SWIFT In Cab Cameras

Ok so I understand the argument for the safeties sake of the cameras, but will drivers be compensated for their loss of privacy? Which by the way is in fact "a right."

Okay. I think one of the biggest misunderstandings here is the 'fact' that you have no right to privacy in a job in America (USA).

Bill of rights "privacy"

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy.

I have to leave for orientation; But I will definitely expand on that later, and point out some other misunderstandings in this thread from various persons.

We have no right to privacy in a job in America? So you link the Bill of Rights to prove your point? Well let me rebut that right quick.

We do have a right to privacy in accordance with United Nations list of Human Rights in which there are 30. I'll put up a link to the site. But first let me pull up article 12 within this list of Human Rights:

"Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks"

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/United Nations

So tell me again how we don't have a right to privacy? Now we're arguing semantics. My entire point to this topic is the camera in your face is an invasion of privacy and the backlash to them should not be surprising to anyone. As of now you have a choice as to whether or not you'll work for a company that uses this technology. I for one would NOT work under these conditions. It's a hostile work environment in a job that is already hostile. Now if the pay increased to work under the duress of 24-7 monitoring I may think twice about it. But they will never pay drivers extra to have a camera pinned to you 11 hours a day. And they certainly are not giving you a choice.

You can make the argument all you want that they own the trucks and company and have a right to do this. I'm not denying that. And by the looks of it there are plenty of people that don't mind it. So if it's ok for the owner of the rig to do as they please with your privacy, then certainly it should be ok for your Landlord or owner of the house you own (unless you own the deed outright because you paid off the house, until then the bank owns it) to install cameras in your domicile to "Make sure you're being safe and abiding by all laws."

I think I'm done with this topic. It seems the proponents of the 24-7 monitoring are quite ok with having their privacy invaded. And none of you will be able to convince me this is a good thing.

My entire point to this topic is the camera in your face is an invasion of privacy and the backlash to them should not be surprising to anyone. As of now you have a choice as to whether or not you'll work for a company that uses this technology. I for one would NOT work under these conditions. It's a hostile work environment in a job that is already hostile....... It seems the proponents of the 24-7 monitoring are quite ok with having their privacy invaded. And none of you will be able to convince me this is a good thing.

I'm not trying to convince anyone it's a good thing. What I'm saying is why would it matter at this point? Every other detail of your existence is already being monitored every second of your life by probably 10 or 20 different entities and organizations. Every move you make with the gas pedal and brake, your idle time, your fuel mileage, your location on the Earth, your arrival times at customers, etc. Every last detail of your background, your biology (drug test & physical), and the job you're doing is being monitored. You've had background checks, credit checks, and you've even consented to dropping your pants so a doctor can check your privates! You even have to consent to being pulled over, searched inside and out, and inspected top to bottom without probable cause.

And you're already on camera everywhere you go, even when you're driving that rig.

But this one particular camera is just more than you can bear. It's ok for a stranger to tell you to pull down your pants so he can touch your privates but you don't want a camera on your face? How ugly is your face????

I'm totally kidding about the ugly face. Gotta slip in a joke to lighten the mood a bit.

But seriously I don't get why one more camera would matter. Nobody has given one single example (other than heresy) of how a camera on a driver has ever convicted him of wrongdoing when there was no wrongdoing. Show me even one example of that happening and this becomes a whole different conversation.

But even if you were able to demonstrate this happening, you've also consented to drug tests which have been proven thousands of time to give off false positives. Why would you let them give you a drug test knowing it could wrongly convict you of a crime you didn't commit but won't consent to a camera which so far hasn't been shown to do that?

I'm not debating this because I want cameras in trucks or I think they're a good idea. I don't really care either way because to me it's just one more camera in a sea of cameras and monitoring devices. It's the logic behind the arguments that's got my attention. I'm trying to understand why people keep bringing up the word "privacy" about a camera that would be aimed at you while you're being paid to do a job using someone else's equipment, a job that puts the public at risk, in a system that will hold the company responsible for your screwups. How do you figure you deserve privacy under those conditions?

Even if you said, "I want privacy when I'm in the sleeper and I'm not driving." To that I would say to get a hotel when your shift is up. Don't sleep in the company's truck and tell them they can't monitor their own equipment.

By the way, you'll be on camera in the hotel from the time you arrive in their parking lot until you leave their parking lot. So that's not gonna help you either. See what I mean?

Just thought I would add something not legal, just something I thought of. Would they be able to have in cab/sleeper berth camera for married couples? Or does Swift carry team drivers? Because there are times when I am sure they wouldn't want to catch us on camera. :)

Or what about the lonely guy who finds a girly mag? Is there a privacy button for biological functions?

Seriously I am rather glad we didn't have an in cab camera during our wreck. I was asleep and nude. I wouldn't want to see my naked self bouncing around back there behind the net. Which by the way, use that damned net! It's annoying but it kept me in the truck!!! And be prepared for rope burn!

My entire point to this topic is the camera in your face is an invasion of privacy and the backlash to them should not be surprising to anyone. As of now you have a choice as to whether or not you'll work for a company that uses this technology. I for one would NOT work under these conditions. It's a hostile work environment in a job that is already hostile....... It seems the proponents of the 24-7 monitoring are quite ok with having their privacy invaded. And none of you will be able to convince me this is a good thing.

I'm not trying to convince anyone it's a good thing. What I'm saying is why would it matter at this point? Every other detail of your existence is already being monitored every second of your life by probably 10 or 20 different entities and organizations. Every move you make with the gas pedal and brake, your idle time, your fuel mileage, your location on the Earth, your arrival times at customers, etc. Every last detail of your background, your biology (drug test & physical), and the job you're doing is being monitored. You've had background checks, credit checks, and you've even consented to dropping your pants so a doctor can check your privates! You even have to consent to being pulled over, searched inside and out, and inspected top to bottom without probable cause.

And you're already on camera everywhere you go, even when you're driving that rig.

But this one particular camera is just more than you can bear. It's ok for a stranger to tell you to pull down your pants so he can touch your privates but you don't want a camera on your face? How ugly is your face????

I'm totally kidding about the ugly face. Gotta slip in a joke to lighten the mood a bit.

But seriously I don't get why one more camera would matter. Nobody has given one single example (other than heresy) of how a camera on a driver has ever convicted him of wrongdoing when there was no wrongdoing. Show me even one example of that happening and this becomes a whole different conversation.

But even if you were able to demonstrate this happening, you've also consented to drug tests which have been proven thousands of time to give off false positives. Why would you let them give you a drug test knowing it could wrongly convict you of a crime you didn't commit but won't consent to a camera which so far hasn't been shown to do that?

I'm not debating this because I want cameras in trucks or I think they're a good idea. I don't really care either way because to me it's just one more camera in a sea of cameras and monitoring devices. It's the logic behind the arguments that's got my attention. I'm trying to understand why people keep bringing up the word "privacy" about a camera that would be aimed at you while you're being paid to do a job using someone else's equipment, a job that puts the public at risk, in a system that will hold the company responsible for your screwups. How do you figure you deserve privacy under those conditions?

Even if you said, "I want privacy when I'm in the sleeper and I'm not driving." To that I would say to get a hotel when your shift is up. Don't sleep in the company's truck and tell them they can't monitor their own equipment.

By the way, you'll be on camera in the hotel from the time you arrive in their parking lot until you leave their parking lot. So that's not gonna help you either. See what I mean?

you dd not answer my question Brett: You used to eat while driving and i bet you never tought anything of it. Now with that cam you could be fired for eating a burger or munching on some fries while driving eve WITHOUT causing an accident or even triggering a critical event. Another example seeing how they record audio is that you can be fired for what you say in a PRIVET conversation with someone else because a desk monkey desided to see what you were doing. With all your yeas on the road do you think its in any way a positive thing for some desk jokey to turn on your cam and fire you for eating fries??

The big thing with much of the "surveillance" of the outside world is that CANNOT record audio without express permission of the person being recorded.

Also they are going to put them in the trucks they have leased after they put them in the company trucks. So they want to put them in ALL trucks not just company ones

The big thing with much of the "surveillance" of the outside world is that CANNOT record audio without express permission of the person being recorded.

Most video surveillance systems purposely do not record audio. Recording Audio can be way more tricky to do legally because of "wiretapping" laws.

The big thing with much of the "surveillance" of the outside world is that CANNOT record audio without express permission of the person being recorded.

Most video surveillance systems purposely do not record audio. Recording Audio can be way more tricky to do legally because of "wiretapping" laws.

exactly and they are playing with fire on that aspect.

Example: You are driving and have a legal matter you are dealing with and they turn on the cam and record part of a privliged communication, that is illegal and swift would lose millions in the lawsuit as the cam is only supposed to record during " critical events"

Even DOT has stated that when the truck is off it is considered a domicile therefore recording inside of it at that point in time is also illegal. During their "test" of the cam system several lawsuits were filed against swift all of which swift quickly settled out of court.

Saw the video today in orientation. The cam records 20 sec snippets. If no event occurs the snippets are overwritten. Otherwise they are saved. There is no streaming from the cams. The QC is what is determining the event and reporting it just like they do today.

So of this turns out to be not true, then The President and COO just lied to every one of his employees on camera. I don't think he's gonna do that.

They asked me what I thought and I told them honestly. I'm dont care.

Saw the video today in orientation. The cam records 20 sec snippets. If no event occurs the snippets are overwritten. Otherwise they are saved. There is no streaming from the cams. The QC is what is determining the event and reporting it just like they do today.

So of this turns out to be not true, then The President and COO just lied to every one of his employees on camera. I don't think he's gonna do that.

They asked me what I thought and I told them honestly. I'm dont care.

that is correct they canot stream u they can remotely activate the cam and get the current 20 seconds.. They did not "lie" they just did not tell the whole truth.

We have no right to privacy in a job in America?

No. Nor do you have "free speech" at work. You should definitely look it up for once instead of citing hear-say. I mean, it's 2015. This is the internet. The bill of rights has been up and available for free for years.

The big thing with much of the "surveillance" of the outside world is that CANNOT record audio without express permission of the person being recorded.

You're arguing that you're against the camera, because you would be caught and terminated for violating company policy (not using two hands on a wheel). Okay. That's settled (black and white). You're also worried about someone terminating you for insulting them (speaking) to yourself in a cab? What?? It isn't hard to NOT be mean. I can't recall once in over 12 jobs of being terminated over something I said. In fact: I've NEVER been fired from a job yet!

I'm all for the cameras on deck. They seem to have upset a lot of wrong-doers on this forum, which scares me. I'm just wondering how many people would be removed from a line of work in a 7 day period for major safety violations.