interference with commerce/forced dispatch

Status
Not open for further replies.

jamespope

Not a Member
Sec. 45. Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission

(a)
Declaration of unlawfulness; power to prohibit unfair practices; inapplicability to foreign trade
(1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.
(2) The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a (f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a (f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended [7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act [7 U.S.C. 227 (b)], from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.
(3) This subsection shall not apply to unfair methods of competition involving commerce with foreign nations (other than import commerce) unless—
(A) such methods of competition have a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect—
(i) on commerce which is not commerce with foreign nations, or on import commerce with foreign nations; or
(ii) on export commerce with foreign nations, of a person engaged in such commerce in the United States; and
(B) such effect gives rise to a claim under the provisions of this subsection, other than this paragraph.
If this subsection applies to such methods of competition only because of the operation of subparagraph (A)(ii), this subsection shall apply to such conduct only for injury to export business in the United States.
(4)
(A) For purposes of subsection (a), the term "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" includes such acts or practices involving foreign commerce that—
(i) cause or are likely to cause reasonably foreseeable injury within the United States; or
(ii) involve material conduct occurring within the United States.
(B) All remedies available to the Commission with respect to unfair and deceptive acts or practices shall be available for acts and practices described in this paragraph, including restitution to domestic or foreign victims.
(b)
Proceeding by Commission; modifying and setting aside orders
Whenever the Commission shall have reason to believe that any such person, partnership, or corporation has been or is using any unfair method of competition or unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce, and if it shall appear to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be to the interest of the public, it shall issue and serve upon such person, partnership, or corporation a complaint stating its charges in that respect and containing a notice of a hearing upon a day and at a place therein fixed at least thirty days after the service of said complaint. The person, partnership, or corporation so complained of shall have the right to appear at the place and time so fixed and show cause why an order should not be entered by the Commission requiring such person, partnership, or corporation to cease and desist from the violation of the law so charged in said complaint. Any person, partnership, or corporation may make application, and upon good cause shown may be allowed by the Commission to intervene and appear in said proceeding by counsel or in person. The testimony in any such proceeding shall be reduced to writing and filed in the office of the Commission. If upon such hearing the Commission shall be of the opinion that the method of competition or the act or practice in question is prohibited by this subchapter, it shall make a report in writing in which it shall state its findings as to the facts and shall issue and cause to be served on such person, partnership, or corporation an order requiring such person, partnership, or corporation to cease and desist from using such method of competition or such act or practice. Until the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for review, if no such petition has been duly filed within such time, or, if a petition for review has been filed within such time then until the record in the proceeding has been filed in a court of appeals of the United States, as hereinafter provided, the Commission may at any time, upon such notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any report or any order made or issued by it under this section. After the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for review, if no such petition has been duly filed within such time, the Commission may at any time, after notice and opportunity for hearing, reopen and alter, modify, or set aside, in whole or in part any report or order made or issued by it under this section, whenever in the opinion of the Commission conditions of fact or of law have so changed as to require such action or if the public interest shall so require, except that
(1) the said person, partnership, or corporation may, within sixty days after service upon him or it of said report or order entered after such a reopening, obtain a review thereof in the appropriate court of appeals of the United States, in the manner provided in subsection (c) of this section; and
(2) in the case of an order, the Commission shall reopen any such order to consider whether such order (including any affirmative relief provision contained in such order) should be altered, modified, or set aside, in whole or in part, if the person, partnership, or corporation involved files a request with the Commission which makes a satisfactory showing that changed conditions of law or fact require such order to be altered, modified, or set aside, in whole or in part. The Commission shall determine whether to alter, modify, or set aside any order of the Commission in response to a request made by a person, partnership, or corporation under paragraph [1] (2) not later than 120 days after the date of the filing of such request.

(
 

jamespope

Not a Member
too much to post...sorry your gonna have to read...promise won't take but 1 month or 2 to read it all...good luck
 

usafk9

Veteran Expediter
if a town or city is incorporated then it's a business. those ordinances only apply to that business, employees and property and not private property or private people.

HUH?


The first thought that pops into my head is that there's a grocery bagger's web forum with a recently banned member.
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
First step prove a carrier has forced dispatch.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using EO Forums
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
too much to post...sorry your gonna have to read...promise won't take but 1 month or 2 to read it all...good luck

The post prior to this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You seem to be making some wild claims that you can't even backup or show proof of when asked in an attempt to make disparaging remarks about Load 1.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
so let me get this right if a driver turns down a load they are interfering with the carriers business. :D

Sent from my SPH-D710 using EO Forums
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
so let me get this right if a driver turns down a load they are interfering with the carriers business. :D

Sent from my SPH-D710 using EO Forums

I wonder if John will press charges against Howard. :D

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums
 

jelliott

Veteran Expediter
Motor Carrier Executive
US Army
Pretty obvious the intent of the poster and this thread. Enough said on my part.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Just as I stated, there is absolutely nothing in any provisions of the commerce law that directly or indirectly name, mention, or infer, something relating to "forced dispatch" in your provided link.
I told you to be careful how you answered.
Might want to give this one up.
 

jamespope

Not a Member
davekc???????? what? read...read...read....read that link...read it all. a company cannot give you a penalty for turning down a load. that is illegal. nothing needs to say "forced dispatch" anywhere.....your caught on that phrase instead of the actions. read that link. also I am not on my other computer with previous findings

John you never have anything to say. then why be on this site? are you nervous? LOL! well you shouldn't unless you have dispatchers that play games. well answer. do they? do your dispatchers play games? of course you won't answer. I've heard lot's of good things about your company. And if you had stock I'd prob buy some. But things do go on that shouldn't. why not fix them? why not talk to charlie/howard and help him on right track? I don't know him. Maybe he is a pain in the arse. I don't know. But if your a stand up guy like everyone claims why not address charlie/howard and help him?

I did call your company about two years ago. Some lady that had an attitude, and was rude answered. I thought maybe she was having bad day. I waited a week and had my gf call. Same results. That was enough for me. One bad apple ruins the bunch. but all well.

you don't have to be political with me. in fact I would respect you more if you were blunt. But you cannot penalize IC's. you can't. it will nip you in arse one day. your better offer just calling and getting a no then risk some jerk off pushing the issue. who care's if they say 100 no's. or have a talk with him to see how they want to be handled or what loads they will take. I won't take over 2000lbs. so I don't get called over that. if a IC wants only loads over 500 miles. then respect that. don't penalize them.
 

jamespope

Not a Member
lawrence go to link and read. non forced or forced dispatch are phrases....action is what is illegal.. I'm sorry you may not have the background to understand
 

jamespope

Not a Member
then why would a company announce non-forced dispatch company? what does that mean? what does force dispatch mean? it means to accept or refuse a load for whatever reason they choose and not be penalized.......
 

jamespope

Not a Member
xiigi I only see you write one liners. are you challenged in anyway? just want to make sure before I say anything wrong.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The problem with the OP, and an alarming number of others in this industry who are ignorant about the industry is, they think the carrier is somehow obligated to provide loads for their IC drivers. Carriers are not. They are under no obligation what-so-ever to provide loads nor will they guarantee you loads. They can call you with a load, or not call you, it's up to them. If you turn down a load, they can they call you again, or not call you, it's up to them. How they reach the decision to call you or not is also up to them. They can put your name on a Post-It Note, or drop you to the bottom of the board, move you to the top of the board, or do whatever they want to in order to determine how and when they call or not call. Boards and board positions are devices of the carrier, not the IC. Carriers can use those boards any way they see fit.

If you assert that carriers are preventing you, an independent contractor, from doing business when they don't call you, then as xiggi noted, the reverse must also be true in that when you refuse a load you are preventing the carrier from doing business.

You want blunt, here it is. Jamespope, the depth and breadth of your posting history on EO is primarily that of disruption and of disseminating bad, false and unwise advice. The purpose of EO is to provide honest, factual information for those in the industry and those looking to get into the industry. You started this thread with a claim regarding independent contractors and commerce that every intelligent, educated member of this industry knows to be false, yet you were given the opportunity to prove your claim in the hopes that you were The One who has magically stumbled upon something which armies of lawyers have failed to discover. And you failed miserably. You have insulted members repeatedly, your posts show a pattern of ranting, smacks of trolling, and constitute little more than Drive-By postings.

As Dave suggests, you might want to give this one up. Future posts of this type will not be tolerated, nor will continuing this topic without absolute proof of your claim. You should also revisit the Code of Conduct, and while you're there, read it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top