Gorsuch and the truck driver...and the lies of the democrats...

[Valerie]

Under the rules of the US Department of Labor, a truck driver can't be fired for refusing to "operate" his vehicle because of "safety concerns."


But in his dissent, Gorsuch didn't buy the argument that a refusal to "operate" the vehicle was even involved. In fact, he "operated" his truck, driving it to a gas station against company orders that he should have remained with the trailer.


Gorsuch wrote, "A trucker was stranded on the side of the road, late at night, in cold weather, and his trailer brakes were stuck. He called his company for help and someone there gave him two options. He could drag the trailer carrying the company's goods to its destination (an illegal and maybe sarcastically offered option). Or he could sit and wait for help to arrive (a legal if unpleasant option). The trucker chose None of the Above, deciding instead to unhook the trailer and drive his truck to a gas station. In response, his employer, TransAm, fired him for disobeying orders and abandoning its trailer and goods.

"It might be fair to ask whether TransAm's decision was a wise or kind one. But it's not our job to answer questions like that. Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one."



yeah, this a real good example of the limitations of gorsuch. i do not approve of his thought process there.

not one word about "safety concerns" as he dismisses freezing limbs as "legal if unpleasant" while he makes no attempt to define the job of "operating the vehicle" amidst safety concerns which the law is written for in the first place...

 

[Missourian]

i notice the OP has the time line as half an hour later

it was HOURS in the middle of the night.

deserted and freezing in the process of "operating the vehicle" as a conscientious employee...

It's ALWAYS hours in the middle of the night. The guy had a home on wheels. Hours on the side of the road is no different than hours in a loading dock or hours at the truck stop.

Please, stick to the lily white, soft handed liberal bullshit that you're an expert on, like limousine interiors, or first class travel upgrades, and let those of us who understand blue collar trucking handle this one.

Thanks in advance.

 

[westwall]

just as al franken suggested yesterday, mr gorsuch has a penchant for the narrowest interpretations which often lead to absurd results.

Based on what Missourian posted above you I would say that Gorsuch was correct. And not in a narrow way either.

 

[Valerie]

Gorsuch maintained that the actual words of the statute in question would only back the driver when he was "operating" both the cab and the trailer as a single unit. Obviously, he couldn't "operate" the truck and trailer together and drive away for help and warmth because the brakes on the trailer were frozen. The other judges on the 10th Circuit were willing to apply a dollop of common sense and give the driver the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Valerie]

interesting that gorsuch was willing to extrapolate the meaning of "the vehicle" but not the meaning of "operating" the vehicle.

also, it's not like the unsafe conditions weren't real... (and the faulty brakes and heater perhaps the fault of the company).



Under the rules of the US Department of Labor, a truck driver can't be fired for refusing to "operate" his vehicle because of "safety concerns."

 

[Missourian]

even if there was a heater, the guy could still be concerned for his own safety...

Not just a heater...a heater that, on high, will drive you out of the cab on the coldest night of the year.

 

[Missourian]

interesting that gorsuch was willing to extrapolate the meaning of "the vehicle" but not the meaning of "operating" the vehicle.

also, it's not like the unsafe conditions weren't real... (and the faulty brakes perhaps the fault of the company).

Frozen brakes...100% the fault of the operator. Air brakes ONLY freeze when the driver has failed to properly complete their end of day checklist, which includes emptying the air tanks using the pop-off valves to eliminate water build up in the system. Alternatively, this may be used...again, by the driver, if he or she hasn't been regularly completing the draining.

The company pays for this stuff...just like oil, windshield wiper fluid and antigel. Every truck stop has them. the company allows drivers to add it to their fuel purchases. It was the drivers responsibility to use it in sub freezing temperatures.

Any other questions?

You should just quit while you're behind.

 

[Valerie]

even if there was a heater, the guy could still be concerned for his own safety...

Not just a heater...a heater that, on high, will drive you out of the cab on the coldest night of the year.

Maddin was transporting cargo through Illinois when the brakes on his trailer froze because of subzero temperatures. After reporting the problem to TransAm and waiting several hours for a repair truck to arrive, Maddin unhitched his truck from the trailer and drove away, leaving the trailer unattended. He was terminated for abandoning the trailer.

At 11:17 p.m., Maddin called his emergency into a dispatcher who promised that help would be summoned. Two hours later at 1:18 a.m., Maddin was still waiting for help, but by now his torso and feet were feeling numb from the cold. It seems the heat in the truck wasn't working properly.

The driver called in again, but this time a dispatcher warned him not to leave the freezing truck. He called the dispatcher again, saying he couldn't feel his feet and was having trouble breathing.

Finally, Maddin unhooked the truck, pulled it 3 feet in front of the trailer and proceeded to call the dispatcher yet again.

He was instructed either to drag the trailer with the frozen brakes with him -- probably an impossible task -- or continue to wait in the freezing cab until help arrived.

Maddin ignored the order and drove away with what little gas he had left.

For this act of insubordination, he was fired.

 

[Valerie]

You should just quit while you're behind.

gorsuch was alone in his mindset and "the judges ruled in favor of Maddin".

any other questions??

 

[Valerie]

Trucker Wins Case After Abandoning Frozen Trailer In Sub-Zero Temperatures - TruckersReport.com

 

[Missourian]

even if there was a heater, the guy could still be concerned for his own safety...

Not just a heater...a heater that, on high, will drive you out of the cab on the coldest night of the year.

Maddin was transporting cargo through Illinois when the brakes on his trailer froze because of subzero temperatures. After reporting the problem to TransAm and waiting several hours for a repair truck to arrive, Maddin unhitched his truck from the trailer and drove away, leaving the trailer unattended. He was terminated for abandoning the trailer.

At 11:17 p.m., Maddin called his emergency into a dispatcher who promised that help would be summoned. Two hours later at 1:18 a.m., Maddin was still waiting for help, but by now his torso and feet were feeling numb from the cold. It seems the heat in the truck wasn't working properly.

The driver called in again, but this time a dispatcher warned him not to leave the freezing truck. He called the dispatcher again, saying he couldn't feel his feet and was having trouble breathing.

Finally, Maddin unhooked the truck, pulled it 3 feet in front of the trailer and proceeded to call the dispatcher yet again.

He was instructed either to drag the trailer with the frozen brakes with him -- probably an impossible task -- or continue to wait in the freezing cab until help arrived.

Maddin ignored the order and drove away with what little gas he had left.

For this act of insubordination, he was fired.

Everything in there is bullshit.

One...as stated, this unit had not one, not two, but THREE heating systems.

ALSO, every trucker is advised to carry candles, warm clothing and shoes, blankets and winter headgear in the event of breakdown. What if it was his engine that gave out...in western Kansas of Western Colorado in the winter?

It would be more than a few hours before help arrived. Might not even have cell or qualcomm signal.

Next...in the winter, every company policy is no less than a quarter of a tank of fuel...and in Illinois, there are plenty of fuel stops. Most of us don't allow below half a tank...that's 50 gallons for a quarter of a tank, 100 for half. A modern truck burns half a gallon of fuel an hour...50 gallons would last ONE HUNDRED HOURS!!!

If the heating system wasn't working properly HOW THE FUCK WAS HE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD??? It is far colder in the cab at 65 mph than it is at a stop, because you are losing all the heat of the engine. So this is total and complete hogwash.

Anything else?

 

[Valerie]

He was running low on fuel and there was no company-approved gas station nearby. He called in to ask what he should do, but in the 10 minutes of sitting on the side of the road it took to make the call, the brake lines in his trailer had frozen. Now unable to drive safely, he called back in and requested a repairman to be dispatched.



Even though the heat in his cab wasn’t working due to a faulty APU, Maddin settled in and tried to get some sleep in the sub-zero temperatures. He was awoken two hours later by a phone call from his cousin who reported that Maddin was slurring his speech and sounded confused. When Maddin tried sitting up, his torso was numb and he couldn’t feel his feet.


Understandably concerned, Maddin contacted his supervisor to ask when the repairman would be there and told him about his condition. His supervisor allegedly repeatedly told him to turn on the APU – even though he had been told it wasn’t working – and stay put.

 

[Valerie]

gorsuch is dangerous... he will protect corporations who force employees to work in unsafe conditions.

 

[Valerie]

i'd like to see him explain on what basis he felt comfortable extrapolating the meaning of "the vehicle" but uncomfortable extrapolating what it means to conscientiously "operate" the vehicle...

 

[Valerie]

his penchant for the narrowest of interpretations is dangerous.

why is there no concern for the intent of the law as well as its intention in using broad language..??

that intention being THE SAFETY of the vehicle operator...


Under the rules of the US Department of Labor, a truck driver can't be fired for refusing to "operate" his vehicle because of "safety concerns."

.

 

[Missourian]

Trucker Wins Case After Abandoning Frozen Trailer In Sub-Zero Temperatures - TruckersReport.com

So, the driver didn't get fuel when he should have and was running low. He set the trailer brakes, which he shouldn't have, and they froze up, because he wasn't keeping up with his end of routine maintenance. His APU was broken...that is not unusual. They break. This is an external diesel powered generator. But itf it was broken, it was the drivers responsibility to have the auto engine shut off disengaged. Apparently he didn't communicate well that his APU was not working. He should have known how to override the main engine shut off...because it is often a requirement for regen. If he didn't, he should have communicated that he didn't know how to override the engine shut off, which requires manually setting the engine idle to above 1100 RPMs...and he would have been burning hot from the engine heater. Was there a language barrier here?

How was he sleeping at night when the truck wasn't broke down on the side of the road?

He could have kept the truck running regardless, by simply restarting it if/when the auto shut off engaged.

 

[Missourian]

his penchant for the narrowest of interpretations is dangerous.

why is there no concern for the intent of the law as well as its intention in using broad language..??

that intention being THE SAFETY of the vehicle operator...


Under the rules of the US Department of Labor, a truck driver can't be fired for refusing to "operate" his vehicle because of "safety concerns."

.

Everything that went wrong was a result of the driver's negligence and incompetence.

The driver is required to properly plan his route and appropriate fuel stops.

It's the drivers responsibility to know not to set trailer parking brakes in freezing temperatures and not to park in places that would require setting trailer brakes in sub-freezing temperatures.

The driver is responsible for removing water build up in the air brake system.

The driver is responsible for having air brake antifreeze for an emergency situation like this one.

The driver is responsible for parking in a safe area to make a phone call...NOT the side of the road.

The driver is responsible for communicating deficiencies like broken APUs and taking the vehicle in for repairs.

The DRIVER is responsible for maintaining emergency provisions inside the truck.

And at every step of the way the driver...not the company...failed catastrophically.

But it's the company at fault? Bull-fucking-shit. Only an complete idiot or partisan hack could endorse that rationale.

This driver deserved to be fired.

 

[Missourian]

Just so you know I ain't whistlin' Dixie...

 

[Missourian]

You should just quit while you're behind.

gorsuch was alone in his mindset and "the judges ruled in favor of Maddin".

any other questions??

So? They were unanimously all wrong according to the Supreme Court in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District...so what is your point exactly? That the majority can't be wrong and the minority right...cuz das crazy talk.

Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam

 

[Valerie]

if you cared to understand my point, you'd have addressed it rather than go on about brake fluid.

you're projecting all sorts of factors beside the point.

notice how you see no mention of brake fluid in the law suit?