Overdrive Magazine | Trucking Business News & Owner Operator Info
Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/893962
VOICES CHANNEL 19 6 | Overdrive | October 2017 Visit Senior Editor Todd Dills' CHANNEL 19 BLOG at OverdriveOnline.com/channel19 Write him at tdills@randallreilly.com. "Is an inward-facing camera [in a truck] an invasion of privacy" under the law? asked small-fl eet owner Les Willis during a public Q&A with law- yers at the Great American Trucking Show in Dallas. The Real Women in Trucking group hosted the Aug. 25 session with lawyers Paul Taylor and Peter LaVoie of the Minnesota-based Truckers Justice Center. "Employers have a right to make bad decisions, so long as it doesn't violate a specifi c law," Taylor said. "I don't like it, and I can see where a driver might not want to work" for a company that has installed driver-fac- ing cams, "but the courts aren't HR departments." Driver Pat Hockaday wondered at cameras' ability to see into the sleeper berth when curtains may or may not be provided, depending on the truck and the company. "What is the driver's right to refuse" such a piece of equipment? RWIT head Desiree Wood asked. As Taylor put it: It's within the "driver's legal right to decline it, but the employer also has the right to fi re him. I give straight answers on the law, and the sleeper berth is not considered a home" in any legal way, he said. "Courts have been unanimous on that. Should it be considered that way? Should drivers do something about it? Yeah, they should, to a certain extent. Drivers have to quit working for bad companies." Taylor said he gets calls daily from truckers stuck in lease-purchase pro- grams who realized their mistake when the carrier cut their miles or otherwise restricted their income. "For every 10 drivers who call me, there may be one legitimate case," he said. "The courts aren't there to protect us from our bad business decisions." One way to avoid driver-facing cams Todd Dills In August, I asked author- ities in several states about the Owner-Operator Inde- pendent Drivers Associa- tion's petition to FMCSA to withhold their federal enforcement grant funding given their apparent delays in adopting electronic logging device regulations. (See "OOIDA petition could aff ect ELD, other enforcement," page 15.) In the course of that, I happened upon what might be decent news for anyone who runs Wisconsin intra- state only. If you're in that category, looks like you've got more time than expect- ed on implementing an electronic logging device. Overdrive reported in June the likelihood that Wisconsin would adopt an intrastate mandate on the same enforcement timeline as the federal rule. Howev- er, Capt. Brian Ausloos says it appears the intrastate rule will require in-state rulemaking to adopt. "We will move this along as quickly as possible," he says. "But I would project that the end of 2018 or early 2019 would be a realistic expectation." Wisconsin's intrastate hours rule applies to vehicles weighing more than 26,000 pounds. Generally, it's more liberal than the interstate rule, allowing 12 driving hours in a 16-hour on-duty window, with an eight-hour required berth period. Its cumulative on-duty limits are 70 hours in seven days or 80 in eight days. Wisconsin's intrastate ELD mandate to be delayed Attorney Paul Taylor Wisconsin officials say the state's implementation of an ELD mandate for intrastate haulers likely will come after the federal regulation rolls out. This June map showed states where the intrastate timeline was uncertain (yellow), would be the same as the federal timeline (blue) or would be delayed (red).