OOIDA Says...

[skipr4520]

I called OOIDA and spoke to the compliance department and OOIDA says that EOBR's are NOT ILLEGAL and having to "back up and re-log" on a paper log is not correct. The ruling is that "FMCSA can NO LONGER require trucking companies with HIGH CSA scores to impliment mandatory EOBR's. If a trucking company has a company POLICY stating that EOBR's are being used, then the EOBR's are legal to use due to several LARGE companies using EOBR's per their COMPANY POLICY. The FMCSA can no longer try to enforce O/O's to use EOBR's if the O/O's company policy says paper logs can be used." OOIDA also said that there "are still court actions/law suits pending in court and will be made public when rulings from the courts stands." This is PER OOIDA. Skip

 

[jjoerger]

So... "Company Policy" is the deciding factor????
Do "Company Policies" supersede FMCSA regulations?

I though the point of the other thread about this was that since the court vacated the requirement to force EOBR's on carriers there was no longer a regulation which would allow the use of EOBR's even voluntarily.

Here is an interesting article:http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=75332
Read the last three paragraphs for OOIDA's opinion.

 

[skipr4520]

When I spoke to OOIDA compliance department, I quoted exactly what he said to me. FMCSA can not REQUIRE companies with high CSA scores to have EOBR's. The ATEAM thread was stating his "beliefs" of how the poster BELIEVED to be what the OOIDA's artice meant, so, I called OOIDA to get FACTUAL INFORMATION from THE SOURCE, as many other people on EO has done time and time again. Trucking companies can use paper logs OR e-logs, whichever is specified in the company policy. I did not state that company policy over-road FMCSA, nor did OOIDA. OOIDA said that the court ruling is; "if a companies policy is paper log use, they ARE NOT REQUIRED to change to EOBR's. If a company policy is to use EOBR's, they DO NOT have to change back to paper logs. Either type logging is acceptable AT THIS TIME." The FMCSA can no longer require companies to change from paper to electric logs is all the court ruling was saying, no where did OOIDA say that the USE of EOBR's was, nor ever will be, illegal. OOIDA also stated that, "since the article has been published, that their call volume regarding this matter, has increaded dramatically from drivers who want to know exactly what that article meant, myself included. I wasn't trying to change the course of the topic, the way the poster posted the info made it very interesting, interesting enough for me to call and find out as well. In doing so, I wanted to post exactly what OOIDA passed on to me so there are no "I believe" and "maybes" but what OOIDA was actually saying. I, personally, would much rather know for sure from the source, rather than make an educated guess and be wrong. We use e-log and don't want to go back to paper, I had to know for sure and shared the information that I got from the source

 

[jaminjim]

Nice to see that you EMPHASIZED ALL of the IMPORTANT parts for US.

 

[beachbum]

Ya they had to change their tune on the letter sent to FMCSA's lawyers, because it seems everyone of us who read the letter seen it as saying EOBR's were now illegal.
Like I have said here and on OOIDA's forum that they have made it easy for bad comPanies to keep running illegal. These. Ompanies give the industry a bad name, but Some people will always back them no matter what.

OOIDA reminded me again just this week when they posted a news article about bad drivers still on the road, when the said that all the major speeding violations and accidents was because of training. LOL just maybe Jim could have said yes there is a problem out there and drivers should obey the law when it comes to speed limits and better training to reduce accidents.

That's my take on this, but I don't log anymore.

 

[skipr4520]

I just hope that, one day, all this about the logs will end and a final ruling be done. I don't like paper logs myself because of the cheating factor as it was said by another member on another thread. I paper logged for 9 yrs and have been e-log for over 3 yrs. I, nor my team driver (girlfriend), want to go back to paper logs because there is to much error involved that can be "easily" corrected. I support the use of e-log BUT I do not support the fact of it being a federal requirement that a company have it. I would support the fact that the decision would be up to a company or the owner operator, wether to use paper log ore -log.

 

[jjoerger]

I support the right of the carrier or O/O to decide which to use.
I too wish the FMCSA would make up there mind. And I do not believe that anyone should be forced to purchase EOBR's.
As a team we like the EOBR. As a solo I did not like it at all.

 

[skipr4520]

I support the right of the carrier or O/O to decide which to use.
I too wish the FMCSA would make up there mind. And I do not believe that anyone should be forced to purchase EOBR's.
As a team we like the EOBR. As a solo I did not like it at all.

I agree entirely. When I drove an 18 wheeler and was on paper log, I found it difficult, at times, to be completely..... accurate. When the FMCSA started to try to mandate EOBR's, I didn't agree...at first. When I started using the e-log, especially after we started running team, I sure like it more as does my team driver. She is fairly new to driving but has been OTR with me for 3 yrs. She has seen the effects of both paper and electronic logs and has no desire to return to paper logs due to the fact that the company I was driving for prior to ES, would call me and ask for "favors" after already doing a "favor" but wouldn't want to dispatch me over the QC. So, when we decided to leave them because of to many "favors" requests and go expedite (st8 truck) one of her requests was that we choose a company with e-log so the "favors" issue wouldn't even come up. BTW, thank you for the link post, it does work and the last 3 paragraphs does say it all and appears to lead in the directional question of "vadacated". LOL

 

[beachbum]

If anyone wonders why FMCSA doesn't listen to OOIDA and does listen to ATA it all comes down to the NO to everything OOIDA, they agreed that the bad company rule for EOBR'S was a good rule at first then when they found out from some members that they would have to have a EOBR because of their bad habits then they were against them.

Well OOIDA got their wish and found some judges that agreed on the harassment issue, but no one can tell me how a company can harass you when you run EOBR'S. Maybe someone here that runs solo can tell me. I really would like to know.

 

[ATeam]

What OOIDA said was reported in writing in this article in OOIDA's official publication. The article included direct quotes from the President of OOIDA.

OOIDA is a large organization with a variety of departments. Is it possible that word was not fully distributed before the article went out?

There has been no formal clarification, no retraction, no indication whatsoever from OOIDA that it has modified, backed off or otherwise changed its position on this matter; at least none that I have yet heard or read about.

I'm not going to call OOIDA for additional information. The article in OOIDA's official publication is good enough for me. I believe the quotes to be accurate and the source (Johnston) to be the highest possible in the organiztion.

An offical clarification may very well come, and it may be due to Skip's inquiry, but until it does, I'm going with the article.

 

[cheri1122]

If anyone wonders why FMCSA doesn't listen to OOIDA and does listen to ATA it all comes down to the NO to everything OOIDA, they agreed that the bad company rule for EOBR'S was a good rule at first then when they found out from some members that they would have to have a EOBR because of their bad habits then they were against them.

Well OOIDA got their wish and found some judges that agreed on the harassment issue, but no one can tell me how a company can harass you when you run EOBR'S. Maybe someone here that runs solo can tell me. I really would like to know.

I can tell you [from past experience, not current]: a dispatcher calls a driver on the phone, or sends a load offer via QC [we're talking the LTL carriers, not expedited], because the driver has 3 hours remaining to drive, and dispatch wants a load picked up. Driver says they're tucked in for the night, having delivered an hour ago, and doesn't feel up to starting out on another load [and will find nowhere to park when time's up] but dispatch will insist, because the driver has the time available. It's all about how much time is available [for the carrier to use], and whether the driver feels able to go is irrelevant. An EOBR shows the dispatchers exactly how much time they can require drivers to drive.
Been there, done that. If a driver drives only 67 hrs a week, some of the big carriers feel they were cheated of the 3 hrs the driver didn't use.
Again: I'm referring to the big players [Swift, Hunt, etc] not expediters.

 

[greg334]

Cheri,
If a dispatcher insists on you driving when you have three hours left, the company needs to address the dispatcher by correcting their behavior. IF the company can't understand "no", then the company isn't worth the trouble being part of.

This is a business, you are not a slave to the company and if they want to punish you for being a safe driver, where is the OOIDA on that issue?

I wish the OOIDA would say "we are going to fix the CSA program" but they won't.

 

[moose]

Well OOIDA got their wish and found some judges that agreed on the harassment issue, but no one can tell me how a company can harass you when you run EOBR'S. Maybe someone here that runs solo can tell me. I really would like to know.

Actually OOIDA did not shop around for a judge.
they went to the only court in this country in-charge of those matters, and easily nailed it the first time,
despite a wide oppositions form the ones that benefits from a federally mandated EOBR.

they won because they had a valid argument.
every single user of EOBR will admit that those devices are being used by the carriers to harass drivers.
obviously more so in a solo operation.
here are just a few questions to guide you in the right direction :

http://www.expeditersonline.com/forum/loading-dock/47866-ooida-eobr-survey.html

EOBR Survey 2011

 

[skipr4520]

What OOIDA said was reported in writing in this article in OOIDA's official publication. The article included direct quotes from the President of OOIDA.

OOIDA is a large organization with a variety of departments. Is it possible that word was not fully distributed before the article went out?

There has been no formal clarification, no retraction, no indication whatsoever from OOIDA that it has modified, backed off or otherwise changed its position on this matter; at least none that I have yet heard or read about.

I'm not going to call OOIDA for additional information. The article in OOIDA's official publication is good enough for me. I believe the quotes to be accurate and the source (Johnston) to be the highest possible in the organiztion.

An offical clarification may very well come, and it may be due to Skip's inquiry, but until it does, I'm going with the article.

As is your right, I called for clarification as to how the article read and the compliance dept admitted that the article is misleading and clarification is necessary so the.statements made are not misunderstood. I wasn't the only member to "inquire" in searching for the truth. OOIDA's compliance dept said that several memberss are calling in for clarification on the article, so are both of these threads not "provking thought" as you say you were trying to do in the first place?!

 

[greg334]

every single user of EOBR will admit that those devices are being used by the carriers to harass drivers.
obviously more so in a solo operation.

I know a lot of them who use EOBRs and not one of them thinks the company is using them to cheat or screw with them.

SO how is it that the OOIDA comes up with a survey with every user of EOBRs and how did they determine that the survey has some validity?

Surveys mean nothing, concrete proof that an EOBR is what I want to see. A survey has an error rate and depends on honesty which because many don't want to be tied to a tool to do their logging but rather have the latitude to "modify" the logs to fit their situation, the survey results are meaningless.

 

[moose]

the survey is just a fact finder, have zero to do with the court case.

every single EOBR user will admit yes to some of those questions :


Does the company you drive for contact you while driving?

the company you drive for expect a response within a "specific" time frame when they contact you?


Has the company you drive for ever contacted you to "get moving" when taking a break or when using the sleeper-berth?

Does the EOBR have a default setting that automatically puts you on Line 4 - "On duty, not driving" when you are stopped for a period of time?

and so on, and so on...

 

[greg334]

AND?

There is no proof in support of their argument outside the fact that they had a survey.

So with the qualcomm, the first three questions are applicable too.

The last question seems to be a legit one when there the truck is stopped without logging it. A failure of the driver to keep the log up to date is not a problem that the EOBR is causing, it is the lack of the driver's ability to follow the rules that seems to be the issue when it is examined.

Again the OOIDA didn't do a thing for us, they make this claim but if they want to get the FMCSA off our backs, they can start with the sleep apnea/DOT exam issues and then the CSA but until they want to tackle real issues that impact us, how can we be asked to join?

 

[beachbum]

Cheril, if your a company driver then you would have to pick the load up, since you are a employee not a contractor. being called on the phone is done even with handwritten logs. Like I said if you have a QC they know the hours you have left. Most companies have you sign in in the morning at the start of you day. Companies also know when your truck started moving. This business sucks with the 11/14 hour rule because a company driver can be required to work 14 hours a day. What needs to be done if people are so tired after 11 hours on-duty is change the HOS to 11 hours max with only 8 or 9 driving then their should be no complaints about being tired.

BTW Cheril, there is no way any driver in this country can drive 70 hours in a week with out a 36 hour restart then you'll be at zero if you do.


Moose, Just because someone thinks their being harassed doesn't mean they are, as a company employee you are required to follow company rules and if they say go to work and its legal to do then you have two choices one go to work or quit, that's all. That is not harassment.

About the calling on the phone, put the thing on vibrate if you don't want phone calls or have one for company work and one for personal and turn the company one off.

No company can make you go to work if you are on your mandatory break, period. If you work for that type of company then it's your fault if you go to work and get into trouble.

 

[cheri1122]

Cheril, if your a company driver then you would have to pick the load up, since you are a employee not a contractor.
being called on the phone is done even with handwritten logs. Like I said if you have a QC they know the hours you have left. Most companies have you sign in in the morning at the start of you day. Companies also know when your truck started moving. This business sucks with the 11/14 hour rule because a company driver can be required to work 14 hours a day. What needs to be done if people are so tired after 11 hours on-duty is change the HOS to 11 hours max with only 8 or 9 driving then their should be no complaints about being tired.

We do NOT need to change the HOS - we need to recognize that one day is not exactly the same as every other day, some days are more tiring, with no way to indicate it via computer. And carriers need to recognize that just because a driver can legally drive a few more hours, doesn't mean they should, necessarily.
OOIDA's primary focus is the LTL & TL areas of driving, and the big carriers - they're the ones most likely to harass drivers, a practice borne out by the turnover rates.
Have you any experience in that area?


BTW Cheril, there is no way any driver in this country can drive 70 hours in a week with out a 36 hour restart

A driver can [and I have] drive 70 hrs in 8 days.

then you'll be at zero if you do.


Moose, Just because someone thinks their being harassed doesn't mean they are, as a company employee you are required to follow company rules and if they say go to work and its legal to do then you have two choices one go to work or quit, that's all. That is not harassment.



About the calling on the phone, put the thing on vibrate if you don't want phone calls or have one for company work and one for personal and turn the company one off.

No company can make you go to work if you are on your mandatory break, period. If you work for that type of company then it's your fault if you go to work and get into trouble.

 

[ATeam]

OOIDA's compliance dept said that several memberss are calling in for clarification on the article, so are both of these threads not "provking thought" as you say you were trying to do in the first place?!

Thought has been provoked, yes; perhaps by posts here on EO and perhaps because many other people who have never heard of EO had their curiosity raised by the article itself.

You and I together can look forward for any clarification that may follow.

My energy on this is not against EOBRs and drivers who prefer them. It is against the FMCSA. It is a hopelessly dysfunctional agency and I would love nothing more to see it's applecart upset by a ruling that busts them proper for failing to follow the congressional mandates they are required to follow. They have broken congressional mandates with impunity in the past. I am thrilled to see OOIDA step up to the plate to take on the outlaw FMCSA.

So much so that I am going to contribute $250 to OOIDA's PAC fund and $250 to its litigation fund. It will be done by phone before close of business tomorrow. I have made such contributions before and encourage readers here to do the same.

GO OOIDA!!!!!