and 15% of the line haul. I also had to cover all maintenance cost. There was not performance clause in the agreement. No, I did not just get up and say I was not making money and left. I said I was not getting paid I was not staying out away from home. Besides at about this time I had to get home for my father's funeral.
THawk -
I have explained several times what I did and the carrier told me that is what prompted them to file such a report with DAC. I know that you have never heard of a carrier ever doing this to a driver but that is what happened. I know that carriers stay out of disputes between drivers and owners but what you say - but I live in the real world and carriers DO screw drivers. Also, no matter what I say or claim you have always defended the otherside, the carrier, the o/o etc, so I could care less about your fancy little claim that may story has holes in it that something that has holes in it doesn't hold water. WOW - how long did it take you to come up with that copy righted sentence.
terryandrene
You are taking quotes from a post that EO took down! You are correct though - I am on a mission to correct this injustice, to make ##### sure carriers now longer get away with this action. Call it what you want a vendetta, a mission, a goal to bring a carrier to its' knees - I dont care what you call it. I am getting hosed here and will not just stand by and take it up the cake hole. Nor will I sit here and take your attack on my moral and ethic standards. Everyone deserves a day in court but you seem to think everything I say deserves no attention. By the way - you should not be allowed to use parts of post that this site has refused to allow me to show everyone - PERIOD!
highway star
Yes, I do believe that the DAC reporting service is a game - I also think it is a joke. I think it is nonsense and not just to allow one side to tell their story but not get the story of the otherside. Then again, the carriers pay a fee to be a member of the DAC service - so from a business side they have the upper hand right there. So why would the DAC service allow someone who is not paying them to change the end result of what a paying member wants. If you honestly think that carriers only intention is to report the TOTAL truth you are blinded somehow. If you have caused them any problems their only intent is to get even with you the best they can and take away your future in driving. NOW DO YOU THINK THAT IS RIGHT?
I have found on a simple Yahoo search plenty of court cases where the courts have questioned the DAC reporting service but little has been done against them. It seems that the courts agree that it is open for nothing more than personal thoughts being accepted into the reports with the proof of actual facts.
I have to put my input in on this one.
I would think that the owner did everything wrong in this case.
1st: He or She didn't pay the driver their money in a timely manner and that would voild the contract that was signed.
2nd: How could he even take the truck back to them if he has no money to put fuel in the truck to do so.
3rd: When someone tells a driver that he is going to put them in Jail if they don't return the truck ASAP. In most states that is a Civil matter, he signed a lease or contract to run the truck and get paid in a timely manner in return.
I did collections for over 10 years before I started Driving for Roberts Express and this is a civil matter. When I worked at Rent-a-Center I would have to take people to court to get the companies things back because they signed a lease agreement/contract. I couldn't just call the police every time I wanted to go Repo something and have the Police make them give it back to Rent-A Center
This is the same for a car or a truck. He signed a lease or a contract with this person and no police officer in his right mind could make him turn over that truck if he showed him a copy of the lease. I'm not saying it's right but that is the LAW. If you go lease a car from Ford or GM and you don't make the payments are they going to come to your house with the police and tell you to turn over the car. NO they can't, they will send someone out to repo it or shall we say steal it from your house.
As far as the company that they had there truck on with I would take them to court for putting that on my DAC report. You never worked for them, You had a lease with an O/O that had a lease with them. I'm Not saying you did the right things at all but I can understand where the man is coming from.
Chuck you should have called the company and told them "hey I can't take his truck back to him because I have no money to put Fuel in the truck because they have never paid me".
EO is a great place to come and post but you have to understand that this is Mr McCords income and the folks that pay to put their banner's up are customer's of EO. They pay EO so we can come on here for FREE. It Cost ALOT of money to keep this site up and running.
So EO has to take post's off for that reason when a customer is being bad mouthed. It's just Business Chuck. There are other ways of letting people know which company it is without even saying their name. Think about it. There is more than one way to skin a Cat. And that was not talking about any company in any way because I don't know which company your talking about.
Good luck with getting things taken care of with DAC Services
I would think that the owner did everything wrong in this case.
1st: He or She didn't pay the driver their money in a timely manner and that would voild the contract that was signed.
2nd: How could he even take the truck back to them if he has no money to put fuel in the truck to do so.
3rd: When someone tells a driver that he is going to put them in Jail if they don't return the truck ASAP. In most states that is a Civil matter, he signed a lease or contract to run the truck and get paid in a timely manner in return.
I did collections for over 10 years before I started Driving for Roberts Express and this is a civil matter. When I worked at Rent-a-Center I would have to take people to court to get the companies things back because they signed a lease agreement/contract. I couldn't just call the police every time I wanted to go Repo something and have the Police make them give it back to Rent-A Center
This is the same for a car or a truck. He signed a lease or a contract with this person and no police officer in his right mind could make him turn over that truck if he showed him a copy of the lease. I'm not saying it's right but that is the LAW. If you go lease a car from Ford or GM and you don't make the payments are they going to come to your house with the police and tell you to turn over the car. NO they can't, they will send someone out to repo it or shall we say steal it from your house.
As far as the company that they had there truck on with I would take them to court for putting that on my DAC report. You never worked for them, You had a lease with an O/O that had a lease with them. I'm Not saying you did the right things at all but I can understand where the man is coming from.
Chuck you should have called the company and told them "hey I can't take his truck back to him because I have no money to put Fuel in the truck because they have never paid me".
EO is a great place to come and post but you have to understand that this is Mr McCords income and the folks that pay to put their banner's up are customer's of EO. They pay EO so we can come on here for FREE. It Cost ALOT of money to keep this site up and running.
So EO has to take post's off for that reason when a customer is being bad mouthed. It's just Business Chuck. There are other ways of letting people know which company it is without even saying their name. Think about it. There is more than one way to skin a Cat. And that was not talking about any company in any way because I don't know which company your talking about.
Good luck with getting things taken care of with DAC Services
To get copy or dispute DAC report call
800-331-9175
Driver can appeal requesting retractinon of entry. If they refuse driver can then post their explanation that will be attached to entry.
For additional information
http://www.usis.com/default.htm
800-331-9175
Driver can appeal requesting retractinon of entry. If they refuse driver can then post their explanation that will be attached to entry.
For additional information
http://www.usis.com/default.htm
I need to correct myself. My memory was that Chuck had a verbal agreement. After reviewing the "terrible O/O agreement" thread, I see that he did sign what he called a "loosely worded" agreement. Sorry, my bad.
Also in that thread, he does praise the carrier. He also professes a new found respect for those that have advised him here. But, now that he's not hearing what he wants to hear, he's back to name calling. You really should knock that off Chuck. No one here is going to benefit from helping you. Show a little respect and appreciation instead.
Also in that thread, he does praise the carrier. He also professes a new found respect for those that have advised him here. But, now that he's not hearing what he wants to hear, he's back to name calling. You really should knock that off Chuck. No one here is going to benefit from helping you. Show a little respect and appreciation instead.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Chuck... you mean I spent all day on that one and it's copyrighted? I'm crushed! :'(
I'm trying very hard to look at this from an unbiased position. However, nothing anyone is telling you is making you happy. Could be just the attention is. Afterall, 35 posts in less than 24 hours is a pretty good pot stirrer of a thread.
First, you claim you're not on a crusade, which you are. The same thing was done with your first crusade about unions. You post something, then push it until someone agrees.
Second, you trash the very ppl who try to make sense of this mess; like a salesman who doesn't really want you to know what he's selling.
Third, your claims about your carrier and the DAC don't match up. I believe you seriously pizzed someone off to get the report you claimed to have gotten.
Finally, your story isn't consistant. You add bits to sway it your way, or write contradictory statements. Your credibility is put into question when you do this.
Some ppl will still post "dammed DAC reports! They should get rid of them!" Which I agree... but not in your case. I'm not convinced you're giving the whole story here. Until I am otherwise, I'm not feeding this weed anymore (Veggietales fans will know what I'm talking about
).
"If I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know." - Kansas
I'm trying very hard to look at this from an unbiased position. However, nothing anyone is telling you is making you happy. Could be just the attention is. Afterall, 35 posts in less than 24 hours is a pretty good pot stirrer of a thread.
First, you claim you're not on a crusade, which you are. The same thing was done with your first crusade about unions. You post something, then push it until someone agrees.
Second, you trash the very ppl who try to make sense of this mess; like a salesman who doesn't really want you to know what he's selling.
Third, your claims about your carrier and the DAC don't match up. I believe you seriously pizzed someone off to get the report you claimed to have gotten.
Finally, your story isn't consistant. You add bits to sway it your way, or write contradictory statements. Your credibility is put into question when you do this.
Some ppl will still post "dammed DAC reports! They should get rid of them!" Which I agree... but not in your case. I'm not convinced you're giving the whole story here. Until I am otherwise, I'm not feeding this weed anymore (Veggietales fans will know what I'm talking about
)."If I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know." - Kansas
wallytrucker1
Expert Expediter
Chuckwagon
I cannot recall all your previous posts nor do I care to look them up, but I do recall a lot of comments from you about the "OLD VETS" on this site giving out what you described as bad or outdated advice. I believe you said "theres a new breed of driver now and we're takin over".. My memory isn't what it used to be, but I believe that was the jist of your comments. You continue to say you are ex-law enforcement. Please tell where and what you are ex of. Some of your rantings make those of us who are ex COPS embarassed. I believe one purpose of the DAC report is to show a potential employer the type of person they might be considering for employment. Perhaps if you are a repersentation of the " new breed " ,they may look elsewhere. I've never met you in person so these observations are taken from your posts..
I cannot recall all your previous posts nor do I care to look them up, but I do recall a lot of comments from you about the "OLD VETS" on this site giving out what you described as bad or outdated advice. I believe you said "theres a new breed of driver now and we're takin over".. My memory isn't what it used to be, but I believe that was the jist of your comments. You continue to say you are ex-law enforcement. Please tell where and what you are ex of. Some of your rantings make those of us who are ex COPS embarassed. I believe one purpose of the DAC report is to show a potential employer the type of person they might be considering for employment. Perhaps if you are a repersentation of the " new breed " ,they may look elsewhere. I've never met you in person so these observations are taken from your posts..
arkjarhead
Veteran Expediter
this forum is a great place to hear good things about carriers, but when the bad and the ugly needs to come out it is censored. to me it's bullcrap.
It's always Bullcrap When it's a One Sided Post. you see when we get 1 side of the story, and we all know there are 3 sides to the story, your side, My Side and the Truth, Now if the carrier would come on and post their side, Then we could put the facts of both stories together and come up with the 3rd side of the story...Makes sense to me. and I applaud EO For putting a stop to it before it blows up.
Owner/Operator since 1979
Expediter since 1997
B Unit Semi Retired
Somedays are Diamonds and Somedays are Stones
Home is Wherever you Park.
The Price of Freedom is Written on the Wall.
Owner/Operator since 1979
Expediter since 1997
B Unit Semi Retired
Somedays are Diamonds and Somedays are Stones
Home is Wherever you Park.
The Price of Freedom is Written on the Wall.