Ok Everyone, LET ME HAVE IT! Poor it on hard!

[Yesteryear]

Sorry...but a flat rate FSC....makes them far from the best....

so is your owner getting the tractor FSC deal? instead of the $1.20 plus straight FSC instead....

I don't know what his deal is. I just know the truck gets 1.12 a mile and a flat FSC. We were told and have an e-mail to prove it that we got 60/40 we paid fuel and got 100% fsc. FYI drivers when looking for a truck do yourselves a favor and go the 40/60 cause boy is the fuel expensive. Even before we the fleet manager decided to dip into it some loads we were not making 40% of linehaul. And before any of you ask NO we were not speeding. Truck is governed at 64.


P.S. the way he is trying to do it now after the fact we are averaging 19 to 35% of the line haul.

FYI Phil I have been driving for going on around 5 years or so. First time I failed a DOT inspection was a few months ago in that truck. After that was pulled into almost every scale house and picked on. I think I am just as much a professional driver as you! Don't toot your own horn so much. It really isn't becoming. Really lol

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I don't know what his deal is. I just know the truck gets 1.12 a mile and a flat FSC. We were told and have an e-mail to prove it that we got 60/40 we paid fuel and got 100% fsc. FYI drivers when looking for a truck do yourselves a favor and go the 40/60 cause boy is the fuel expensive. Even before we the fleet manager decided to dip into it some loads we were not making 40% of linehaul. And before any of you ask NO we were not speeding. Truck is governed at 64.


P.S. the way he is trying to do it now after the fact we are averaging 19 to 35% of the line haul.

The only other 2, I can think of off the head...is either Mario or Judd..and you really have to watch your settlements closely...

 

[Yesteryear]

The only other 2, I can think of off the head...is either Mario or Judd..and you really have to watch your settlements closely...

Drove for Judd for 2 years. Don't know Mario. But I can vouch for Judd. His settlements were always ontime and to the dime. Never had any issues with that or the truck. Awesome truck, well maintained. Now personality, nice guy but walk softly. We ended giving notice after being talked to disrespectfully. Guess he was having a bad day because it never happened before. I just feel once it starts happening it will continue. I feel I show the trk owner respect and he should show me respect.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Drove for Judd for 2 years. Don't know Mario. But I can vouch for Judd. His settlements were always ontime and to the dime. Never had any issues with that or the truck. Awesome truck, well maintained. Now personality, nice guy but walk softly. We ended giving notice after being talked to disrespectfully. Guess he was having a bad day because it never happened before. I just feel once it starts happening it will continue. I feel I show the trk owner respect and he should show me respect.

After all this hashing this apart...

Too bad about your rough weekend....hope everything can get straightened out Good Luck

 

[Yesteryear]

After all this hashing this apart...

Too bad about your rough weekend....hope everything can get straightened out Good Luck

Thanks OVM. Not really too rough. Never thought everyone would focus so much on the truck with all the issues though. lol Was trying to warn other drivers not to get caught flat-footed when entering an agreement. To be honest I did not even realize we did not get the contract until I went to look for it when this happend. lol arrrrggg So thought I would warn eveyone else not make the same mistake. Not trying to hurt anyone, no names or companies have been mentioned other then the last post with Brian. I really did do everything I could, and so did my husband with that old truck to make it look better. It really was a sound truck just whoever was in the thing beat the tarr out of it. Is sad drivers would treat equipment like that. I feel bad for the companys paying for these expensive trucks only to have bad drivers destroy them!

 

[OntarioVanMan]

It is the inherent risk of ownership...well one risk..the cost of doing business they say...

 

[cheri1122]

Phil: CSA isn't going to make LEOs suddenly start 'profiling' some carriers, they've always done that. Certain big names [Swift, for one] would get checked more often & carefully because of a record of violations, and certain trucks [dirty, raggedy looking] have always gotten a closer look.
I'd blame the carrier & owner for whom Yesteryear drove the crappy truck, for allowing it to happen - the carrier should have been concerned with CSA, and the owner should have maintained the truck before putting drivers in it, IMO.
BTW: I have wires that can be seen below the taillights too, and just passed a level 1 last week - it all depends on the LEOs interpretation, and/or desire to find a violation. Yesteryear had the bad luck to get a couple within days who were looking for nits to pick.

 

[jjoerger]

Sorry to hear about your problems with a bad fleet owner. It's amazing how many will take advantage of you if they get the chance.
The reason so many of us are focused on the inspections is because whoever was driving that truck now has over 100 CSA points. All of those little things add up and will stay on your record for 3 years. If you decide to leave the carrier you are currently with you will have a hard time finding a carrier that will hire you with a score that high. Your score effects there score. And there score will affect there operating authority and insurance rates.
I hope that these points were split between you and your co driver. Whoever was in the drivers seat and logged as on duty driving will get these points.
CSA 2010 is something you should read up on.
Good Luck and I hope you get your money.

 

[greg334]

I am sort of taken back on Phil's obtuse response. I mean now that involves "him", it is a problem but before it wasn't.

However, as I read Phil's response something else hit me, he is being a bit hypercritical. I mean isn't he the one who complained about the roving safety guy for his company?

 

[cheri1122]

I am sort of taken back on Phil's obtuse response. I mean now that involves "him", it is a problem but before it wasn't.

However, as I read Phil's response something else hit me, he is being a bit hypercritical. I mean isn't he the one who complained about the roving safety guy for his company?

He is one who complained about the roving Safety guy, and now appears to want to be one himself. Hypocritical, IMO.

 

[RLENT]

He is one who complained about the roving Safety guy, and now appears to want to be one himself. Hypocritical, IMO.

..... what you resist, you become .....

 

[OntarioVanMan]

..... what you resist, you become .....

I resist Popeyes....will I become Popeye?

 

[usafk9]

I don't do well resisting Popeye's.

 

[ATeam]

He is one who complained about the roving Safety guy, and now appears to want to be one himself. Hypocritical, IMO.

Complaining about a roving safety guy and stating my willingness to advocate against a driver who runs up a score of over 100 CSA points, when nearly all of them were preventable, are two different and unrelated things.

A roving safety guy creates resentment when he spies on me, thus my complaint (made elsewhere in this forum, no need to go back into it here).

I do not resent drivers who get a citation every now and then, so I don't complain about them.

I would deeply resent a driver who was leased to the same carrier as me and ran up a CSA score of over 100 points. That resentment would prompt a complaint.

I would resent that driver's actions (or failure to act) because those points count against our carrier too, and therefore against me, such that I may get pulled in for an inspection when I might otherwise not.

I'm not a safety guy out there stalking the fleet and hunting for violations. But when a flagrant violator and repeat offender rises to broadcast one's deeds, and those deeds make it more likely that I will be adversely affected, you can count on me to rise to protect my own best interests.

I have been in this business over seven years and have seen many sins. But only twice in seven years have I complained to our carrier about contractors. It takes an extreme bad act (or series of bad acts) by a contractor to prompt a complaint from me. Running up over 100 CSA points is extreme. It is far higher than most drivers have, even the drivers who believe they are plagued with bad luck. Even if the driver herself (or himself) reported the violations to safety, I would speak up.

I would want our safety and recruiting departments to know that there should be no tolerance for such a high score; a score that directly hurts the carrier and indirectly hurts all of its contractors.

 

[Deville]

I run with FDCC, Deville, and would not agree with your statement. Yes, we see runs offered at $0.85 to $1.00 a mile but we do not accept them. There are plenty of runs that pay a decent rate; like the recent New Jersey to Utah run we did at $2.55 per mile all miles, and another coast-to-coast rund we did at $2.00 per mile all miles. The short runs we do tend to pay even higher per mile. It is not uncommon to be paid $400, $500 and even $700 to move freight 200 miles or less.

A solo driver in a dry-box truck may not see such rates as often but I can tell you for a fact that we do.

We may not accept them, but there are people out there who are. The new guys coming out of green have a completley diffrently worded contract than me. Yes, the short runs do tend to pay well 50% of the time.

I mis-read the orginal post, I did not reliaze that was the FSC paid. My appologies.

 

[jjoerger]

We may not accept them, but there are people out there who are. The new guys coming out of green have a completley diffrently worded contract than me. Yes, the short runs do tend to pay well 50% of the time.

I mis-read the orginal post, I did not reliaze that was the FSC paid. My appologies.

Since you stated that the new guys have a completley differently worded contract than you could you elaborate on some of the differences? Do the new guys have forced dispatch where they have to run the low paying loads?

 

[greg334]

Complaining about a roving safety guy and stating my willingness to advocate against a driver who runs up a score of over 100 CSA points, when nearly all of them were preventable, are two different and unrelated things.

A roving safety guy creates resentment when he spies on me, thus my complaint (made elsewhere in this forum, no need to go back into it here).

... blah blah blah ...

If you are the one who knows about someone's csa 2010 score without being told, then isn't that spying?

Going and looking for information to nail a person by submitting a complaint, isn't that spying?

If you are looking for people who put you in 'danger' to do a job that you feel you have a right to do uninhibited, isn't that spying?

What if the company does not take your complaint seriously?

Will you start keeping a list and fabricating issues to complain about to get rid of them?

The job of the safety guy does exactly that to do his job, to spy (so to speak) on contractors who are within the fleet and single those out who are *****ups and either correct the problem or start the process to get rid of them. I actually does go beyond his obvious duties as a 'safety guy' and like any other employee, if he finds other problems (like paper work or problems with customer's shipments), he is from what I have been told in Memphis allowed to correct issues for the company. He doesn't write violations that go on the driver's record in the real world or has any actual official weight but rather helps maintain the fleet's standing with the enforcers internally. If he has to do that by what a contractor deems as spying to keep the fleet out of trouble, then it is alright because it is for the greater good of the fleet (God I hate saying that) which is what you are saying you will do BUT that is not your job.

You can not have it both ways, you can't complain about someone doing their job by "spying" and go ahead and spy on another contractor - that is being a hypocrite.

It is not your place to mitigate any risk to the fleet only when it comes down to the need to prevent interruption of YOUR work style - because that is what this is all about, risk of interruption to your work style by being pulled in for inspection. However Phil, it is your job to mitigate risk to the public by being a professional and when you see something wrong, tell someone about it.

 

[bubblehead]

This has actually turned into a great Thread! It has prompted me to read the CSA points severity in its entirety: https://csa2010.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/SMSMethodology.pdf pages 49-88. I was suprised how a improperly aimed headlight could carry more points (6) (393.24(d)) then something like 'Exceeding Radiation Limits allowed for Transport' (5) (173.441(a)) or 'Poison Label Loaded with Food Stuffs (2) (177.841e)). I realize there could be extremely miss alligned headlights, but the regulation dosen't specify. Any ways between the point-counter point volleying, I finally read the whole thing...thanks to all who contributed

 

[roadeyes]

This is very true, and not only where CSA is concerned. Many on here (not only Phil) have commented on the "quality" of the image that is being portrayed to the customer by the people associated with their carrier. Not only in the appearance of the truck but also the appearance and sometimes hygiene of the drivers.

If you are of the belief (as I am) that your success is tied to the success of your carrier, you must portray a professional image in all respects both mechanically and personally as that is a direct reflection of your carrier.

I would not view the company safety person as a spy, but as a friend who can help both you and the carrier maintain a good CSA rating which will lead to less inspections and less interuption of your daily routine.

I guess the bottom line, which has also been said many times before but seems very appropriate at this moment, if you don't want 100 CSA point drivers affecting you or your carrier, but resent being "spied" upon, then go and get your own authority and then you and only you will be responsible for your own actions.

 

[jjoerger]

This has actually turned into a great Thread! It has prompted me to read the CSA points severity in its entirety: https://csa2010.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/SMSMethodology.pdf pages 49-88. I was suprised how a improperly aimed headlight could carry more points (6) (393.24(d)) then something like 'Exceeding Radiation Limits allowed for Transport' (5) (173.441(a)) or 'Poison Label Loaded with Food Stuffs (2) (177.841e)). I realize there could be extremely miss alligned headlights, but the regulation dosen't specify. Any ways between the point-counter point volleying, I finally read the whole thing...thanks to all who contributed

There are a lot of good posts in the FedEx CC forum on CSA 2010. Also, our roving safety officer is very knowledagable on CSA 2010 and other subjects.