Ok Everyone, LET ME HAVE IT! Poor it on hard!

[greg334]

First I really wish you would have listened to my ranting. I hope all of this has a happy ending for you but I got to tell you that regardless it provides more proof that this is a business that should be taken a bit more serious.

Was just told that it is actually illegal for the owner to take part of the FSC if the driver pays the fuel.

Actually that isn't true at all.

See it is a contractual issue, so unless there is a contract with a written clause about revenue sharing, the idea that it is illegal is not anywhere near the truth. When it is in the contract and the contract is not followed, it is a breech of contract and you have a few forms of recourse that a lawyer will gladly explain to you.

 

[Yesteryear]

OK. You listed the violations. Earlier you said you wanted to learn your lesson (or words to that effect). Here's your homework assignment:

For each violation received, determine the CSA points that are now on your record. Then total them up and determine if you have a snowball's chance of getting hired by a CSA-aware carrier in the near future.

See this document for the CSA point chart. Scroll to page 36.

LOL actually I asked the DOT officer that and he said it has not started yet. Ya'll are suppose to be beating me up for getting caught flat footed without a contract not for the BAD TRK! Come guys, we really believed in the company with the bad truck and tried to work with them.

And it is the Motor Carrier Fuel Equity Act of 2000. I am researching it now.

 

[Yesteryear]

First I really wish you would have listened to my ranting. I hope all of this has a happy ending for you but I got to tell you that regardless it provides more proof that this is a business that should be taken a bit more serious.



Actually that isn't true at all.

See it is a contractual issue, so unless there is a contract with a written clause about revenue sharing, the idea that it is illegal is not anywhere near the truth. When it is in the contract and the contract is not followed, it is a breech of contract and you have a few forms of recourse that a lawyer will gladly explain to you.

A verbal contract is just as binding.

 

[Yesteryear]

YEEHAW yep it is there! lol

Motor Fuel Equity Act of 2000 Sec 3 Conforming Amendment
Section 14102 of Title 49 (1) (c) (1) (a) (b)

It is mandatory for the fuel surcharge to be passed on to the person paying the fuel.

 

[greg334]

Verbal contracts are tricky and if you have a lawyer who isn't good at advising you to walk, then a verbal means nothing. There are some states which will recognized a verbal contract but only if there is proof of one.

As for the CSA 2010, well it has started in a way. Still seems to be stalling on the hill up but it will get there. Your violations will indeed be counted, the DOT officer is wrong.

 

[ATeam]

LOL actually I asked the DOT officer that and he said it has not started yet.

Diane and I wish you well in your new career.

 

[Yesteryear]

Verbal contracts are tricky and if you have a lawyer who isn't good at advising you to walk, then a verbal means nothing. There are some states which will recognized a verbal contract but only if there is proof of one.

As for the CSA 2010, well it has started in a way. Still seems to be stalling on the hill up but it will get there. Your violations will indeed be counted, the DOT officer is wrong.

Well greg334 this is one time I hope you are wrong and the officer is right! lol Probably not but I can still hope. Other then the bumper they were all piddly little nothing things that were just picking because it was an ugly truck. The bad thing is it stays on my safety record and my carriers safety record for 3 years. The truck was sound just uglier then sin. lol They never found any kind of violation that effected the safe operation of the vehicle. If that had been the case we would have refused to drive it. Like I said, because the owning company is a very good company and we really wanted to stay with them we went much farther then we should have.

PS Least now everyone knows there is a law on the recipent of the FSC and that will difinitely go in our favor if we are required to take this farther.

 

[cheri1122]

Um - the law requires a fuel surcharge to be collected from the shipper, [leveling the field for those who collect it], and to be passed through to "the contracted O/O paying for fuel". There's the loophole: it's the fleet owner who is the contracted owner, not his drivers. As Greg said, it's a contractual point.
I hope you make him regret his evil ways!

 

[davekc]

The same as Phil in wishing you a better start. In the meantime, you are going to have to get a better grip on what you are doing.
Based on past performance I would advise when seeking advice, check several places for confimation of your findings.
Greg and Phil are correct. The points are counted and it does matter.
Verbal contracts are tough to prove and win. Watch a Judge Judy episode if nothing else.
There is no current law on the FSC. That info is factual now but may change this coming year. It doesn't apply to your current situation. The reference is only from the shipper to the carrier. You are not the carrier. Again, good luck on getting things straightened out.

 

[jjoerger]

After getting a Level 2 in Nevada recently I asked the DOT Officer how much training they had been given regarding CSA2010. His answer was "Well, I've heard a little about it, but we don't have any books or training programs yet."
He was not aware that it goes back 3 years and had no clue of the points system or how it will affect the drivers and carriers.

 

[Yesteryear]

It specifically says the entity that pays for the fuel recieves the fuel surcharge.



Congressional Record - Google Books

and

Congressional Record - Google Books

 

[greg334]

Actually the problem is there isn't a law.

What many seem to think is an attempt to add to one of the highway bills has not made it out of committee except in 2005. What many consider as a law is a practice by the carriers and brokers alike, who dip into the fsc. It would be great to have all labor related charges and fsc passed to the contractor but it is not reality.

AND with that said, if you have yet to retain a lawyer, it may be a good time to seek one out. It doesn't matter if the person, company or carrier make you warm and fuzzy, the problem is this is a business with real business needs and if you want to play, it isn't the place. As you already found out, you have lost money and recouping that money may be near impossible at this point.

The issue with the CSA 2010 is simple, the DOT officers play clueless because it is not their place to advise or educate any one on the program, it is a carrier centric rating system and they only enforce the laws, not dig into data to find problems. If they say 'I don't know', they are lying - most of the jurisdictions have already had training in it and many are considering this a good revenue generator.

 

[greg334]

It specifically says the entity that pays for the fuel recieves the fuel surcharge.

The Congressional Record is the minutes of the congress, not the legislative record.


So let me clear this up.

CFR 39, part 137 has no section in it about FSC. It has to do with rates, who does what and how rates are passed on. The house in 2005 passed as part of the highway bill a proposed FSC amendment to CFR 39, part 137 which would have been CFR 39, part 137.13714 but it never made it out of the senate subcommittee. Both the house and senate have to pass it to become law.

You can see if you go to Thomas that there is a CFR 39, part 137.13713 but no 13714.

 

[davekc]

Bingo. Someone gets it. You will know when it changes when companies do away with fixed or flat rate fuel surcharges.
Where do you think that excess money goes? Certainly not the one paying for the fuel.

 

[ATeam]

It specifically says the entity that pays for the fuel recieves the fuel surcharge.

I urge you to get an attorney now; not to protect you from people who are keeping the surcharge money you think is yours, but to protect you from yourself. Sir, you are in dire need of sound legal advice. Do yourself a favor and get it.

 

[greg334]

Er... Phil, yesteryear is a lady.

 

[Yesteryear]

I urge you to get an attorney now; not to protect you from people who are keeping the surcharge money you think is yours, but to protect you from yourself. Sir, you are in dire need of sound legal advice. Do yourself a favor and get it.

ATeam to be insulting is uncalled for wheather I am right or wrong! Yes, we absolutely are going to get an attorney and yes I know we are entitled to the FSC as WE PAID THE FUEL and we were told we would recieve 100% of the FSC. hmmmm starting to remember why I have been over playing FV and Mafia wars now.

Which reminds me, if anyone plays Mafia Wars I need some mafia members.

 

[davekc]

Re: Ok Everyone, LET ME HAVE IT! Poor it on hard!
========================================
And some did.

You did ask for it. But seriously, I don't think anyone is out to trash you but rather steer you in the right direction.

 

[transporter]

yesteryear at this point in time carriers Legally do not have to pay 100 percent surchage. there was a big push to make it all back during the worst of the recession. it maybe become law in next 1-3 years. now however if you would have had a written contract stating you get 100% than you could sue for it. You have seen how many times people on eo have said get a contract and you still didnt do it? You say petty dot violations??
while driving a truck that looks like a truck just from a crash up derby. You are currently sounding like a sterring wheel holder and not a professional driver. You have issues to deal with just as important than the no contract. you are reponsible for the safe and legal operation of what ever truck you drive. and with the attitude of petty violations. i am quiet sure dot loves you.
ateam point must not have gotten through to you about 2010csa. even though it is not totally activated when your future employers look you up they will see the past 3 years. you will look like on paper like a chronic safety violater.

as you said you wanted hard

 

[Deville]

Okay, I told myself when we got hosed by Expedite Solutions IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN! Well, guess what, looks like we just got it again. Was driving for a great company but the company had us in a very bad truck in which I failed 8 DOT inspections (6 level 2 and 2 level 1 ) so we had to find another truck much as I loved the company we were driving for we could not continue to fail DOT inspections. We are now driving this truck for 1 month 2 days, to date no pay. (owner could not seem to get the direct deposit set up, that is ok, issues arise, whatever, figure he didn't know how to do it.) Deal was we pay fuel and recieve 100% FSC. Got a hand written statement Friday for pay for past three weeks. Heres what it was:

load 1 - FSC paid to trk 205.61 (paid to us $141.80)
load 2 - FSC paid to trk 291.74 (paid to us $201.20)
load 3 - FSC paid to trk 261.29 (paid to us $180.20)
load 4 - FSC paid to trk 169.65 (paid to us $117.00)

I think you get the picture. Now after a month this is what he says he is paying us. Don't know if he actually has made a deposit as there is nothing showing as deposited to our account yet. Heading home for TG and then going try to get a load to Michigan to return the truck. Can you believe we would be so ahhhhh yep that's the word "STUPID" as to get hosed a second time? My goodness, I can't believe it. Well on a high note everyone can be assured the owner will be getting a certified letter and 30 days later a suit will be filed.

On a good note we got over 5800 miles in the past 8 days. lol Lot of good it did us!

Well, now we know who is taking the cheap loads. I would have done load 2 & 3, but 1 and 4, that's just not cool. When you take loads like that under $200 you set a bad precident for everyone else.