Self-driving vehicles may feel like something that will only be available in the distant future, but autonomous technology is already having an impact on the transportation industry. Many motor carriers are promoting new equipment to attract tech-savvy drivers, and advanced safety sensors are helping decrease accidents on the road.
Over 30 automakers and technology companies are working to make trucks fully autonomous, and many states have already passed self-driving legislation that allows for testing on public roads. But, even though this technology offers motor carriers a way to increase efficiency and improve safety, there are a number of topics your business needs to consider before adopting self-driving trucks.
The Different Levels of Automation
Most of the technology used in autonomous vehicles is an evolution of common safety features that use vehicle-mounted cameras and sensors, such as automatic brakes, lane departure systems and blind spot alerts. However, self-driving technology takes this concept a step further by having these systems work together to perform some or all driving functions.
Because there are multiple self-driving systems in development that offer different levels of autonomy, most companies use a system developed by SAE International to classify levels of autonomous vehicles. Levels 0-2 mainly define limited control systems that are commonly available in consumer and commercial vehicles:
- Level 0: No automation – The driver performs all driving tasks, but automated system issue warnings may be present.
- Level 1: Driver assistance – The vehicle and driver may share control in limited circumstances, such as adaptive cruise control and parking assistance. However, the driver must be ready to retake control at all times.
- Level 2: Partial automation – The vehicle has combined automatic functions (such as controlling acceleration and steering simultaneously), but the driver must be constantly engaged and aware of the surrounding environment.
Levels 3-5 define vehicles that are commonly referred to as autonomous or self-driving:
- Level 3: Conditional automation – A driver must still be present, but doesn’t have to monitor the environment. However, they must be ready to take control at all times and with no notice.
- Level 4: High automation – The vehicle can perform all driving functions under certain conditions, and switching control back to the driver may be optional.
- Level 5: Full automation – The vehicle can perform all driving functions at all times.
How Can Self-driving Trucks Help Carriers?
Self-driving trucks could help motor carriers address a number of common issues:
- Safety – Properly functioning self-driving systems operate without the chance of human error and can react to changing traffic patterns faster than a regular driver.
- Driver shortage – Regulations likely won’t allow vehicles to operate without a driver in the near future. However, the technology will attract applicants who don’t want to spend long stretches of time in full control of a commercial truck.
- Increased efficiency – Autonomous technology can give carriers real-time information on location, maintenance status and traffic patterns in order to increase efficiency and better manage fleets.
- Cost reductions – Motor carriers can reduce costs by sending autonomous trucks on more fuel-efficient routes or by platooning the vehicles together to reduce air drag.
What Risks Does This Technology Present?
Although autonomous technology is advancing rapidly, there are still a number of risks and obstacles to overcome before the vehicles can be widely adopted:
- Public perception – Advanced sensors generally make self-driving trucks safe, but recent high-profile collisions and fatalities during tests have lowered the public’s opinion of the technology.
- Long-term employment – Autonomous technology will help to attract new drivers in the near future, but some experts believe that fully independent vehicles may someday eliminate millions of jobs.
- Liability – The liability of an accident involving human-driven vehicles is fairly easy to judge. However, self-driving trucks bring a nonhuman factor into the equation that makes it difficult to determine if an operator, technology developer, manufacturer or other party is at fault for an accident.
- Compliance – Individual states, cities and jurisdictions currently manage laws regarding the testing and use of self-driving trucks, making interstate commerce more complicated. However, the FMCSA recently requested feedback on the regulations that would have to be updated, modified or eliminated to safely allow for the use of autonomous vehicles. Key questions discussed by the agency include the following:
- How will motor carriers ensure automatic systems are functioning properly?
- What changes, if any, should be made to distracted driving regulations?
- How will enforcement officials determine a vehicle’s SAE classification level, and would easily identifiable classification signage negatively affect other drivers?
- How should a driver’s hours of service be recorded when using an automated driving system?
Considering Your Options
As self-driving vehicles continue to develop, your business should carefully consider how both the advantages and risks of this new technology will impact its operations. Contact us at 831-661-5697 today for help analyzing your unique risk exposures.
Read more
On May 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that employers can use arbitration clauses in employment contracts to bar employees from filing class-action lawsuits related to wage and overtime claims. In a 5-4 split decision, the court determined that employment agreements can require arbitration, waiving the employee’s right to participate in a class-action lawsuit, to settle these disputes.
This ruling is a departure from the position taken by the Obama administration and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Instead, the decision favors employers and follows President Donald Trump’s position on federal employment law that employers are entitled to waive their employees’ right to file class-action lawsuits under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
As a result of this ruling, employers are now free to include clauses in employment contracts requiring the use of arbitration to resolve wage and overtime claims, and barring class-action lawsuits related to these matters. The ruling can protect employers from costly litigation, but critics argue that it could allow employers to escape liability for labor law violations.
Arbitration is a private method of dispute resolution that is used as an alternative to court action, where an impartial third party makes a binding decision on the matter, rather than a judge or a jury. Historically, arbitration has been used in a wide variety of disputes as a cost-saving measure to avoid the burden and expense of litigation.
Mandatory arbitration clauses have become increasingly common in many types of contracts and agreements, especially among large corporations and in consumer transactions. However, courts have had to impose certain limits on the use of these types of clauses, particularly in situations where one party has more bargaining power than the other.
Federal labor law is conflicting on the issue of mandatory arbitration in employment agreements. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) guarantees employees’ right to collective action, while the FAA encourages the use of arbitration agreements and generally requires courts to enforce these provisions as written.
The court ruled that arbitration clauses in employment contracts that waive the employees’ right to participate in class actions are lawful and enforceable.
Historically, courts and the NLRB agreed that arbitration agreements are enforceable. In 2012, however, the NLRB took the position that arbitration clauses in employment agreements that include class-action waivers violate the NLRA. As a result, the NLRB pursued and invalidated arbitration agreements and policies used by many employers. The Obama administration sided with the NLRB, arguing that the NLRA essentially invalidates the FAA in the context of labor disputes.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The case before the Supreme Court—Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis—combined three separate lawsuits involving employees who entered into employment agreements requiring arbitration, but still sought to participate in class-action lawsuits over state and federal employment law claims. The lower federal courts were split in their rulings, and the Supreme Court was asked to resolve this conflict.
Although the FAA generally requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements as written, the employees argued that this obligation is eliminated if an arbitration agreement violates some other federal law, and that their employment agreements violated the NLRA by requiring individualized proceedings. Their employers, however, argued that the FAA protects agreements requiring arbitration from judicial interference, and that the NLRA does not change this requirement.
The majority on the Supreme Court sided with the employers, following their long practice of limiting class actions and favoring arbitration over litigation. The court ruled that arbitration clauses in employment agreements that waive the employees’ right to participate in class actions are lawful and enforceable.
Impact on Employers
The Supreme Court’s ruling only impacts non-unionized employees, and does not affect employees represented by labor unions. As a result of the ruling, employers are now free to include clauses in employment contracts requiring the use of arbitration to resolve wage and overtime claims, and barring class-action lawsuits related to these matters.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the NLRB indicated that it intended to follow the decision. According to the NLRB, it currently has 55 pending cases with allegations that employers violated the NLRA by maintaining or enforcing individual arbitration agreements or policies containing class- and collective-action waivers. The NLRB now intends to quickly resolve those cases in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision.
Read more
STATE RESOURCES
California Department of Industrial Relations
www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/dlse
WagesAndHours.html
Publications
The DIR has published the following materials regarding wage and hour laws in the state:
Poster
Employers can use this DIR model poster to satisfy their posting requirements.
On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court adopted a new test for classifying workers as independent contractors for purposes of the California wage orders. In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, the Supreme Court ruled that employers must use a three-part “ABC test” to establish whether a worker may be properly classified as an independent contractor for this purpose.
Worker Classification
Whether a worker is covered by a particular law or is entitled to receive a particular benefit often depends on whether the worker is an employee or an independent contractor. In general, employment laws, labor laws and related tax laws do not apply to independent contractors.
For purposes of federal labor and employment laws, no standard test has emerged to determine the true character of an independent contractor relationship. In fact, employers may have to apply various tests to determine how issues of employment benefits, workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, wage and hour laws, taxes or protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) affect their workforces.
In addition, employers should be aware that state and local variations of these tests may apply in certain situations.
California Wage Orders
Several federal laws regulate wage and hour requirements. California law also imposes state wage and hour requirements. When federal and state laws are different, the law that is more favorable to the employee will apply.
The Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), part of the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), established wage orders to enforce and administer California’s wage and hour requirements throughout the state. Because the IWC is no longer in operation, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) currently enforces the wage orders.
In total, there are 17 California wage orders, plus a minimum wage order, that California employers must comply with. Each wage order covers a separate industry and imposes requirements relating to minimum wages, work hours and basic working conditions (such as meal and rest periods) for California employees.
Overview of Dynamex v. Superior Court
In Dynamex v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court was asked to determine what standard applies under California law for purposes of determining whether workers should be classified as employees or as independent contractors under the California wage orders. In this case, a group of delivery drivers sued their employer, Dynamex, arguing that the drivers had been misclassified as independent contractors, rather than employees. The delivery drivers claimed that, due to this misclassification, Dynamex violated Wage Order No. 9 (the applicable order governing the transportation industry), as well as various sections of the California Labor Code.
Prior to 2004, drivers working for Dynamex who performed similar pickup and delivery work as the current drivers were classified as employees. In 2004, however, Dynamex adopted a new policy and contractual arrangement under which all drivers are considered independent contractors, rather than employees. Dynamex argued that, in light of the current contractual arrangement, the drivers are properly classified as independent contractors.
The Supreme Court’s ruling—The “ABC Test”
Historically, courts have applied a multifactor balancing test in determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. However, the California Supreme Court abandoned the traditional balancing test, and instead adopted a new three-part test that California employers must use when determining whether a worker can be classified as an independent contractor for purposes of the wage orders.
This three-part test is commonly referred to as the “ABC test” due to its three factors to consider. Under this test, a worker is properly considered an independent contractor to whom a wage order does not apply only if the employer establishes that all of the following are true:
- That the worker is free from the control and direction of the employer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact;
- That the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the employer’s business; and
- That the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business of the same nature as the work performed for the employer.
This test generally favors a determination that workers are employees, rather than independent contractors. The ABC test presumes that all workers are employees and allows workers to be classified as independent contractors only if the employer demonstrates that the worker in question satisfies each of the three conditions.
Impact on Employers
Employers that employ independent contractors in California will want to ensure that their workers are properly classified under the new ABC test adopted by this ruling. As a result, these employers should review their employment relationships and contractual arrangements to evaluate the impact that this ruling may have on their business.
Employers in California should also keep in mind that this ruling applies for purposes of the California wage orders only. Other existing worker classification tests continue to apply for federal law purposes.
More Information
Contact Scurich Insurance for more information on wage and hour laws in California.
Read more
Facebook recently announced that political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica obtained information from up to 87 million accounts without their users’ consent. Experts believe that collected data could include locations, interests, photos, status updates and more.
Facebook applications and third-party services can normally request access to an account’s information in order to add functionality or advertise products. However, experts allege that Cambridge Analytica violated Facebook’s terms of service by using the data to direct political campaigns and influence voters.
These allegations have highlighted concerns about data security, social media privacy and Facebook’s data protection practices. In order to keep your personal information safe, it’s important for you to be aware of how it can be exposed and what steps you can take to ensure you control access to your data.
Timeline of Events
In 2014, University of Cambridge researcher Aleksandr Kogan created a Facebook personality quiz that gave him data on approximately 270,000 Facebook users. At the time, Facebook’s terms of service also allowed Kogan to access data on these users’ friends—a total of 87 million accounts.
Although Kogan told users that their information would only be used for research, he later worked with Cambridge Analytica to market the data to political groups. While many experts speculate that Cambridge Analytica’s clients used this data to direct political messages and influence voters, investigators have yet to confirm if or how the data was used.
Facebook learned that Cambridge Analytica possessed the data in 2015 and requested that all copies be deleted. However, in March 2018, a number of news sources reported that the consulting firm kept and continued to use at least a portion of the data for its business practices. As a result, Facebook’s data protection practices are now under investigation by regulators.
Protecting Your Data
Many social media users assume that their personal information is safe, but this scandal has shown the importance of re-evaluating online security. Hackers can use data posted on social media to engage in identity fraud, social engineering schemes and more. Here are some tips you can use to secure your data on social media platforms:
- Check Facebook’s webpage about the exposed data to see if Cambridge Analytica obtained any of your personal information.
- Go through all of the privacy settings on each of your social media accounts to see if the security features or terms of service have changed.
- Always assume that any information you post online can be shared with the public.
- Enable two-factor authentication on all devices and services that offer it.
- Create strong passwords and update them regularly.
Call us at 831-661-5697 for more help staying safe online.
Read more
States across the country—particularly Kentucky, Michigan, Indiana, Utah and California—are dealing with an outbreak of the hepatitis A virus (HAV). Public health officials are urging residents and travelers to take action to avoid contracting this serious illness.
What is hepatitis?
Hepatitis is a medical term that refers to inflammation of the liver. While heavy alcohol use, toxins and some medications can cause hepatitis, the condition is most often caused by the hepatitis A, B and C viruses.
Is there a difference between the three viruses?
Each virus causes a different type of liver infection and can be transmitted in various ways.
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis A is a highly contagious liver infection. It most often spreads when a person unknowingly ingests the HAV from contaminated objects, drinks or food. It can also spread from close contact with an infected person.
Hepatitis A can range from being a mild illness lasting only a few weeks to a severe illness lasting months. In some cases, it can result in death.
The best way to prevent hepatitis A is to get the HAV vaccine. Practicing good hygiene—like washing your hands after using the bathroom, and before preparing and eating food—can help also prevent the illness.
Hepatitis B
Similar to hepatitis A, hepatitis B is a contagious liver condition caused by the hepatitis B virus (HBV). Unlike hepatitis A, hepatitis B can range from a mild illness to a serious lifelong or chronic condition. HBV is primarily spread through contact with the blood and body fluids of an infected person.
There is a vaccine to protect against hepatitis B. In addition to getting vaccinated, avoid having unprotected sex or sharing personal items like toothbrushes and razors to prevent transmitting the HBV.
Hepatitis C
Hepatitis C is the most common bloodborne infection in the United States. About 80 percent of those infected by the hepatitis C virus (HCV) will develop a chronic infection, which varies from mild to severe liver damage.
Hepatitis C is the most common cause of needing a liver transplant in U.S. adults.
There is not a vaccine for hepatitis C. To prevent transmitting the HCV, don’t share personal care items that could have blood on them, like needles, and don’t have unprotected sex.
What are the symptoms of hepatitis?
Unfortunately, many people who have hepatitis don’t exhibit symptoms. This is especially true for children. If symptoms occur with an acute infection, they can appear as soon as two weeks and as late as six months after exposure.
If symptoms do occur, they typically include:
- Fever
- Fatigue
- Loss of appetite
- Nausea
- Vomiting
- Abdominal pain
- Dark urine
- Clay- or gray-colored stool
- Joint pain
- Jaundice
What should I do if I live in or am going to be traveling to a state experiencing a hepatitis A outbreak?
If you’ve already been vaccinated against the HAV, you should already be protected. If you haven’t yet been vaccinated, public officials strongly recommend doing so as soon as possible. Although the full vaccination course for hepatitis A involves getting two shots about six months apart, the first shot can provide protection. Additionally, if you get the vaccination soon enough, it can also provide protection if you’ve already been infected.
What should I do if I suspect I’ve been exposed to hepatitis A?
Contact your doctor and your local or state health department if you have questions or concerns about potential exposure to hepatitis A.
Where should I go for more information about the hepatitis A outbreak or hepatitis in general?
The resources below offer more information on hepatitis A, B and C, as well as the recent hepatitis A outbreak.
Read more
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is urging Americans to throw away any romaine lettuce they may have purchased from a grocery store and is warning restaurants to avoid serving the lettuce to customers.
The warnings come in the wake of an E.coli outbreak that has made more than 50 people from 16 states sick. The reported illnesses have been linked to an extremely harmful strain of E.coli, E.coli 0157:H7. The CDC states that this strain historically results in a 30 percent hospitalization rate.
This outbreak’s hospitalization rate is unusually high. According to the CDC, 31 of the 53 reported cases have resulted in hospitalization, including five patients with kidney failure. Fortunately, no deaths have been reported yet.
What are the symptoms of E.coli?
Symptoms of E.coli can vary, but generally begin three to four days after ingesting contaminated food or drink. Common symptoms include diarrhea, severe stomach cramps and vomiting. Most people are able to recover within a week, but severe cases can last longer. The CDC recommends contacting your doctor if you have symptoms of an E.coli infection.
How can you avoid getting sick?
To reduce your risk of getting an E.coli infection from romaine lettuce, throw out any store-bought romaine lettuce you may have at home, even if some of it was already eaten and no one has gotten sick. The CDC warning includes all types of romaine lettuce, including heads, hearts, chopped and salad mixes. The only exception to the warning is if you can confirm your romaine lettuce is not from the Yuma, Arizona, growing region.
How can restaurants and retailers avoid selling contaminated lettuce?
CDC recommendations for restaurants and retailers are similar to those for individuals. Unless you can confirm the source of the romaine lettuce, do not serve or sell it. If you’re not sure where your lettuce is from, and your supplier can’t confirm either, throw the lettuce away.
What’s next?
E.coli 0157:H7 is a life-threatening bacteria that can cause kidney failure and even death and should be taken seriously. For more information on the outbreak, please click here.
Read more
