New Advance Policy at Panther?

[Scuba]

Does image have anything to do with it heck yes it does. If you look trashy people will treat you trashy. But the most important thing is if you are driving a truck bandaged together what are the odds that it is well maintained? Or do you think it looks like crap because they are spending all of their money on keeping it road worthy? If the 2nd part is true they either need to rethink their truck or rethink being an o/o because they aren’t going to make it.

 

[davekc]

I would say keeping the truck inspected as they do now, should stay in place. With regards to appearance, if it looks like junk, it probably is. Not to confused with a truck coming out of the NE that is full of salt.
Just about every phone has picture taking capabilities, so if it is that bad, take a picture and let Panther decide for themselves.
Fashion police or not, its just good business.
You do see alot of junk out there sometimes. It isn't the age, it is how it is kept up.

 

[LDB]

My toes feel fine. The issue I see is safety, some of which can tie in with appearance. I do not believe a side fairing secured by a bungee cord is as safe as one properly affixed to the truck. That lesser issue aside, recently a driver had a 6 wheeler with all 4 drives so worn you could barely make out a tread pattern. His original idea was to get the two outside tires replaced and wait on the two inside tires. There were other issues with the truck that also would have failed a safety inspection. It was over 5 years old. It's a prime example of why an annual visual isn't a bad idea.

I agree with the others who have said if it looks like junk it's probably kept up like junk. I also agree it potentially can impact customer sentiments toward Panther and thereby affect both mine and every other Panther operators bottom line. Rather than immediately jumping on the "it's nobody's business and they're intruding" ACLU position, take a little time and consider every facet of the situation.

 

[bernieh48]

Well I personally don't see what the difference bewtween POD and POP. Panther is the only company out there I know of that does it at delivery instead of at pickup. And I haven't heard of major issues with all the other companies doing it at pickup. Also doing it at pickup gives that driver the chance to have the money during the run for the sky high fule prices now. This is something drivers have been asking for, for years. Leo aren't you on the driver's council? And if so I hope being a representative of the drivers you would consider listening more to what the drivers want. This doesn't affect owners that are driving as much as it does the driver making a percentage and having to pay fuel out of that small percentage and wait 2 to 3 weeks for the rest in a settlement. And then hope they have an honets owner that keeps up with their pay. JMO though.

 

[bernieh48]

Hmmmm no response from Leo?

 

[LDB]

I actually have to do a few other things besides this forum. Anyway, the problem with POP is when the driver picks up and gets 100 miles into a 483 mile run and breaks down or gets stuck for hours on a closed interstate or has some other problem and has to swap the load after only 20-25% of the run. Work is paid for when completed, not prior to being done, at least in almost all cases. Even building contractors aren't paid in full prior to completion. Honestly, and bluntly, if anyone can't afford to run on the POD money until the settlement pays they can't afford to be in this business.

As far as the council goes I do not consider things as an us/them situation. As a council rep I regularly solicit input from drivers. I want to know what the concerns are. That said, I'm looking for the middle ground where everyone gets some benefit. I would love to see $2 a mile for all miles plus fsc equal to 1/10 the avg. price of diesel. That's not realistic if you want the company to maintain customers and thereby freight to run. Obviously I'm biased but I believe I've shown a continual and consistent pattern of fairness and evenness in all my postings. YMMV.

 

[bernieh48]

Well honestly how often would that breakdown secanario happen? Not enough to warrant the POD situation. When working for FedEx CC for 10 yes we had break downs and they adjusted the advance in the settlment section with no problem. Of course breakdowns are going to happen but it's not like you're being paid the whole run pay. You are being paid exactly like a construction contractor who does get in most cases half of his prices and fees up front for materials costs! That's my point!

 

[Tennesseahawk]

I would argue that construction contractors use their advance to buy thousands, if not tens of thousands in building materials. I'd venture to say no one puts $1000 in their tanks at a time. I have to agree with Leo about those needing pay after pickup probably are living run-to-run, and will likely be casualties of the industry within the next few months.

Here's my problem with a company like Panther using a visual inspection... it wouldn't be applied to everyone equally.
Nuff said.

 

[cheri1122]

I don't drive for Panther, so their policies don't affect me, but I'm troubled by the attitude that drivers who need the money at pickup probably shouldn't be in this business, and won't last long, either. Whether that judgement is correct or not, it shouldn't be the basis for a decision on Panther's part. If most carriers advance a percentage of money upon pickup, then Panther should, too - the rising cost of fuel alone demands it, not to mention tolls incurred enroute to delivery.
There could be many reasons why a driver is short of ready cash, and many of them could be of a temporary nature. To say that they don't deserve the money when they've picked up the load, because they might not finish the run, and shouldn't need the money anyway, is absolutely unfair, IMO.

 

[pelicn]

We don't take advances, when the settlement is paid to our owner, he in turn pays us. We asked for it to be that way when we started. We don't pay for fuel, so it works for us. I can see both sides to the issue of a % when the load is picked up, or a % when the load is delivered. It may be worth asking Panther about changing the policy but it's not like this issue isn't a "known" before leasing on to them.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

The high price of fuel demands one thing... that you need to pay for it. It doesn't say you have to get that money on pu or delivery or 3 weeks from now. What it suggests, tho, is that you should be smarter with your money. To me, the "pay 1/2 on pu or delivery" encourages one thing... drivers will get their advance, fill up their tanks, blow the rest, then wonder why their check is so small. THOSE are the ones not likely to make it in this biz.

 

[LDB]

I'm not trying to be unfair. I'm pointing out the reason for not paying at pickup. By that logic then McDonald's should pay for the entire shift as soon as people show up. The ones that leave early, too bad for McDonald's. Maybe every employer should start paying before anybody works. Maybe in our current entitlement society we need to be sure people are paid whether they ever work or not.

I didn't say somebody shouldn't be in this business, I said they probably can't afford to be if they can't make it from pickup to delivery without being paid. If they have to dip into the money from the current job before completing the current job they are operating in a deficit situation. When you complete 100% of the work you should have 100% credit for the pay. That money should only come into play subsequent to the completion of the work. Blunt or not, having to have part of that money at the start of every run means at best a rough financial road and at worst an eventual collapse.

 

[cheri1122]

Like Leo says "You can't fix stupid" - drivers who are stupid with the advance money won't last long, but is that a reason to deny the drivers who may be in a temporary bind? That's a value judgement, not a business decision. I would think that a smart carrier wouldn't mind giving drivers enough rope to hang themselves - it would sort the good from the bad, without costing the carrier anything, because they keep enough of the driver's money in escrow to cover themselves, if need be.

 

[cheri1122]

By that logic, Leo, drivers should be paid 100% of the load pay upon delivery, no?
And the McDonald's comparison is invalid: those workers don't require money to complete their shift.
Panther wouldn't be risking anything by paying upon proof of pickup, they have money in escrow to cover any default by the driver, they just like to keep the money in their own hands as long as they possibly can, IMO.

 

[LDB]

Panther does have a system in place to get advances in emergencies. In case of true need it can be done. My position remains that as a rule one should be able to complete a job without benefit of the pay for that particular job.

I would love to see a paid in full on delivery system. It would be much simpler for the operators than the current one. It isn't that way though and everybody signing on is told you get a percentage at POD.

I realize McD's isn't apples to apples. The bigger point is that becoming an expediter is becoming a business person. Businesses are paid upon completion of production, sale of merchandise, delivery of goods. When you pull in for an engine PM they know what engine you have and what that PM entails. They don't get paid part or all before they do the service. They get paid at completion. They have costs incurred during the job.

They plan their business to be able to complete the job prior to being paid. As good business people we should do the same.

 

[charlee]

The policy seems to be staying the same as far as after PoD...the difference looks like it is going to be that the PoP advance will now come out of your settlement when the pro is actually paid out and not out of the immediate next settlement....THIS IS NOT IN EFFECT YET...but will be. The 55% is true...i believe they said Feb 1st.


-charlee

 

[bernieh48]

Thanks Charlee and Cheri. I was mearly asking if anyone had heard anything on this didn't know it would turn into a big deal. And Hawk, and Leo. We have been out here for 15 years and have no problem with the advance system being at the end or the beginning it was just a question and opinion as to what we were used to at FedEx. To say people should manage their money better is an unfair statement. Just because drivers choose the advance option that is given to them does not mean they don't know how to manage their money. You are not in my shoes nor do you know how we run and handle our finances. We lost everything we had in the 04' hurricanes and have been fighting with uinsurance companies ever since. We have been living off of our savings trying to wait on what's going on. And on top of it I just had to shell out even more for funeral expenses for my Dad's funeral, so don't judge people by the way they choose to take an advance or not people. That statement is unfair and judgemental.

 

[LDB]

My statement wasn't specific to anyone in particular, it was an overall appraisal. There are exceptions based on circumstances of course however many operate that way solely due to lack of proper financial planning. I stand by my appraisal based on that criteria.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Bernie... I understand things can happen, and usually do. I'm not unsympathetic here. Please notice I didn't use your name anywhere in my posts. What I was saying was general in nature.

A simple underlying fact remains. Advances on loads are a contributing factor for owners to put their trucks on with certain companies. How much of a factor depends on the motives of the owner. Could be someone who doesn't have a pot to pizz in, but has a truck (HUGE factor). Could be someone who has numerous trucks, and doesn't want to be bothered with managing his fleet (small factor). Or it could be someone who just thinks it's neat or groovy to not have to wait to get paid (little factor).

I shudder to think how many contractors (drivers and owners), with those carriers that give substantial advances, could last with a company that pays three weeks after the bills are sent in. I'm not even talking slow period here. I'm talking about good times for all. How many could sign on and continually run thru their first payday? How many drivers could be given $5000 and be told that has to last a month on the road, including fuel, washes, pm's, and living expenses; and make it work? Lotsa runs. No company coddling. Everything is on them. I'd venture to say the biz would thin out a bit. Ppl, for the most part, DON'T know how to manage their money! The expediters who can't are prisoners in their own truck, prisoners of the advance system, and prisoners to the companies they drive for. Notice how the company hoppers almost always go to companies with advance policies?

Advances have their uses. I'm not totally against them. Ppl just starting out... good use. Repairs drained your emergency fund... good use. But ppl expecting and depending on them all the time? Come on! That's not being independent in any sense of the word, when you're depending on your company to manage your finances.

Bernie... I can understand advances being important for your situation. But only you can answer this for yourself. When you pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and get things right again, how much of a factor will those advances be to you for being at XYZ Expediting?

 

[bernieh48]

Well whether we need to have them or not we still take them as they are offered and transfer them to our other bank account just for emergency purposes too.

Thanks for the reply and I'm sorry if I came off offending anyone, just a rough time all around right now.