The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn. (OOIDA) wants the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to amend a recent proposal that shields motor carriers from liability -- even when they knowingly provide inaccurate information as part of the truck driver background check.
OOIDA’s comments were submitted in response to FMCSA’s June, 2003 proposal, "Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Safety Performance History of New Drivers."
In 1994, Congress directed the Department of Transportation to provide more detailed safety data to be investigated by prospective employers, including data gathered from all previous employers going back three years.
However, OOIDA says FMCSA’s proposal does not protect truckers from carriers who might manipulate background check information to retaliate against drivers who refuse to violate safety rules.
OOIDA also believes the FMCSA should be concerned that inaccurate, outdated or imprecise data is often collected and distributed, which ends up unfairly damaging a driver’s ability to find work.
OOIDA claims the FMCSA proposal actually protects the carrier from liability, citing fears of liability.
"OOIDA finds this fear suspect and vastly overstated," the association said in its comments to FMCSA. "We don’t understand why any carrier would express any fear of liability unless they know or believe the information they are using is false, or that they are engaged in improper use of such information."
Among suggested changes OOIDA proposed include:
-- Requiring the carrier to verify the information it transmits is true and that safety performances should only relate to the driver’s history with that carrier.
-- Drivers should be able to review a safety performance history at any time, not just during the hiring process, as the proposed rule suggests.
-- The prospective employer should automatically give the driver a copy of any background information it receives.
-- FMCSA should limit background investigations to information directly related to a driver’s safety qualifications under federal law.
-- A former carrier should be given seven days, instead of the proposed 30 days, to respond to a driver’s attempt to correct or rebut employment information, so the driver can quickly begin working.
OOIDA’s comments were submitted in response to FMCSA’s June, 2003 proposal, "Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Safety Performance History of New Drivers."
In 1994, Congress directed the Department of Transportation to provide more detailed safety data to be investigated by prospective employers, including data gathered from all previous employers going back three years.
However, OOIDA says FMCSA’s proposal does not protect truckers from carriers who might manipulate background check information to retaliate against drivers who refuse to violate safety rules.
OOIDA also believes the FMCSA should be concerned that inaccurate, outdated or imprecise data is often collected and distributed, which ends up unfairly damaging a driver’s ability to find work.
OOIDA claims the FMCSA proposal actually protects the carrier from liability, citing fears of liability.
"OOIDA finds this fear suspect and vastly overstated," the association said in its comments to FMCSA. "We don’t understand why any carrier would express any fear of liability unless they know or believe the information they are using is false, or that they are engaged in improper use of such information."
Among suggested changes OOIDA proposed include:
-- Requiring the carrier to verify the information it transmits is true and that safety performances should only relate to the driver’s history with that carrier.
-- Drivers should be able to review a safety performance history at any time, not just during the hiring process, as the proposed rule suggests.
-- The prospective employer should automatically give the driver a copy of any background information it receives.
-- FMCSA should limit background investigations to information directly related to a driver’s safety qualifications under federal law.
-- A former carrier should be given seven days, instead of the proposed 30 days, to respond to a driver’s attempt to correct or rebut employment information, so the driver can quickly begin working.
media brand
0 Comments
See all comments