Of course, some may be, but I'm not worried about slander or libel because it's only slander or libel if it's made public and it isn't true or can be proven false.
That's incorrect. It doesn't necessarily need to be made public, it only needs to be communicated to someone other than the person who is defamed. You can communicate it to just one person, in private, and that's all it takes. You should consult the law degree hanging on your wall, it'll tell you the same thing.
...he told me "I see that you were trying to get in touch with me, but my phone was stolen and I had to get a different one." Really? My calls and texts would have not been able to be accessed from a new phone and new sim.
Actually they can. There are a myriad of ways to do that, with one of the easiest being to simply have your phone and SMS logs automatically backed up and synchronized to Google servers if you have an Android phone, so that you can access all of your calls and text messages across all of your devices. It happens more or less automatically if you are using Google Voice, regardless of the phone's OS, even a blow up phone. This can be done on a network that uses a SIM card (GSM) or a network that doesn't use a SIM card (CDMA).
And one unbiased fact I can share about a particular driver from Cookeville, TN, is that he urinated on the curtains I provided for our van for his privacy. Unbiased, truthful, no emotion. I am a mother of three, I know the smell of urine when I pick up something wet.... Biased would be, I cannot believe a 57-year-old man who is a supposed 14-year veteran of this industry would pee on the curtains I provided to him for his comfort. That would be biased.
You call it unbiased fact, but unless you had the curtains analyzed in a lab, determined that it was urine and not spilled window cleaner, and determined the DNA found in the curtains matched that of the driver, it's not fact, it's an assumption.
And that's fine too. Although posts here don't survive if they aren't within a certain boundary, it's still a forum of peers, whether they be fleet owners, companies, or drivers, and having a place to share grievances, kudos, or anything in between is a wonderful thing.
The only problem is, the stated purpose of Expediters Online is not that of sharing grievances. A dispute between a fleet owner and driver is a private, not a public matter. The reason most companies don't give out employment information in a manner of full disclosure is because of the risk of liability. And it's that very reason EO refuses to be a public conduit for the airing of personal disputes, because in doing so they become a complicit party to the dispute. If you think EO hasn't been dragged into court in the past over these kinds of disputes, think again.
...so why not cooperate with each other, share information that's truthful, and help each other out?
Because even if it's truthful, it has to be accompanied by the supporting evidence, documentation that supports the allegations and assumptions relayed as unbiased fact. And that evidence must hold up in court.
I have said nothing slanderous nor libelous, nor have I done anything illegal or vengeful and don't intend to, but as a small company owner, I have the right, if not obligation, to share information with my colleagues if asked about a specific driver they'd like to interview. It's no different than calling up my best friend and sharing what that terrible store clerk did to me while I was in Wal Mart (just a made up example, nothing has happened to me in Wal Mart). I can share my factual experiences with anyone at my discretion without fear of legal retribution because I live under the Bill of Rights and the law. It's fairly simple.
Where did you get your law degree, Paducah Community College? You may be able to get your money back. Privately sharing your experiences with a store clerk is not likely to cause that clerk any harm in any way, shape for fashion, unless you share those experiences in such a way that gets the clerk fired or is otherwise harmed solely on your accusations. However, sharing experiences with your drivers can result in provable damages, especially when you are so adept at confusing biased assumption with irrefutable fact. While the person being defamed has to prove what was said is untrue, and that can be a difficult thing to do, it becomes brain-dead easy to do if the person doing the defaming fails to verify (prove) their accusations.
As Dave noted, the publication of a list "Drivers Who Have Done Me Wrong" is an intentional vindictive act, and and it says far more about who posted it than it does about those on the list.
You started this thread to solicit inquiries about drivers who are "worthless" and/or "crybabies," and claim you will only give out unbiased facts. Seriously?
I gave my list of deadbeat drivers over at Expedite Insight on the public forum and it wasn't removed.
That's because they haven't yet been dragged into court over something like that.
I never assume anything, it makes an *** out of u and me
That's golden.
It will be done and is being done privately which is what EO requires, and I'll post no more about it publicly.
Can I quote you on that? Because I will when you do.
Judging by what I've read here, you have every reason to consult a lawyer. Sooner or later-- and I'm betting on sooner, personally-- somebody is going to take offense about what you said about them online and take you to court.
Yep, and they'll probably win. And even if they don't, defending a defamation case can be very costly. not only it terms of dollars, but in terms of your own reputation. People hear you're being sued for libel, they might believe it's true. Even if you win the case, they may or may not ever hear that about that.
One thing that needs to be considered long and hard about is, good drivers, excellent drivers, perfect drivers, see an owner post a list of former drivers online like that, essentially whining in public over a bad hiring decision, and quickly decide they don't want anything to do with an owner like that. An action like that will quickly render the list of available van drivers, which is already just chock full of lowlife scummy morons, down to the scummiest of the scummy, and will do nothing but reinforce your skewed view of this worthless humanity.
Someone said it... don't complicate the simple. Due your due diligence, instead.
Incidentally, there's no such thing as a "non synthetic oil engine."
That one just cracks me up.
