It is not actually a totally automated process. The requests come in via the macros. Them every morning an report is emailed to the person who verifies, approved or denies them in an Exel format. They than research, verify and add the approved amount. If one is denied they are supposed to notify the unit. Then the report is forwarded to admin so that the accessorial pay can be added. In our transitioning of jobs and duties the proper handling of notifying the drivers was not conveyed. The issue should be fixed going forward.
I was thinking (
The OVM Effect) that since the requests come in via a macro, the computer could compile those into a daily report instead of someone having to do it manually. The report could be a database or Excel-based, but the main thing would be the approvals and denials could be done on-screen with radio buttons for each, and a Reason-For-Denial field if it's not approved. Once that report gets closed out daily and is sent to Admin, the denials and the reason could be automatically sent back to the QC for each. It'll certainly change how the requests are handled by whoever approves or denies them, but it should make it more efficient for everyone across the board. The programming involved should be rather minimal to pull the data from the macro messages and set up the report form. Just a suggestion.
Not sure I get the comparison to another carrier. I am sure we address and work on problems in a much different manner.
The comparison with other carriers stems from the lack of notification, and you only find out it's been denied once payroll has been completed, and even then only if you are monitoring it and notice it didn't pay out. Once you've noticed that it didn't pay out, you then have to call or e-mail to find out why, and then if it's an error you have to go back and double-check all the dates and times with pro numbers and such to make the case for why it's an error.
You'd still have to do the research if you were notified the next day after making the request, of course, but doing it the next day it at least quicker and easier than having to go back through a week or ten days of paperwork and QC messages to get at it all. And it certainly beats having to monitor Fleetvision on Thursdays to see if your lottery number hit.
And as Rocketman noted, it happens where we have to ask for tonu or detention (or a stopoff when the customer has given us the wrong address), and then don't get paid for it because someone didn't follow up or input the correct information (like putting it in the notes for someone else to discover when it doesn't pay out, instead of actually billing the customer for it and making it part of the load pay). Frankly, dry run, detention and stopoffs shouldn't even need to be asked for, it should be automatic, with the same priority as anything else involved with the load such as pickup and delivery times and the BOL number. Dispatch ensures that we enter arrivals and departures and BOL numbers, and they should likewise ensure that items like dry run, detention and other assessorials are accounted for, as well. While getting such issues are relatively easy albeit sometimes time-consuming, we shouldn't have to ask for it, not get it, and then get it corrected at a later date.
Also the VP of operations is readily available on the chain of command. Mike Johnson is a call away or
[email protected]. If people don't use the open communication we offer then they are like people who are at other carriers?
I don't think anyone is comparing other carriers for failing to use the open communications. But, bluntly, Mike Johnson may be a call away in the abstract, but in practice he's the one who blew me off and sent me to Brian over a Junior-like issue with Joe. An Operations issue. Brandon deserves a raise for his skills at running interference and lead-blocking for Joe who was avoiding me like the plague over a fast one he pulled (which has since been more or less corrected and resolved, for the most part). When I got nowhere in getting through to Joe or getting Joe to call me back, I asked for Mike, and after a few minutes on hold I was told Mike wouldn't talk to me said call to Brian with any complaints. Which I did. And Brian put it right back on Joe where it belonged in the first place. That type of runaround is very Pantheresque, actually.
If you want the gory details let me know, but like I said it's more or less been resolved.
