Watch Out Panther Fleet Drivers
- Thread starter mamaduck
- Start date
Some of us have just become so mean and nasty.
It's pretty obvious to everyone, the OP included, that there should've been a contract, that it was their own fault for not having one, etc.
If it were a no-name, unheard of, fleet owner, one wouldn't take a chance... however this one was purportedly one of a top carrier's 'favorite fleet owner'.
However wrong the decision turned out to be, this driver took a leap due to the particular situation (fleetowner on vacation), based on that reputation. From the sounds of it, she is not inexperienced, and knows better, and I'm sure she's kicking herself for having faith that 'Panther's favorite' would come through on the 'verbal' contract they had.
She isn't asking for help in getting paid, she isn't asking for someone to step in, she isn't asking for justification for her mistake to make her feel better, she is simply venting and advising others to ensure they get it in writing, no matter how safe it may seem (even if not in so many words).
Why are we not able to just say, hey, sorry for your luck, at least you learned something? Does it somehow make us feel better to ram the already-defeated into the ground and kick them even harder?
Sheesh you guys!
It's pretty obvious to everyone, the OP included, that there should've been a contract, that it was their own fault for not having one, etc.
If it were a no-name, unheard of, fleet owner, one wouldn't take a chance... however this one was purportedly one of a top carrier's 'favorite fleet owner'.
However wrong the decision turned out to be, this driver took a leap due to the particular situation (fleetowner on vacation), based on that reputation. From the sounds of it, she is not inexperienced, and knows better, and I'm sure she's kicking herself for having faith that 'Panther's favorite' would come through on the 'verbal' contract they had.
She isn't asking for help in getting paid, she isn't asking for someone to step in, she isn't asking for justification for her mistake to make her feel better, she is simply venting and advising others to ensure they get it in writing, no matter how safe it may seem (even if not in so many words).
Why are we not able to just say, hey, sorry for your luck, at least you learned something? Does it somehow make us feel better to ram the already-defeated into the ground and kick them even harder?
Sheesh you guys!
Last edited:
easyrider2697
Expert Expediter
..yep makes me feel good.
IMHO..the OP is not venting..they are bashing a carrier, and fleet owners( read the title, its plural)..this post should have been deleted by a mod for flaming, but oh well..didnt happen
Last edited:
Well, we all need our kicks I guess eh?
First post is just too vague to be helpful, second is just confusing: is it one owner who isn't paying, or is this the second? The novel concept of 'paying rent' on the van, added to the charge of the owner 'stealing it from my driveway' leads us to wonder what isn't being included in the rant, ya know?
Even the title of the thread is a red flag, when it isn't explained and expanded upon with credible information, which it it isn't, IMO.
Even the title of the thread is a red flag, when it isn't explained and expanded upon with credible information, which it it isn't, IMO.
Scuba
Veteran Expediter
Favorite fleet owner i keep seeing that pop up where the heck is that list. Seams to me it is another meaningless claim. Its like calling myself the "favorite Solo Operator" just because i can. I have been to the fleet owners meeting because i am on the Drivers Council and not one of them got the Favorite fleet owner award. People that make excuses for their bad choices get under my skin. It wasn't this persons first owner and since there was a problem with the last owner why would you go to another one without a contract? They trusted them because of a so called list that is foolish. If that makes me cold so be it.
Scuba
You and I both know that Panther don't play no favorites to their Fleet Owners. If that was the case I would be on the Drivers Council wouldn't I Scuba? Panther is a very good company that is fair to their O/O
Panther investigates fleet owners now? That's just pure BS. I know of a great many of drivers out there who have been screwed over by their fleet owners and the only thing that panther tells them when they make a verbal complaint is "we do not get in between disputes between drivers and fleet owners!" The driver does all the work and always gets screwed. I wish companies would blackball owners who do not pay their drivers. There should be a credit rating system for all fleet owners and once your rqating gets so low, you can no longer have your trucks leased on with said carrier.
I feel bad for drivers who get screwed by fleet owners. It has to be a very helpless feeling to have some fleet owner steal your pay and then leave you stranded without pay in some small town somewhere. I know of one fleet driver who actually accepted a very long load out west even though his flet owner owed him a lot of money. He took the 45 percent advance after he picked up the load then abandoned the truck at a near by truck stop and at least got a part of the money that the deadbeat fleet owner owed him.
I know this was the wrong thing to do but I hope Panther didn't mind their freight being left in a truck stop parking lot because some owner never pays people. In all actuality something needs to be done with this persistant problem. Every other month a new person is in here complaining about not getting paid by their fleet owner. This is more than just a few bad apples in the industry. A good fleet owner should have enough cash on hand to pay their fleet weeks in advance of receiving their money from the company their trucks are leased on with.
I was going to throw up a link to ripoff report and show you a few drivers who have lodged complaints about various fleet owners, but it lists the owners names and that would be a code of conduct violation on here. Nonetheless, feel free to do your own internet investigation in the matter and see what is happening out there.
I feel bad for drivers who get screwed by fleet owners. It has to be a very helpless feeling to have some fleet owner steal your pay and then leave you stranded without pay in some small town somewhere. I know of one fleet driver who actually accepted a very long load out west even though his flet owner owed him a lot of money. He took the 45 percent advance after he picked up the load then abandoned the truck at a near by truck stop and at least got a part of the money that the deadbeat fleet owner owed him.
I know this was the wrong thing to do but I hope Panther didn't mind their freight being left in a truck stop parking lot because some owner never pays people. In all actuality something needs to be done with this persistant problem. Every other month a new person is in here complaining about not getting paid by their fleet owner. This is more than just a few bad apples in the industry. A good fleet owner should have enough cash on hand to pay their fleet weeks in advance of receiving their money from the company their trucks are leased on with.
I was going to throw up a link to ripoff report and show you a few drivers who have lodged complaints about various fleet owners, but it lists the owners names and that would be a code of conduct violation on here. Nonetheless, feel free to do your own internet investigation in the matter and see what is happening out there.
There are always going to be bad fleet owners. A thorough review and fleet owners reputation are imperative before signing on with someone.
With that said, just by the sheer imbalance of numbers, there are likely more bad drivers than fleet owners.
Just a thought to consider when looking at the other side of the coin.
With that said, just by the sheer imbalance of numbers, there are likely more bad drivers than fleet owners.
Just a thought to consider when looking at the other side of the coin.
Desperado
Seasoned Expediter
I think favorite fleet and drivers is more a joke cause when they got a load that is being turned down I'm called and all of a sudden I'm they best driver around but after that load they don't know me Lol nope i seem to run about the same as everybody else good weeks and bad lol
Scuba
Veteran Expediter
When ever i am in the area i stop in at Seville and from time to time there is a driver complaining about how their owner screwed them on their pay. And more often than not by the time i leave to head to the truck stop i learn from the driver that they have been taking advances. And there is always an excuse for "needing" that advance on their pay. But again spend time listening and they needed it because they don't manage their money. Now that said there are crappy owners for sure but it isn't always the owners
It is not taking the advance that is the problem. It is what is done with it that is. We always take the maximum advance. It gets us control over that money quicker. We send money to our accounts faster and start earning interest before we would have received it in the first place. Doing it that way gives us more control. Works for us. Does not matter how you do it if your system works for you. I would be willing to bet that the bad driver would mess up just as bad if they never took that advance.
Pretty darn impressive to make that accomplishment in the course of a week and a half.
Freightdawg
Expert Expediter
Makes you wonder what all the complaining was about!
Obviously a much better owner than driver. I agree, sure accomplished alot in 1 1/2 weeks!
greg334
Veteran Expediter
scratching my head on this one.
If you are an owner, and then drive, ok ... no comment.
BUT if you know anything about finances, or have a professional taking care of it (meaning not a tax preparer but an accountant) then let them figure out how to leverage that loss.
If you want to be a bit more clear about the situation, it would be helpful - especially a time line.
If you are an owner, and then drive, ok ... no comment.
BUT if you know anything about finances, or have a professional taking care of it (meaning not a tax preparer but an accountant) then let them figure out how to leverage that loss.
If you want to be a bit more clear about the situation, it would be helpful - especially a time line.
DocRushing
Expert Expediter
There are good owners and bad owners, and there are good drivers and bad drivers -- not only at the Copycats but also at every other carrier.
This thread deals with the owners who, in various ways, fail and refuse to pay some or all of what they owe some or all of their drivers -- for compensation or for reimbursement for expenses (fuel, tolls, or other out-of-pocket expenditures), or both.
This thread started with a driver who had no written memorandum of agreement.
[That document provides the written evidence of the existence of a contract and the terms of it.]
Let's extend this discussion to the cases where owners stiff their drivers even where a memorandum (the written document) exists.
Marda and I have become acutely and painfully aware of several such cases in which the owners have failed and refused to pay the drivers even where the drivers have faithfully and properly carried out their duties for the owners and the carriers.
Several of those cases have involved newbie H+W teams whom we've mentored into this niche of our industry.
One of those cases is open right now; that is, it's happening right now.
The typical pattern in those cases is that a carrier, in its matchmaking process, actively promotes a particular small-fleet owner to the newbie team, using glowing terms to describe the owner and calling the owner's manager "a fantastic manager".
After the team agrees to drive for that owner, the owner and his manager then start giving false, inaccurate, misleading, deceptive information about where the truck is, and when and where the truck will become available to the new team, and the condition of the truck (including the need for repairs and replacements, even replacement of bad tires).
The owner and the manager then drag their feet about the repairs and replacements, and they do much grumbling and quarreling about the costs.
That causes the new team a serious interruption in their revenue stream.
After the new team starts driving (with a written memorandum of agreement), when payday is supposed to come, then the owner and the manager begin to use a variety of false excuses by which to delay the pay to the team.
The owner and the manager falsely claim that the carrier has not yet paid the owner for certain loads, then they falsely claim that their bank (in one case, the BoA) requires "several days" to process an electronic transfer (even though the BoA makes instantaneous real-time transfers, as do other major banks), then they arbitrarily decide to hold the team's pay for one more week after the carrier pays the owner (just because the owner wishes to hold those funds and earn the interest on them one more week).
In the case now open, the owner, in an incredible display of gall, has sought to shake down the team for an additional fee of $10 per week to persuade him to pay in a proper, timely, and lawful manner.
When the team became tired of that treatment, they gave (by fax) the required two-week written notice of intent to cancel the agreement.
At the announced time for the end of the agreement, suddenly the owner and the manager falsely denied having received the written notice, even though the team had gotten a proof of satisfactory transmission (by fax), and even though the owner and the manager had discussed (by telephone) the pending cancellation with the team.
Thus the crooked owner got two more weeks of service from his sucker team.
Every contract, by the operation of a rule of law, imposes on each party a duty to perform in good faith -- in good faith -- in good faith.
Our mentorees have done their part faithfully and conscientiously.
In all the cases in this essay, the owners did not accuse the drivers of any failure, misconduct, or inadequate performance.
The owners seem to dare their mistreated drivers to sue them, assuming that few of them will take up the dare, because of the difficulties and costs involved in making repeated trips to the courtrooms where the owners live.
This involves at least two major problem areas.
The first problem area consists of enforcing the debts of the owners to the drivers.
One good way is for the drivers to turn the debts over to good collection agencies.
Many of those agencies are very persistent, and many of them have their own lawyers who can, if necessary, sue in the courtrooms of the owners.
The second problem area consists of the carriers who not only allow their crooked small-fleet owners to continue their dishonest behavior but also actively promote those crooked owners -- with their known records -- to the unsuspecting applicant drivers -- all while standing by and quietly watching while the owners continue to screw the drivers.
Yes, most owners are honest and ethical, just as most drivers likewise are.
Yes, sometimes bad drivers treat owners poorly or dishonestly.
However, those other wrongs do not excuse the wrongs in this essay.
Unfortunately, it appears to Marda and me that there is a significant number -- perhaps even a disproportionately large number -- of unethical owners who take unfair advantage of their drivers.
She and I find it hugely bad and wrong for the carriers to allow those owners to continue to cheat their drivers -- and for the carriers to continue to promote those owners to applicant drivers.
We suggest that it's entirely proper for a carrier to monitor the honesty of the behavior of its owners and drivers and to correct bad behavior where necessary.
We also suggest that it's inappropriate and unacceptable for a carrier to promote a known dishonest owner -- one with a known record of dishonest treatment of drivers -- to applicant drivers.
Is it too much to ask for all parties to conduct themselves in honest, lawful, and ethical ways?
Best wishes to all,
Doc.
Full disclosure: Doc is a retired professor of business law and other business subjects.
This thread deals with the owners who, in various ways, fail and refuse to pay some or all of what they owe some or all of their drivers -- for compensation or for reimbursement for expenses (fuel, tolls, or other out-of-pocket expenditures), or both.
This thread started with a driver who had no written memorandum of agreement.
[That document provides the written evidence of the existence of a contract and the terms of it.]
Let's extend this discussion to the cases where owners stiff their drivers even where a memorandum (the written document) exists.
Marda and I have become acutely and painfully aware of several such cases in which the owners have failed and refused to pay the drivers even where the drivers have faithfully and properly carried out their duties for the owners and the carriers.
Several of those cases have involved newbie H+W teams whom we've mentored into this niche of our industry.
One of those cases is open right now; that is, it's happening right now.
The typical pattern in those cases is that a carrier, in its matchmaking process, actively promotes a particular small-fleet owner to the newbie team, using glowing terms to describe the owner and calling the owner's manager "a fantastic manager".
After the team agrees to drive for that owner, the owner and his manager then start giving false, inaccurate, misleading, deceptive information about where the truck is, and when and where the truck will become available to the new team, and the condition of the truck (including the need for repairs and replacements, even replacement of bad tires).
The owner and the manager then drag their feet about the repairs and replacements, and they do much grumbling and quarreling about the costs.
That causes the new team a serious interruption in their revenue stream.
After the new team starts driving (with a written memorandum of agreement), when payday is supposed to come, then the owner and the manager begin to use a variety of false excuses by which to delay the pay to the team.
The owner and the manager falsely claim that the carrier has not yet paid the owner for certain loads, then they falsely claim that their bank (in one case, the BoA) requires "several days" to process an electronic transfer (even though the BoA makes instantaneous real-time transfers, as do other major banks), then they arbitrarily decide to hold the team's pay for one more week after the carrier pays the owner (just because the owner wishes to hold those funds and earn the interest on them one more week).
In the case now open, the owner, in an incredible display of gall, has sought to shake down the team for an additional fee of $10 per week to persuade him to pay in a proper, timely, and lawful manner.
When the team became tired of that treatment, they gave (by fax) the required two-week written notice of intent to cancel the agreement.
At the announced time for the end of the agreement, suddenly the owner and the manager falsely denied having received the written notice, even though the team had gotten a proof of satisfactory transmission (by fax), and even though the owner and the manager had discussed (by telephone) the pending cancellation with the team.
Thus the crooked owner got two more weeks of service from his sucker team.
Every contract, by the operation of a rule of law, imposes on each party a duty to perform in good faith -- in good faith -- in good faith.
Our mentorees have done their part faithfully and conscientiously.
In all the cases in this essay, the owners did not accuse the drivers of any failure, misconduct, or inadequate performance.
The owners seem to dare their mistreated drivers to sue them, assuming that few of them will take up the dare, because of the difficulties and costs involved in making repeated trips to the courtrooms where the owners live.
This involves at least two major problem areas.
The first problem area consists of enforcing the debts of the owners to the drivers.
One good way is for the drivers to turn the debts over to good collection agencies.
Many of those agencies are very persistent, and many of them have their own lawyers who can, if necessary, sue in the courtrooms of the owners.
The second problem area consists of the carriers who not only allow their crooked small-fleet owners to continue their dishonest behavior but also actively promote those crooked owners -- with their known records -- to the unsuspecting applicant drivers -- all while standing by and quietly watching while the owners continue to screw the drivers.
Yes, most owners are honest and ethical, just as most drivers likewise are.
Yes, sometimes bad drivers treat owners poorly or dishonestly.
However, those other wrongs do not excuse the wrongs in this essay.
Unfortunately, it appears to Marda and me that there is a significant number -- perhaps even a disproportionately large number -- of unethical owners who take unfair advantage of their drivers.
She and I find it hugely bad and wrong for the carriers to allow those owners to continue to cheat their drivers -- and for the carriers to continue to promote those owners to applicant drivers.
We suggest that it's entirely proper for a carrier to monitor the honesty of the behavior of its owners and drivers and to correct bad behavior where necessary.
We also suggest that it's inappropriate and unacceptable for a carrier to promote a known dishonest owner -- one with a known record of dishonest treatment of drivers -- to applicant drivers.
Is it too much to ask for all parties to conduct themselves in honest, lawful, and ethical ways?
Best wishes to all,
Doc.
Full disclosure: Doc is a retired professor of business law and other business subjects.
Last edited:
From the posts over the last few years it probably is too much to ask.
I would think before signing on with an owner why not see what the laws are in the State your contract is in. Then see if you can include binding Arbitration in your contract.
I would think before signing on with an owner why not see what the laws are in the State your contract is in. Then see if you can include binding Arbitration in your contract.