Even More Stupid Dart Tricks,
site contains my opinions, suspicions, hunches and extrapolations. It
also contains facts. If you are unsure if a statement is fact or
opinion, you must consider it opinion. This site is copyrighted (c)
2001. It may not be reprinted in whole or in part
without my express written permission. It may not be paraphrased. It
may not be quoted out of context.
Now let's see. Try to imagine this:
(1) You're an employer.
(2) Recently some very nasty allegations have
been made about a couple of your employees in one of your satellite offices,
1200 miles away.
(3) These allegations are so serious that, if
brought to court and prevailed upon, could possibly cost you your company. At
the least, the shenanigans of your employees could cost you a few
hundred thousand if proven true.
(4) Someone sends you a letter which contains
about a dozen pages of black-and-white, cut-and-dried documentation regarding the allegations against your employees.
(5) You have a choice:
(a) look over the documentation, investigate
on your own terms to see if there's any merit to the documentation, and take
appropriate action which will (1) spare future employees from the amoral and
illegal activities of your management employees and (2) possibly spare the
company a huge lawsuit it can't possibly win.
(b) you can refuse to even look at the
documentation, thereby forcing wronged parties to take more drastic measures,
and you can just "hope" it all turns out okay.
Over the past 18 months, Dart Trucking and
T&L Leasing has demonstrated a pattern of decision-making with regard to the
problems within its Kent, Washington office that is, to put it mildly, bizarre.
So why should they change their tactics now?
The letter shown below (as a .jpg image) was
sent to Dart Trucking way back about the middle of January, 2002. The postman
attempted to deliver it to Dart Trucking on three separate occasions. Dart
steadfastly refused delivery on three separate occasions and it was returned to
The letter contained about a dozen pages of
virtually irrefutable, black-and-white documentation (proof) of a large number
of the allegations regarding Dart's office in Kent, Washington. It also
contained the tools any investigator would need to prove the allegations to
themselves, to their own satisfaction. In refusing to
even look at the documentation, Dart has demonstrated, it seems clear, that it
does not care one whit about working conditions which may endanger
its employees in Washington state, or to expose them to illegal drugs and those
who use them, to
threats of physical violence at the hands of their superior(s) in the Kent
office, to dishonesty and dishonor at the hands of those same management
personnel in Kent, to extreme, blatant and shameless racial discrimination at
the hands of one of those employees, or to any number of conditions which are
clearly and blatantly at odds with Washington state employee's rights and,
indeed, every individual's civil rights as guaranteed by the
Constitution. It doesn't want to be made aware of
problems. It doesn't want to be made aware of illegal conditions. It doesn't
want to be made aware of situations to which it can be found stupendously
liable. Dart doesn't want to be made aware of allegations or complaints; Dart
doesn't want to be shown proof. In short, Dart Trucking simply does not care;
that seems the only possible conclusion the rational person can arrive at.
By refusing to even consider documentation which details the illegal activities of its employees, Dart has
demonstrated to any court who hears this case that it has no intention of even
attempting to abide by the law. Dart doesn't care what the laws are, and
Dart doesn't care if it breaks those laws.
I had once wondered how two employees like
Lamb and Mcfarland could ever be inserted into positions of
authority in the Kent office of Dart. Having now seen how Dart Trucking operates
at the corporate level, I'm no longer left wondering. If Dart ever goes under,
I'll bet their corporate people could find jobs at Enron. But Enron "is no
more", you say? Exactly my point.