WanderngFool
Active Expediter
I like this idea. It would raise the bar and have a healthy effect on wages.
Is It Really True That Truckers Can't Agree? Let's Try.
- Thread starter ATeam
- Start date
I like this idea. It would raise the bar and have a healthy effect on wages.
zorry
Veteran Expediter
When my Bro-in-Law went to Stevens as a student, he repayed his training by staying out for four months or so running with an O/O.
I think he got $300, maybe $400, per week.
The O/O got all the revenue generated. I do not know whose money paid the trainee.
This O/O looked at trainee as an indentured servant. Run, run, run. Gotta take advantage of this situation. Didn't want to stop for showers or a decent meal. NOT COOL.
Back in the 80's I pulled tanker for Schneider. They would put two stone cold rookies, with minimal training, out as a team. They could learn from each other's mistakes.
I think he got $300, maybe $400, per week.
The O/O got all the revenue generated. I do not know whose money paid the trainee.
This O/O looked at trainee as an indentured servant. Run, run, run. Gotta take advantage of this situation. Didn't want to stop for showers or a decent meal. NOT COOL.
Back in the 80's I pulled tanker for Schneider. They would put two stone cold rookies, with minimal training, out as a team. They could learn from each other's mistakes.
I think I'd give up CARB in exchange for a way to hold shipping / receiving accountable for dock delays, but the other two? LOS is right.
And I'd rather ride with a newbie blessed with common sense and little experience than one with the opposite attributes.
zorry
Veteran Expediter
Shipping delays are easy.
Do not work for a carrier that doesn't have a good D program.
Leave yours tomorrow if you have to.
If the carrier must collect D to have drivers they will.
Or they'll close up, leaving only carriers that collect D.
Problem solved.
The solution is in your hands.
We'll never eliminate delays.
We can eliminate uncompensated delays.
Do not work for a carrier that doesn't have a good D program.
Leave yours tomorrow if you have to.
If the carrier must collect D to have drivers they will.
Or they'll close up, leaving only carriers that collect D.
Problem solved.
The solution is in your hands.
We'll never eliminate delays.
We can eliminate uncompensated delays.
As a component to a few others I think it could be. OOIDA has been a advocate for this for some time. I would support it but am mindful that many of the bargain haulers that run recruits through like cattle would fight it. Not a fan of regulation but that is what it would take to implement something like this.
To Hedgehog,
As for union or independent issues, the public doesn't have to like it necessarily. But they do have to understand it. And it doesn't have to be a strike, but the public has to understand it in order for politicians to understand it. That is the only way to bring favorable change to pretty much anything.
One last thing. Phil's been out here 10 years maybe? Which is probably longer than many. It may or may not translate into being a "expert" but ten years of anything should give someone some insight in the industry in which they are participating.
Last edited:
Well, we're off to a good start. More discussion is needed but let's talk more about one of the top three issues to be included in a suggested trucker agenda: Driver's Training.
Open to other ideas, I'm going to go with three months classroom, one month practice driving and two months behind-the wheel. Full-fledged CDL's to be issued after completion of the six months. Drive as trainee on your permit with a certified trainer in the truck. Details can be further discussed and worked out and packaged for the public.
This would eliminate the immediate and endless supply of unqualified drivers that carriers rely on now. By producing a driver shortage of sorts, it would increase the value of trained drivers and presumably their pay. By legally requiring all training to be done in English, you assure compliance with the regs that require drivers to understand English at a certain level. And, of course, there is a huge public safety benefit in having trained drivers on the road.
"Truckers for Safety" could be the name of the group of truckers promoting this three-point agenda (other two items yet to be determined). How could those radical highway safety groups oppose a trucker group with that name? What would they do with Truckers for Safety who are advocating for better-trained drivers?
ATA would oppose it but their greed agenda could be quickly exposed.
Why should other groups own the truck safety issue? Who better to carry it forward than the truckers themselves who are closest to the road? The debate does not have to be about sleep science. Why not transform it into things the public will readily grasp like babies in child seats living to see another day?
Would a truker strike need to be organzied to promote a safety agenda? I don't think so. But safety rallies in which truckers and their rigs participated in highly visible demonstartions might help. If there is not already a national truck safety week designated, Truckers for Safety could advocate for one. How do you get the word out? You have truckers in cities nationwide every day. Those who have the skills to speak out can be given media kits and be taught how to get interviews on local TV and radio shows. After you get the hang of it, it would be little trouble at all for Truckers for Safety members to get air time and column inches in local outlets; all helping to get the message out.
Nothing in my suggestions are final. Just tossing ideas out.
If mandatory driver training is one of the agenda items, what should the other two be?
Open to other ideas, I'm going to go with three months classroom, one month practice driving and two months behind-the wheel. Full-fledged CDL's to be issued after completion of the six months. Drive as trainee on your permit with a certified trainer in the truck. Details can be further discussed and worked out and packaged for the public.
This would eliminate the immediate and endless supply of unqualified drivers that carriers rely on now. By producing a driver shortage of sorts, it would increase the value of trained drivers and presumably their pay. By legally requiring all training to be done in English, you assure compliance with the regs that require drivers to understand English at a certain level. And, of course, there is a huge public safety benefit in having trained drivers on the road.
"Truckers for Safety" could be the name of the group of truckers promoting this three-point agenda (other two items yet to be determined). How could those radical highway safety groups oppose a trucker group with that name? What would they do with Truckers for Safety who are advocating for better-trained drivers?
ATA would oppose it but their greed agenda could be quickly exposed.
Why should other groups own the truck safety issue? Who better to carry it forward than the truckers themselves who are closest to the road? The debate does not have to be about sleep science. Why not transform it into things the public will readily grasp like babies in child seats living to see another day?
Would a truker strike need to be organzied to promote a safety agenda? I don't think so. But safety rallies in which truckers and their rigs participated in highly visible demonstartions might help. If there is not already a national truck safety week designated, Truckers for Safety could advocate for one. How do you get the word out? You have truckers in cities nationwide every day. Those who have the skills to speak out can be given media kits and be taught how to get interviews on local TV and radio shows. After you get the hang of it, it would be little trouble at all for Truckers for Safety members to get air time and column inches in local outlets; all helping to get the message out.
Nothing in my suggestions are final. Just tossing ideas out.
If mandatory driver training is one of the agenda items, what should the other two be?
Last edited:
zorry
Veteran Expediter
Wouldn't a single agenda be good to start a group ?
Going on this, while not being tied to a training school or other special interest group.
It'd be hard to show there is any other interest than safety.
Then once the organization is in place, look for other Safety -related causes.
Although Carb affects people nationwide, isn't it really something to be handled by a California based organization ?
Going on this, while not being tied to a training school or other special interest group.
It'd be hard to show there is any other interest than safety.
Then once the organization is in place, look for other Safety -related causes.
Although Carb affects people nationwide, isn't it really something to be handled by a California based organization ?
zorry
Veteran Expediter
Wouldn't expediting improve if entry were harder.
CDL/physicals required move frt over 100 miles.
IRP plates down to 5000lbs
Any vehicle doing frt for hire required to be included in CVSA, CSA,logging, etc.
This would keep that HVAC guy from hustling frt during his slow times.
**** it! If you want to truck, grow up and become a trucker.
CDL/physicals required move frt over 100 miles.
IRP plates down to 5000lbs
Any vehicle doing frt for hire required to be included in CVSA, CSA,logging, etc.
This would keep that HVAC guy from hustling frt during his slow times.
**** it! If you want to truck, grow up and become a trucker.
Honestly, I'm confused by all this talk of a strike. Unions strike against business. They can do so by being a legal monopoly on having a workforce - ie, they have a monopoly over a resource. Unions strike to try to convince someone to pay up or suffer the consequences.
So, what does an O/O trucker strike do? Who is the target? A union strike is targeting ownership/management of the firm. Who do you target? The people who want things moved? The public at large? What does this strike leverage, and what is a successful outcome of the leverage? How does it achieve the goals desired?
I simply cannot find any mechanism by which you achieve the goals you're after - unless somehow you think you can leverage government into regulating incomes - regulating YOURS upwards. That seems self defeating, because it will eventually, due to inflation, mean it's a downward regulation of your incomes.
Someone, please. Explain the fundamental strategy, here.
So, what does an O/O trucker strike do? Who is the target? A union strike is targeting ownership/management of the firm. Who do you target? The people who want things moved? The public at large? What does this strike leverage, and what is a successful outcome of the leverage? How does it achieve the goals desired?
I simply cannot find any mechanism by which you achieve the goals you're after - unless somehow you think you can leverage government into regulating incomes - regulating YOURS upwards. That seems self defeating, because it will eventually, due to inflation, mean it's a downward regulation of your incomes.
Someone, please. Explain the fundamental strategy, here.
Training new drivers is an excellent demand, and it resonates with the public and legislators, too.
CARB is easy: refuse to go to California. Either the standards will change, or states/organizations will develop programs to assist with the costs of the needed equipment [as they did when anti idling laws became more widespread], or, at worst, you won't suffer the consequences of the CARB requirements.
The most important issue for me is to stop FMCSA from implementing their unfounded and counterproductive rule changes, going back to the first ill conceived change of HOS nearly 10 years ago. [When they gave us another hour to drive, but took away the split sleeper, and added two hours to the sleeper.] Now the mandatory break has taken back half the extra drive hour, and the penalty imposed for being as little as a minute late is just insane. They are very much out of touch with the realities of driving, where the 'one size fits all' approach is not working for anyone.
CARB is easy: refuse to go to California. Either the standards will change, or states/organizations will develop programs to assist with the costs of the needed equipment [as they did when anti idling laws became more widespread], or, at worst, you won't suffer the consequences of the CARB requirements.
The most important issue for me is to stop FMCSA from implementing their unfounded and counterproductive rule changes, going back to the first ill conceived change of HOS nearly 10 years ago. [When they gave us another hour to drive, but took away the split sleeper, and added two hours to the sleeper.] Now the mandatory break has taken back half the extra drive hour, and the penalty imposed for being as little as a minute late is just insane. They are very much out of touch with the realities of driving, where the 'one size fits all' approach is not working for anyone.
The first step in developing a fundamental strategy is to develop a fundamental set of issues around which to organize truckers and press the common agenda. Activism strategies that work are well known. Those can be easily developed simply by looking at any politial organization that succeeds in getting its agenda adopted. For the moment, let's focus on developing three issues.
Driver training seems to resonate with some and it would have the benefits mentioned above.
Zorry's comment suggests a good approach to the second possible core issue:
Keeping DaveKC's idea in mind of making the issues resonate with the public, how about a second issue phrased: Compensated labor, or some such thing.
It can be presented as a safety issue because truckers should not have to work 16 hours a day to earn eight hours pay. Not paying truckers to wait at docks provides a powerful incentive for them to doctor their log books and EOBR entries and the shippers and carriers know it. They extract countless hours of free labor from truckers who are made to wait but not compensated for their time. If a company detains a trucker, that trucker should be paid. You don't tell a taxi to wait and expect to have the meter turned off. The public will readily understand why truckers wish to keep their meters running too. If they can't be paid by the mile, they should be paid by the hour. You don't pay fire fighters for their fire fighting time alone. They spend much of their time waiting but get paid for it too. It is an issue easily explained.
So, how about this so far (nothing carved in stone here):
Truckers for Safety
We, Truckers for Safety, advocate:
1. Six months of driver training for new truckers and 20 hours of continuing education every two years for existing truckers.
2. Fully compensated labor. Truckers who are made to wait but can keep the meter running don't have to cheat on their log books or speed in an attempt to make up for that lost time and pay that is stolen from them now. It's only fair.
3. Third issue to be developed. Maybe something about regulatory reform (HOS, CARB, more fair FMCSA processes), or maybe a different issue. Essential: it must be easily explained to the public. Desirable: it should be something that fits neatly into the Truckers for Safety theme and organization so safety advocates will have a hard time doing anything but supporting it.
Last edited:
pearlpro
Expert Expediter
I dont think you need a strike, you need a voting block, remember the teamsters, that was political power, they have busted the Unions down to get rid of that Political power, that voting block, I dont want to argue unions but if you get to the issues, and you find the sympathetic members of Congress, or the President, and you lobby him successfully you can get things done. I think a group of concerned and serious drivers could assemble a REAL LIST and then work towards presenting it thru the various magazines, OOIDA, and others and find concensus....
Today VOTERS are the power and many people are disenfranchised with the process, but if you got 1 million, and I hate to say that, but a large number to sign a petition, get a appt to appear before the FMCSA board and the Transportation Committee and you present a fact filled sheet thats easily understood and doenst contain DIATRIBES, you might stand a real chance...
I believe that we are a fractured group, Liberal, Conservative, Tea Party. Libetarian, Semis, Straights, Vans etc, but pull these people together under the guise of making all our lives better and getting relief or at least the voice at the table and your better off ...
YOUVE GOT TO STAND TOGETHER as a cohesive group and mean what you say, not demand but negotiate...and work as a BLOCK.
Today VOTERS are the power and many people are disenfranchised with the process, but if you got 1 million, and I hate to say that, but a large number to sign a petition, get a appt to appear before the FMCSA board and the Transportation Committee and you present a fact filled sheet thats easily understood and doenst contain DIATRIBES, you might stand a real chance...
I believe that we are a fractured group, Liberal, Conservative, Tea Party. Libetarian, Semis, Straights, Vans etc, but pull these people together under the guise of making all our lives better and getting relief or at least the voice at the table and your better off ...
YOUVE GOT TO STAND TOGETHER as a cohesive group and mean what you say, not demand but negotiate...and work as a BLOCK.
That's key; to rally truckers behind a group of issues, the issues must be about the things that affect truckers directly. Whether you are Tea Party or a flaming liberal, it bites to get charged CSA points when a car hits your truck and you are in no way at fault. The closer to home you make the issues, and the less you politicize them, the more success you will have in building a voting block and advocy group of truckers.
My mind worked further on this overnight and I woke up this morning with the following notion (nothing carved in stone, here; open to other ideas):
We, Truckers for Safety, (additional preamble here) advocate the following:
1. Driver's Training: Six months of driver's training for all new CDL truck drivers. Twenty 20 hours of continuing education every two years for all truck drivers.
2. Full compensation for all the work truckers are required to do.
3. Driving compliant under rules that are reasonable and fair.
The third item would be a catch-all for the HOS, CSA, CARB and other rules mentioned above, as well as a statement with which to higllight FMCSA's abuse of its power and failure to abide by the rules Congress has mandated for it. But, to keep things simple and within the public understanding, we'd need to highlight one item at a time. All rules issues can be named and discussed on the Trucker's for Safety web site (there would be one, of course). But to keep the public debate simple and managable, the organization would need to focus on one rules issue at a time. Maybe we'd start with the CSA points to trucks that are not at fault issue, since the injustice of that one is evident to anyone who learns of it. Also, OOIDA and the ATA already agree with making the car/truck crash rule more reasonable and fair.
The driving compliant part is not just about following the rules. It's about Truckers for Safety being safety activists and ambasadors on the road, with TFS members willing and trained to turn in egregious violatiors when violations are seen. Do you see an overloaded former Penske truck evading the rules? We promote compliant driving, so turn that truck in. Do you see a hot-headed trucker bullying a four-wheeler by riding 4 inches off its bumper? Use your dash cam footage to document and report the incident.
The general public will more likely embrace and support a trucker group who is seen to be on the side of safety, not just on the side of truckers.
So, this shows what a unifying agenda might look like. The next step would be to build a formal organization of truckers around it. How do you bring such an organization into being? You do it the same way our Founding Fathers brought America into being. You do it the same way you brought your own independent owner-operator business into being. You begin by simply declaring the organization to exist.
Money will be required to pay for the web site and for hats, stickers and such. A bank account will be required to handle transactions. Papers will need to be filed for the organization to be properly established under the law. Leadership will include, at a minimum, a treasurer who will be legally on the hook for proper finances, and a spokesperson, probably a president or director or some such title. Initially the treasurer and spokesperson could be the same person.
A set of organization rules would need to be published so anyone who wants to see can see that the money is handled properly and the organization is run well. It would be best for the money to be fully disclosed with all income and expenses publicly disclosed on the web site. That way, members and the general public would see there is no funny business going on. Dues would not be required, but with a financial system in place, contributions can be accepted and money can be raised with T-shirt and merchandise sales.
Avoid at all costs the people who will come in offering product discounts and alternative agenda items. All of that would take the organization off track. Truckers can get the exact same discounts through many other sources.
Truckers for Safety does not exist to compete with OOIDA or ATA. It exists to promote trucker safety on the road. And we do so by advocating:
1. Driver's training.
2. Full compensation for all work done.
3. Driving compliant under rules that are reasonable and fair.
A lot more thinking and writing needs to be done to pull this off. One thought, that might be good or bad, would to make the Driver's Training agenda item really disruptive by adding the notion that the training must be given, not by motor carriers, but by bona fide driver training schools. Doing that would immediately highlight the conflicts of interest between highway safety and company profits that exists within carriers that train their own drivers in three-week puppy mills.
It might also create a nice source of financial contributions from existing and aspiring driver training schools. It is too much in their self-interest to promote such an agenda item by themselves. But when you have a group of ordinary truckers promoting it, that's something they would love to see and would likely support with financial contributions.
How many problems for today's drivers might be solved or at least partially addressed if we took the power to train drivers away from the motor carriers in whose best interests it is to recruit dregs, train them little and pay them less? Might the public understand how much of a joke truck driver training is today if Truckers for Safety held up true truck driver's training as an alternative?
More thinking: This is the kind of stuff that would go into a TFS Ambasador talking points package, and into the Frequently Asked Questions on the TFS web site.
Q. Is there really a need for TFS? Does not OOIDA and ATA already represent truckers?
A. OOIDA and ATA are excellent organizations that share some of the same views TFS promotes. But, yes, there is a need for TFS because TFS focuses on a limited agenda on which truckers of all kinds can agree (not just owner-operators, and not just motor carriers). For us, it's all about safety, and through safety, improved working conditions will result.
Another difference is the approach TFS takes. We don't have an office and lobbyists in Washington. We operate outside the beltway at the grass roots level; trucker-to-trucker, citizen-citizen. It's not through the courts and Washington politics that we hope to make changes for the better. It is through winning the public over to our side and thereby prompting our state and federal elected officials to support our safety agenda and approach. We are bypassing the bureaucrats by going directly to the people.
It might also create a nice source of financial contributions from existing and aspiring driver training schools. It is too much in their self-interest to promote such an agenda item by themselves. But when you have a group of ordinary truckers promoting it, that's something they would love to see and would likely support with financial contributions.
How many problems for today's drivers might be solved or at least partially addressed if we took the power to train drivers away from the motor carriers in whose best interests it is to recruit dregs, train them little and pay them less? Might the public understand how much of a joke truck driver training is today if Truckers for Safety held up true truck driver's training as an alternative?
More thinking: This is the kind of stuff that would go into a TFS Ambasador talking points package, and into the Frequently Asked Questions on the TFS web site.
Q. Is there really a need for TFS? Does not OOIDA and ATA already represent truckers?
A. OOIDA and ATA are excellent organizations that share some of the same views TFS promotes. But, yes, there is a need for TFS because TFS focuses on a limited agenda on which truckers of all kinds can agree (not just owner-operators, and not just motor carriers). For us, it's all about safety, and through safety, improved working conditions will result.
Another difference is the approach TFS takes. We don't have an office and lobbyists in Washington. We operate outside the beltway at the grass roots level; trucker-to-trucker, citizen-citizen. It's not through the courts and Washington politics that we hope to make changes for the better. It is through winning the public over to our side and thereby prompting our state and federal elected officials to support our safety agenda and approach. We are bypassing the bureaucrats by going directly to the people.
Last edited:
If all the truckers would buy cargo vans, then they would be happy. With no issues.
When I think about lobbying, I'm not thinking about something that goes on in Washington. I'm thinking about something that can be much more powerful and effective.
When an elected official receives an e-mail, it counts for little. Form letters signed by constituients that were obviously prepared by an oganization also count for little. A hand-written letter trumps all of that, and a citizen taking the time and trouble to come into the representative's or senator's local office is far more powerful.
TFS does not need to operate in Washington. With a handful of truckers wanting to meet with their elected officials in each state and district, a huge impact can be made. The key is to stick with the same agenda and talking points when such meetings occur; and that can be achieved by preparing the TFS Ambasadors well.
At some point, Washington involvement will be necessary. TFS will need to write the proposed legislation that promotes its agenda and find one or more elected officials to sponsor it. But to start, Washington is the last thing we need to think about.
Last edited: