It would be better for the employer if the employee paid for the oil checks on the trucks, or worked for the minimum wage. So why isn't that the case? "Because it's better for the employer" is simultaneously the explanation for everything and nothing. In reality, these situations arise from a lot of complex interactions between employer, employee and regulatory body, which is what I was trying to get at.

The consequence to the employer for missed maintenance on a truck is damage to the asset or loss of use when the truck is pulled off the road by DOT inspectors.

The consequence to an employee getting stuffed is that the driver has less time to sleep or jerk around in the back of the truck.

Guess what the company doesn't give a shit about?

You're certain that it's out of spite/indifference, more than say economics?

Definitionally. I doubt spite is a major factor, but the management is almost certainly intentionally indifferent.

Economics doesn't care about the morale of the workers in this context as it contributes nothing to the bottom line.

I'm in agreement, inasmuch as I hope management cares little for anything they believe doesn't touch the bottom line.

Would you prefer if management cared more about that, instead of the bottom line?

> It would be better for the employer if the employee paid for the oil checks on the trucks, or worked for the minimum wage.

Yeah, I mean, I'm sure if they could make that happen, they would!