O/O FAQ letter

What was announced?
Swift Transportation and Knight Transportation have entered an agreement to operate under common
ownership. The Swift holding company will be renamed Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc., and the
common ownership structure will enable both companies to share best practices, while running the
businesses independently and maintaining separate brands. There is no immediate impact in how we do
business and we will continue working toward building our brand and realizing our vision.
Richard Stocking and Ginnie Henkels have chosen to pursue other opportunities following the close of the
transaction though will stay on until then to ensure a seamless transition. Once the transaction is
completed, which we expect to occur in the third quarter of 2017, the combined company will be led by
Dave Jackson as CEO and by Adam Miller as CFO, with. Kevin Knight serving as the Executive
Chairman. Knight’s Executive Chairman, Kevin Knight, will assume the role of President of Swift (which
will operate as a subsidiary of the combined company post-closing) and. Knight’s President and CEO,
Dave Jackson, will remain President of Knight (which will also operate as a subsidiary of the combined
company post-closing.
How long will all of this take?
We anticipate the transaction will be complete in the third quarter of 2017.
Will this affect my Independent Contractor Operating Agreement (i.e., “ICOA”) with Swift?
Your ICOA will remain the same.
Will there be an incentive to stay?
Yes. As outlined in the Independent Contractor Capacity Incentive Letter, eligible Owner/Operators will
receive a $250 fuel credit. Owner/Operators will be eligible if you are under contract by May 1st, 2017 and
remain under contract through the close of transaction, anticipated to be 3-4
months. The incentive will be awarded approximately two weeks after the close date of the transaction.
Will my Driver Leader change?
No. There will be no change to Fleet Leadership.  You will continue to work with your Swift Driver Leader,
your terminal/on-site team and all the support departments within Swift.

Will Swift Independent Contractors have access to Knight terminals and vice versa?
Swift Independent Contractors will only access Swift terminals and support departments and
Knight Independent Contractors will only access Knight service centers.
How will freight distribution be different? Will Swift Independent Contractors pick up Knight loads
and vice versa?
As both companies will continue to operate independently there will be no combining or mingling of
freight.  Swift Independent Contractors will only pick up and haul freight for Swift customers and
Knight Independent Contractors will only pick up and haul freight for Knight customers.
Will both companies share equipment?
Swift and Knight will continue to operate all equipment separately.
What do I do if I am contacted by other Independent Contractors?
If you receive any questions from other Independent Contractors, please refer them to the press release
on our website or have them email communications@swifttrans.com.
Where can I go for more information?
For the sake of open communication and transparency, Richard Stocking and Ginnie Henkels invite all of
you to a Company-wide conference call, this afternoon, at 4:30 PM (ET)/1:30 PM (PT). The call-in number
is (844) 236-5642, in the U.S., and (562) 508-4617, outside the U.S. The event passcode is 4785913.
To maximize efficiency, Richard will address the organization and then answer your pre-submitted
questions. Please submit all questions in the form of an email to AskRichard@swifttrans.com, prior to
3:00 PM (ET)/12:00 PM (PT), today.

Trucking Co. Driver Contract Row Paused For 9th Circ. Review

Law360, New York (February 27, 2017, 6:28 PM EST) — An Arizona federal judge agreed Friday to hit pause on a proposed class action alleging Swift Transportation Co. Inc. misclassified its drivers as independent contractors until the Ninth Circuit hears the trucking giant’s challenge to a recent ruling that its drivers’ contractor agreements were contracts of employment.
Senior U.S. District Judge John W. Sedwick granted Swift’s request to stay all proceedings in the long-running dispute, including a pending motion to certify the class, until the Ninth Circuit considers the judge’s Jan. 5 denial of the trucking company’s motion to compel arbitration.

Swift is challenging Judge Sedwick’s decision to weigh the terms of the contracts between the five truck driver plaintiffs and Swift, as well as the terms of the lease agreements between the plaintiffs and Interstate Equipment Leasing — Swift’s equipment and truck leasing affiliate — in concluding that Swift’s drivers’ contractor agreements were contracts of employment, making them exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.

“Here, while the court believes its conclusion is correct, it recognizes that the appeal presents serious legal questions as to how a court should properly determine whether a contract of employment existed,” Judge Sedwick said. “Indeed, the Ninth Circuit stated that the issue was one of first impression.”

Judge Sedwick in January ruled that the plaintiffs had contracts of employment making them exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act and the Arizona Arbitration Act, and rejected Swift’s bid to force the fight into arbitration. The judge weighed factors such as the extent of Swift’s control over the drivers, the payment structure, opportunity for profit and loss, autonomy, duration of relationship, and type of work to be done by the drivers to determine an employment relationship existed.

In a separate order also issued Friday, Judge Sedwick denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction blocking Swift from requiring current contract drivers, known as lease operators, to sign a new independent contractor operating agreement before March 1. The plaintiffs had argued that some of the language in that new agreement was problematic, particularly two new provisions the company inserted that set forth payment and indemnification obligations in the event of a “reclassification decision” in this case.

They claimed that the two challenged provisions in the new agreement are misleading and confusing to current lease operators because they suggest that participating in the instant class action could mean that they’d end up having to pay damages and attorneys’ fees, according to the order. That kind of misunderstanding potentially undermines the plaintiffs’ prospects for getting putative class members to participate, the drivers claimed.

The judge agreed that the provisions were misleading and confusing, and required Swift to correct some of the language in a notice it was sending out to those contract drivers.

“Here, an employee who signs an agreement does not understand the legal subtleties that could affect how those provisions are applied after the resolution of this class action and may well believe that he now has to avoid participation in the case or risk financial harm,” the judge said in the order.

The judge said two paragraphs in the new agreement seemed to suggest that an improper method of damage calculation and fee shifting could lead to class members owing Swift money regardless of the outcome of this litigation. As such, the judge ordered Swift to send out a corrective notice explaining that the payment obligations and indemnification provisions will not apply to the calculation of remedies and attorneys’ fees that may be awarded in this case.

The judge declined to issue an injunction blocking Swift from engaging in future contact with putative class members regarding matters in this suit, as the plaintiffs had requested, saying it was “unnecessarily restrictive,” according to the order.

Swift is now hoping for the Ninth Circuit to back its push for the dispute, which dates back to 2009, to be heard in arbitration. Swift is the largest truckload motor carrier in North America with more than 45 terminals in the U.S. and Mexico. It has maintained that its drivers are properly classified as independent contractors, and their contractor agreements contained a clear provision that any disputes over the agreements would be taken up in arbitration.

The district court had previously granted the company’s arbitration request in 2010, prompting the drivers to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. That earlier appeal resulted in a split decision last year, with the panel sending the dispute back down to the district court to have it first figure out whether the drivers’ contractor agreements constituted contracts of employment before deciding whether the fight was even exempted from arbitration under the FAA.

Counsel or representatives for the parties were not immediately available for comment on Monday.

The plaintiffs are represented by Dan Getman of Getman & Sweeney PLLC, attorney Edward Tuddenham, and Susan Martin, Daniel Bonnett and Jennifer Kroll of Martin & Bonnett PLLC.

Swift Transportation and the other defendants are represented by Paul S. Cowie, Kevin M. Cloutier, Robert Mussig and Anna M. Stancu of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

The case is Virginia Van Dusen et al v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc. et al, case number 2:10-cv-00899, in the U.S. District Court of Arizona.


My apologies for my drunken rambling last night. I  don’t handle holidays well. I was surprised to wake up and find I had over a dozen views. I switched my personal drama to private as it was intended so only I have to deal with it.

I know I haven’t posted anything public recently. Work keeps me too busy to play Eve and I don’t have an interesting life otherwise… Lol I should try posting some of the photos I have been taking but I’m still learning and they are not that good. But I guess it wouldn’t hurt either as they are not that bad.

Privacy vs social interaction

It’s hard to figure out where to draw the line when it comes to posting on the internet. I haven’t posted in a while because a lot of my life is “private”. A lot of my romantic life especially. Especially with how turbulent that now ended relationship has been. Well it is probably safe enough to say that I will not be posting about that publically. There is no need or point to speaking about something that is painful to recall and besides is done now.

As far as work… Well I do the same run every day. My truck is still in the shop waiting for a new motor same as it has been for the last 6 weeks now. Peak season is winding down. I disagree with how things are being run but I am just a soldier not a general so it’s not my place to comment especially since I had been given the oppurtunity to be the general and I turned it down. I don’t have any interaction with any of my fellow drivers and I avoid the office personel for fear of being given more loads that I don’t really want. I am unique among owner operators that I know. I am not worried about getting the most miles possible. I just want enough to pay my bills and live comfortably and then I want to be able to have time to live life and not just spend my whole life working. All the money in the world does no good if there is no time do enjoy it with friends or family or at least enjoy it solo in pursuit of recreationaly activities that I enjoy.

Hmm…. Well to punctuate that last sentance, I don’t really have anything else to talk about…

I work. I sleep. Rinse and repeat. That is all there is to my life. Some have had other theories about what is involved in my life but honestly that is all there is.

Gassin on it

gassin on itCruising along at 929 m/s orbiting at a range of 695 m from this cloud of Fullerite-C28. I love Black Hole systems. It’s a speed tankers and missile boat captains dream. The black hole in this system helps to increase velocities substantially. 58% increase in ship velocity puts my max burn at over 5,000 m/s with the MWD turned on.


I apologize if my words are insufficient or convey the wrong intentions. I have been trying hard to come up with the words to express…

The loss Maria Taylor and John Donaldson have suffered is without a doubt one of the worst that a parent can have to live through. As a father I feel your pain even if I can only imagine it and I freely admit that my imagination can not come anywhere close to how you must feel. I will never forget my beautiful grand-daughter for as long as I live. Her time with us was short but her impact on our lives will last a lifetime.

The light in her eyes as she quiet studied and explored her new world brought joy to my heart. She was curious and I think she would have gone far.

Without a doubt she would have been proud to have the both of you as her parents. The love you gave her was evident to any that  bothered to look.

You have my sympathies and support. I thank you for the gift of having had the chance to know Lili. I will always love her and you.