Randi Rhodes Forums

...so I've been looking to start a trucking career.

Anyone a truck driver who can point me in the right direction so I don't get scammed?

What area of the country do you live in?

Don't do it. http://bit.ly/aadjKd

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (here: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/ ) sets the regs for the number of hours drivers can drive.

You can lawfully be required to drive 11 hours in 24 + another 4 hours of administrative work (15 hr days) with a total "driving" limit of 70 hrs in 8 days. I had a client whose employer ran an operation that sent CDL drivers to various locations to "ferry" vehicles from point "a" to point "b" - and that operation required their drivers to hop on a Greyhound to go to the next job (and, counted the bus trip as "non-driving time" for their formal records).

The drivers were mis-classified as "independent contractors" and the operation imputed fuel costs as wages to the drivers - who received monstrous 1099 tax forms that, had they been accurate, would have caused the drivers to have a tax due and payable that exceeded their income by a factor of 20. I did my best to take that scam-artist down - and cost them quite a bit, but the client couldn't take enough time off the road to effectively participate in the litigation. We settled and the IRS is still dealing with that con.

If you want a link to a reputable operation - try, http://www.ooida.com/

I seem to recall from my research several years ago that the driving hours regulations were a holdover from the Truman administration. Seventy (70) hours driving in eight (8) days coupled with the additional four (4) hours/day of "administrative" work (that can be paper work, truck maintenance, loading or unloading - you know, real WORK - means that you can put in 70 + 32 hrs for 102 hrs work in eight days! - Every eight days. )

^ Thanks for posting that informative piece there.

A roadblock that I've recently encountered in my job search whether it be applying in some of the trucking or local retail businesses in my neck of the woods is that these employers require a credit background check. Since my credit background is terrible and I was on the path to fixing it before I got laid off, I'm now starting to feel like a felon



I live in Southern Cali in Los Angeles

Oregon just banned that practice. See http://bit.ly/cWYrcj

Aside from businesses that would require you to have a bond (banking/insurance/brokerage/courier)there is no reason for this practice. There are no studies that support the credit reporting industry's argument that poor credit scores equal high-risk employees. They just say that to bolster the practice that makes them money.

The National Employment Lawyers Association - www.nela.org opposes this practice and has included proposed legislation in its lobbying arm every year for the past ten years or so. Full disclosure: I'm a member of NELA.

I forget where I heard this but someone said that there's a study that says there's no correlation between one's credit background and job performance.

I think it's unnecessary and intrusive for employers who require one to give their social security number to do a credit background check on potential employees who are desperate for a a job such as a trucker or stock/sales clerk at RadioShack, Toys R Us or CVS pharmacy.

I am sorry you've been laid-off - it really sucks, I know. My partner has been laid-off since frickin' December '09...with nothing in the horizon except moving to another state.



Ever since Shrub's invention of "Homeland Security", any job app you fill out not only wants your permission to investigate your credit scores, but also you give them permission to all your work records, performance reviews and evaluations, discipline, commendations, awards and all other employment information, without giving you prior knowledge of such disclosure. Some require agreement to medical examinations and drug and alcohol testing during employment, workplace searches and inspections, workplace use and monitoring of voice-mail, E-mail and computer systems. I have one app in front of me that even demands the applicant to "(give) consent to, and ...waive any rights of privacy I might otherwise have in connection..." with the corporation.

I love the last line: "Moreover, nothing conveyed to me, either during any pre-employment interview, or during my employment, if hired, is intended to create an employment contract between me and ......" said corp.

In other words, it doesn't matter if you assume you're an employee or not, even if you work there everyday! There is the possibility that you might not be an employee and therefore when they fire you - you have no recourse - because they really didn't HIRE you....!

So, when you apply for a job as a stock clerk with Target, WalMart, Lowe's - any of them - they will demand that you give them permission to investigate your entire life. All for a crappy $Minimum-wage job.

Paapaz pleeze!

Yeah, I would imagine it makes lots of $$ for the credit check co's - which are located in Georgia somewhere for these box-stores. Also, by giving them permission to investigate your credit scores, it tells them what you buy, where you buy it and how much you owe, how many kids you have, the balance on your mortgage, etc etc. It's not about being a credit risk - it's about figuring out just how desperate you are to get a job.

No, you don't get that kind of information. You get a "credit score" (an unregulated creation of the industry outside the scope of the Fair Credit Reporting Act) and the number of late payments/writeoffs and judgments/bankruptcies/foreclosures/repos. They also say what percentage of your available credit remains.

As a plaintiff's employment discrimination counsel, I've seen quite a few of these where the defendant claims that the report justified a failure to hire or a discharge. Every time that they trot those damn things out I take a F.R.Civ.P 30(b)(6) deposition of the corporate representatives responsible for the policy and ask them to explain how each "negative report" adversely effects my client and how it benefits the defendant. They *never* justify their case.

The three reporting agencies are: Equifax, Experian and Transunion.

Experian is based in California, Transunion is based in Chicago, Il., Equifax is the Georgia-based agency.

No, you don't have to provide information that detailed. First, because much of that material would violate state and federal employment discrimination law and/or privacy law and, second, because employers are *not* going to give out that information because they (correctly) fear a defamation lawsuit. All that modern employers will provide is the dates of employment, the job duties and, sometimes, whether you are eligible for rehire. Most of the time - 95% all that they get is dates and job description and nothing else (in writing).

If you are asked to fill out an application for some entry-level position that reads the way that you present it, take the application and leave the place telling them that you want your attorney to look it over. Then check with your state agency, the EEOC and/or an attorney.

FYI, there are a lot of unemployed truckers. It is a horrible business. You may want to look into Transit bus positions. You are home every day. You WILL probably work nights at first. Problem is some cities have been laying bus drivers off. AND you WILL have to deal with everybody.

But if hired, you can be virtually assured you will have a job. Just be on time every day. Many folk can't handle it. You will be cussed at, have stuff thrown at you, and experience odors you thought impossible. Oh! And whatever you do, if you wear a tie make it a clip on. That way when that nut tries to grab it so he/she can beat the snot out of you, it won't be attached.

There are far more sophisticated 'scores' going on right now, with able hackers...and this is not a myth. I know for a fact that they check bought/owed - especially in CA.



]Nope, they don't - because they have SAFE & HARMLESS clauses down pat; your client may have signed not knowing the ramifacations. Forgettabout being an independent agent, forgettabout being F/L. Just play the game - settle now, agree never to discuss the settlement.... = no job later - ever - anywhere/thanks to 'credit checks'.

You could've had an accident 20 yrs ago and collected state disability for 3 weeks and they will deny you a job.....what's that about?

We know they will only hire people who ARE NOT ON UNEMPLOYMENT - workers be damned in the USA.

Am sure you're familiar with this and are fighting it.



Yep, they got us covered, id's etc. The farce is, they scream about the illegals.
What the real scream is about is hiring more illegals so they don't have to pay SS and FICA.

This was a city app, in the state of California. Needless to say, I never applied, but kept the bs for reference.

Since there are few jobs in this area tho, am sure many signed.

I assume that the "safe and harmless" that you refer to are "hold harmless" clauses in disclosure authorizations.

FWIW, you cannot "hold harmless" or waive certain rights. You do not have the right to sell yourself into slavery - you cannot waive the 13th Amendment. (And, it comes up all the time in employment law where an employee has signed a non-compete agreement. Some of those agreements are grossly over-broad as when I had a case that purported to designate the sales area my client couldn't work for two years after leaving his company as the entire planet. It was a company that retrofitted agricultural machinery with GPS guidance systems that made farming about 10% more efficient. The U.S. District Court in Phoenix struck that provision from the non-compete on 13th Amendment grounds.)

You can't waive your Title VII rights to be free from discrimination based upon race, color, sex, national origin, religion or your ADA rights to a reasonable accommodation of your disability so long as you can perform the essential job functions and you usually cannot waive your rights to be free from age discrimination (there are bona fide occupational qualifications that impact this area.).

Cities are bound by state and federal law - look at the holding in the AZ 1070 case. The State of Arizona created a law that was superseded by the U.S. Constitution and those portions in violation of the Constitution were enjoined. I've sued a county sheriff's office for pregnancy discrimination and won, and school districts and cities and state agencies - hell, I've even sued the USPS and the USDA for employment discrimination.

Retaliation for a Worker's Compensation award is illegal and any employer that says they won't hire you because you filed a claim is asking for a lawsuit.

Your statement, tells me that you believe that an employer pays a hacker to obtain illegal information = and I can't answer that because I haven't heard of such a thing. It would, of course, be a criminal act under Title XVIII and state laws, as well.

FICA contributions and tax withholding for undocumented workers is not what you think it is - the big scoop is that the corporations that pay workers with false I-9 documents are paying into the state, federal and local systems for "people" who never file income tax returns and never take SS/Medicare benefits. The dirty little secret is that the government is happy to be paid extra and, after the SOL runs for unclaimed contributions, those monies go into a general fund. Corporations PAY withholding - the feds will nail them if they don't. Both government and business benefit by this - the business claims that the workers were legitimate-documented workers - and show documentation in their W-4/I-9 and all of the W-2's, 940's and 941's that were filed for their employees - and, government gets to keep the extra funds.

Don't assume that employers can get away with this stuff - seek assistance. The US Department of Labor, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and state human rights agencies - as well as employment counsel, are all available to help.

Oh yeah! If you are unemployed, I believe there is still federal money available for retraining. Check with your local unemployment office.