CH Robinson playing games

I have never hauled anything for C.H. Rob-us-some. When I first started out on my own, I called them for a load, then went through the set up process. First they didn't get my signed agreement, then they had the agreement but didn't have my Ins. Cert. I jumped through hoop after hoop trying to get it done in time to pic the load. It just didn't happen. I figured if I had that much trouble getting set up with them, what would happen when trying to get paid. I never tried to fix that mess with them, and never called them for any other loads of theirs that pops up on the boards. That was over 5 years ago, I've done ok without them.

 

You have to have CH Robinson in your brokers list. This company is too big to ignore it. Sometimes they pay really good.

 

Sounds like you just need to upgrade your ins. certificate with C.H., and yes you can get a hold of a snobby broker sometimes, most of them are just kids. I agree with freyst they have some good freight at times, I've hauled some for $3 @ mile when they were in a bind, but I also loaded with them pretty regular.

 

In dealing with brokers, especially the large ones, it's all about building relationships and some times you have to eat a lot of cheap freight trying to work your way to the better stuff and better internal contacts, while improving your reputation there.

 

C.H. Robinson are pretty sleazy for the most part, BUT like it has been said....they are big, and have a LOT of freight going just about anywhere. It has been my experience that the more you use them and prove your worth....the more you are able to "haggle" on the rate.

They like to keep their name in good standing with shippers/receivers so they can continue to gobble up all the possible loads---so if you can catch them at a critical moment (as in the load they said they'd get moved is close to it's scheduled loading time, and they don't have a truck for it yet)---they will pay you just about anything you asked, just to stay in good standing with the shipper.
They can do this, because they have expendable monies....and can pay you $3.50 a mile even if they booked the load for $2.75 a mile. They will gladly eat the .75 cpm to move the load.

 

I don't know why everyone says they are sleazy. It seems to me the ones who say this haul cheap loads for them. I work with them quiet often many times on the same loads over and over. One thing I do like about them is once you book that load you never have to worry that they will continue shopping it for cheaper carriers. It will disappear from all load boards at that point. I've never gotten a rate from them I was unhappy with. Dealing with their "load specialists, who always sound like robots and/or bored to death lol, is a little aggravating at times. Having them read all the info from a confirm 2 and 3 times over and over again gets old when you check in on a load. But that is what it is. They are a huge company and have protocols in place so everything goes smooth. Back to my point. I wouldn't classify them as sleazy but I would classify them as dam good at what they do and I admire that about them. They will do everything possible to get a truck moving their load for as little as possible. Like I've said a thousand times, it is always up to the carrier to accept or decline a rate. I never book any load if I am not satisfied with the rate.

 

Moreover if you give them a driver information and they update the system they can't cancel the load even though they have a cheaper offer.

 

Sleazy: $23.7 million liability case against C.H. RobinsonIn what has been reported as the largest award in a Will County, Ill. civil case in at least 50 years, a jury awarded $23.7 million in damages against transportation broker C.H. Robinson Worldwide, after the company hired a motor carrier involved in a dual-fatality truck accident. ... knowing the Model being worked is important when insulated your self against, "Load Specialists". In one lawsuit, the Broker, CH Robinson was found to turning down offers by Carriers to hual their freight for higher rates. The Broker, CH Robinson turning down the freight rate offers, then found a carrier whom would haul the freight dirt cheap. During the freight hauling, the carrier, with a poor maintenance program was involved a accident involving a Fatality. The Jury found this to be a problem. When working with sleazy brokers in general, provide a rate that involves Genuine Profit for the Carrier. Where the broker may turn the rate down and allow the freight to be hauled by a rate that eliminates a maintenance program. That information will have value during a litigation...i.e. when your freight rate is turned down. Sleaze by its own definition will eliminate safety & security.

 

Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. > [h=3](SLEAZY)
Gender Based Profanity Constitutes Sexual Harassment[/h]C.H. Robinson Loses Another Sexual Harassment Hostile Environment Appeal
I read about this case decided by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals last week with great interest. In it the Court held quite clearly that a constant flow of profanity in the workplace can constitute sexual harassment and gender discrimination.
After reading it I thought, "this sounds familiar." In fact I thought, "I've already written about this case," so I researched my blog and there it was -- an almost identical lawsuit against the same company for the same awful conduct decided in June by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and I thought, "doesn't this company ever learn?"
Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. is a long decision -- 27 pages -- and one definitely worth the read. In a nutshell, here's what happened in the case.
[h=5]The Facts[/h]Ingrid Reeves worked as a sales representative from July 2001 to March 2004 in the Birmingham, Alabama branch of C.H. Robinson. She worked in a cubicle in an open area with six male co-workers.
During that time, she was subjected to an onslaught of foul and disgusting language at work on a daily basis. Women were repeatedly referred to as:

• #####
  

• ####### #####
  

• ####### #####
  

• crack #####
  

• ####

Co-workers also listened to a crude radio show each morning, displayed pornography on a computer, and sang songs about gender-derogatory topics.
Though she complained to her co-workers they persisted in the conduct. She complained to her branch manager on at least five separate occasions and in two separate work evaluations. She also contacted two C.H. Robinson executives. Nothing changed, and Reeves resigned.
Reeves filed a lawsuit alleging that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
[h=5]What Happened In The Courts[/h]The federal district court granted judgment in favor of C.H. Robinson and threw out the case. Its reasoning was that the offensive conduct was not motivated by sex and not directed at Reeves.
Reeves appealed. A panel of the appellate court reversed the district court's decision holding, among other things, that Reeves presented jury issues as to whether the offensive conduct was based on sex.
That decision was vacated and a rehearing en banc was granted -- meaning that the whole court was going to hear and decide the case.
[h=5]The Eleventh Circuit Finds For Reeves[/h]The Court started the opinion with some "core principles of employment discrimination law" in hostile work environment cases:

• a plaintiff must show that

1. her employer discriminated because of her membership in a protected group (race, sex, etc.) and that
   
2. the offensive conduct was either severe or pervasive enough to alter the terms or conditions of employment
   

• Title VII is not a civility code, and not all profane or sexual language or conduct will constitute discrimination
  

• workplace conduct can not be viewed in isolation, but but must be viewed cumulatively and in its social context
  

• a plaintiff can prove a hostile work environment by showing severe or pervasive discrimination directed against her protected group, even if she herself is not individually singled out

Applying these principles, the Court held that sufficient evidence had been presented for a jury to find that Reeves was subjected to a "discriminatorily abusive working environment."
It stated:

The terms '#####' '#####', and '####,' the vulgar discussions of women's breasts, nipples, and buttocks, and the pornographic image of a woman in the office were each targeted at Reeves's gender.

Like '#####,' '#####,' is traditionally used to refer only to women. The dictionary defines '#####' in terms of gender as a 'woman who practices unlawful sexual commerce'...

A raft of case law ... establishes that the use of sexually degrading, gender-specific epithets, such as 'slut,' '####,' '#####' and '#####,' .... have been consistently held to constitute harassment based upon sex ...
​

It didn't matter, to the Court, that Reeves co-workers never directly called her a "#####," a "####### #####," or a "####." Reeves claimed it happened every day, and that the manager accepted and tolerated the behavior in spite of her repeated complaints. As the Court pointed out:

If C.H. Robinson tolerated this environment, it may be found to have adopted the offending conduct and its results, just as if the employer affirmatively authorized it.

​

The Court also rejected C.H. Robinson's argument that the gender-specific insults were not directed at Reeves, and therefore not "because of her sex," since the conduct started well before Reeves started working there.
That argument, according to the Court, is inconsistent with the central premise of Title VII -- that is: workers are to be protected from discrimination on account of gender in the workplace. In the words of the Court:

Here, Reeves claims that her conditions of employment were humiliating and degrading in a way that the conditions of her male co-workers' employment were not.
It is no answer to say that the workplace may have been vulgar and sexually degrading before Reeve arrived.

Once Ingrid Reeves entered her workplace, the discriminatory conduct became actionable under the law. Congress has determined that Reeves had a right not to suffer conditions in the workplace that were disparately humiliating, abusive, or degrading.
​

Finally, the Court rejected C.H. Robinson's third contention -- that Reeve's co-workers used the terms "#####" and "#####" to refer to both men and women and so those terms couldn"t be gender specific. The Court noted:

It is undeniable that the terms "#####" and "#####" have gender specific meanings. Calling a man a "#####" belittles him precisely because it belittles women. It implies that the male object of ridicule is a lesser man and feminine , and may not belong in the workplace. Indeed, it insults the man by comparing him to a woman, and , thereby could be taken as humiliating to women as a group as well.

​

In sum:

If Reeve's account is to be believed, C.H. Robinson's workplace was more than a rough environment -- indiscriminately vulgar, profane, and sexual. Instead, a jury reasonably could find that it was a workplace that exposed Reeves to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex ere not exposed.
Title VII was plainly designed to protect members of a protected group from adverse conditions of employment like those Reeves alleges were endemic to C.H. Robinson.
​

And so, Ingrid Reeves gets her day in court.
[h=5]Conclusion[/h]There are so many women who are regularly subjected to degrading and offensive work environments particularly where most of the employees are men. It's sad but true that although C.H. Robinson seems to be a blatant repeat offender, what happened to Ingrid Reeves and Julie Gallagher are not isolated events. I have been hearing these stories, and they haven't seemed to change that much, for the past thirty years. This stuff happens, unfortunately, all of the time.
That's why this case is so important. It states why it's illegal to subject women to this type of insult and profanity in the workplace. It's a particularly thoughtful, insightful and well written opinion which will be helpful to employers as to what's illegal and what's not -- and why -- and to women and their lawyers who bring hostile environment sex discrimination claims in the future.
It's a great opinion from the Eleventh Circuit.