The Inevitable Begins

[Camper]

Lots of reasons. Late too many times, calling in a lot and complaining about various things, turning down too many loads, the list is endless. It's why we need Paul Harvey to fill us in. At times like these carriers often look to get rid of dead weight, for lack of a better term, knowing that people are standing in line to replace them. All kinds of reasons may be given, even though no reason at all is required.

My point exactly. There are plenty of reasons why a contract may be terminated. Out of all the countless reasons, the one the original poster implied makes the least amount of sense. Again, carriers have nothing to gain financially by simply dropping contracts. The bottom line is this is a personal matter between the carrier in question and the drivers in question. Without their accounts of the situation, this thread is nothing more than "he said, she said" banter. It's noise in a vacuum.

 

[Turtle]

I didn't mean to infer JD should use the forum. The point is: if he is using excuses other than the truth, he should have been forthright with the drivers.

Why do you think he's using an excuse other than the truth?

You didn't infer (imply, actually - how you say it is implied, how it gets interpreted by others is inferred) that JD should use the forum, and I didn't mention it because of anything you said, but you did imply that he was less-than-honest about why he canceled those contracts. We have speculations here about some of the reasons, which are labeled as unwarranted conclusions, and we have conclusions which are nothing more than pure speculation. It's all a load of speculation.

The statement of: "It may seem like it makes sense to keep a driver on tap "just in case"...it could also be the scenario of raising one's white flag and backing out of a non-profitable venture gracefully as possible. Maybe JD doesn't want to get behind in what drivers are due and rather than make up some story about his pen running out of ink and he couldn't get a new one because WalMart was closed for Rosh Hashana, he will just trim his force until things pick back up."

Is actually a scenario that will prevent a cash flow problem, rather than one which indicates there is a current cash flow problem. It could be as simple as he no longer wants to mess with someone who is signed on with multiple carriers. There's more and more of that attitude going on now with more than a few carriers. But in any case, all the speculating in the world won't make one bit of difference in that JD is under no obligation to "fess up," to the drivers or to us about the real truth, whatever that might be.

 

[Turtle]

The bottom line is this is a personal matter between the carrier in question and the drivers in question. Without their accounts of the situation, this thread is nothing more than "he said, she said" banter. It's noise in a vacuum.

Oh, knowing expediters the way I do, even with their accounts, I have a feeling it would still be little more than the banter so well described above.

 

[westmicher]

We think that any carrier that promises "no fees", meaning the carrier pays all the fees, insurances, etc. is going to be MUCH more sensitive to a truck/driver that is not available all the time and a less-than-perfect delivery schedule/performance.

If a truck/driver pays all their fees, and doesn't feel like working hard all the time, the carrier probably worries much less. If there is no cost to the carrier to carry trucks/drivers that may, or may not be available, why wouldn't the carrier sign on as many trucks/drivers as he can, at least until the good trucks/drivers get upset they are not getting enough loads/miles?

This is a two-edged sword. Let's be honest here, if you seek a carrier that does not charge any fees/insurances, you are a financial burden to that carrier if you are not available ALL the time. If that carrier senses you are running for others as well, you are just asking to be cut first, whenever the carrier needs to cut expenses.

We have no problem paying our reasonable expenses, and do not feel bad if we don't want to run at any particular moment, but we DO expect our carrier to keep us as busy as possible when we are available. This business model seems to be a better match for us.

We feel strongly that we must provide superior service, and good profit opportunities for our carrier, in order to maintain a mutually beneficial relationship with our carrier. Its working so far!

 

[moose]

. Might be time to consider secondary avenues of income. Such as investing in a mule breeding operation.

There's a farm in Missouri along I-44 that have a bill-board :
"Bulls for rent".
when will society wake up for this new natural prostitution extortion .

 

[JOHNCLARK]

Due to "lack of freight, increased fuel costs making certain expeditions unavailable to profitably bid, and the cost of liability insurance", two expediters we know were "relieved" of their contracts with J.D. Clark this morning. Sign of the times? More to follow?

"Bruises fade and bones will mend-but a psyche can be ruined FOREVER" : LisaLouHoo, c. 2008

Ughhh, why am I always the last to know? Someone that has the info please send me a PM. As I have mentioned in the past I don't like this side of the business (small trucks) cause it's too **** competitive and no matter what I can never win. Even though the industry is slow all around our big trucks are suffering also. Never a cash flow issue.

The tough part is the office that operates the smaller trucks is independent of us and I'm getting a lot of "egg in my face".

We had a amazing 1st quarter(overall) as I'm sure everyone had and everyone knows this industry is a out of control roller coaster.

As there are always 2 sides to every story, I hope that there where good reason to "relieve" them of their position. Our cargo vans are not under contract and run for multiple companies. And if these contractors would like to call and discuss the reason they where relieved I hope they do.

 

[greg334]

Something could be headed the expediting way. Might be time to consider secondary avenues of income.

Got to tell you Lisa, you lost me with the first post. I and a few others have tried to figure out how two contracts out of thousands and thousands of people who have contracts may have any impact on our work or is important at all to the small picture. Actually for most of us this small (micro-sized that is) carrier's issues may not indicate much other than a cash flow problem but certainly not about something wicked this way comes.

BUT Westmich made a good point

This is a two-edged sword. Let's be honest here, if you seek a carrier that does not charge any fees/insurances, you are a financial burden to that carrier if you are not available ALL the time. If that carrier senses you are running for others as well, you are just asking to be cut first, whenever the carrier needs to cut expenses.

I personally want my carrier to charge reasonable fees because that gives me incentive to run my business as a business, not as a paid vacation or some other lazy avenue of return for really easy work. It removes another layer of control from them and shifts me into another level of freedom. In this case, if JD Clark pays for all the fees, then they have to keep those trucks exclusive and running without refusals to make it a good business practice.

In another forum in another thread, there is a question about what toys people would want to attract drivers, which you may not think this is relative but it is. THe problem is when the owner, or carrier does everything for that driver, it stops becoming a business by the mentality that the driver is an employee. This is the case with some carriers who go beyond to attract owners and then get stuck with a problem of producing more than what is normally needed just to keep up their margins.

 

[LisaLouHoo]

Doesn't matter what you want to believe, what YOU haven't heard, or if you just like to argue -which I sudpect the case may be-what I bore witness to just a few hours ago only confirms what the other two drivers were told.

Just hecause I know of 3 contracts canceled doesn't mean those are the only ones. I don't know everyone that has contracts with them. DUH.

I would try to explain my position again but frankly I am the one to blame for trying to once again give a flying f about fellow expediters who I should know by now live in their own little worlds where their only view is their own colon.

Sorry to have been a bother to you, apparently that is how you view me.

Just don't post about slow payers and lost contracts.

Apparently these things don't happen in your worlds.

Liars.



"Bruises fade and bones will mend-but a psyche can be ruined FOREVER" : LisaLouHoo, c. 2008

 

[BillChaffey]

I would guess a "Mule Breeding" operation would be harder the Expediting to make a living. Mules are for all practical purpose's Barren. Maybe one in a million will foal. If you want a Mule, get a good Blue Jack and a nice Quarter horse mare.

 

[Jefferson3000]

Lisa:

If the contracting vans are having increased liability costs to the carrier, then they must not be carrying their own insurance. If they are not paying the liability, then their is NO WAY a carrier is going to allow them to run for multiple people. So that part doesn't even add up. Unless they were running multiple under JD Clark's insurance and THAT is the reason they got cut.

I am aware of a straight truck owner op who attempted that and lost BOTH accounts in the same day. Both carrier parties and the owner op are represented on this forum, so I will say no more.

 

[jerry-jones]

i just chained my stirring paddle to the wall. only way i can think of not to stir things up

 

[LisaLouHoo]

I would guess a "Mule Breeding" operation would be harder the Expediting to make a living. Mules are for all practical purpose's Barren. Maybe one in a million will foal. If you want a Mule, get a good Blue Jack and a nice Quarter horse mare.

It was a joke, son.

"Bruises fade and bones will mend-but a psyche can be ruined FOREVER" : LisaLouHoo, c. 2008

 

[skyraider]

I really dont know what the inevitabel begins means, but if someone gets let go or fired in American, its really none of our business or to take up the spirit of defense of them is really none of our business, am I missing the point here?

 

[usafk9]

I have never personally ogled the inside of my colon. However, after enjoying the South Texas fare as I have the last few days, and its direct consequences, I'd hazard a guess to say that it's pretty clean.

 

[purgoose10]

i just chained my stirring paddle to the wall. only way i can think of not to stir things up

That's a good point. Lot of heavy finger pointing without any facts.

I also have a 45 with a hair trigger and I have to hide it in order to keep it from going off prematurely.

 

[Jack_Berry]

Ughhh, why am I always the last to know? Someone that has the info please send me a PM. As I have mentioned in the past I don't like this side of the business (small trucks) cause it's too **** competitive and no matter what I can never win. Even though the industry is slow all around our big trucks are suffering also. Never a cash flow issue.

The tough part is the office that operates the smaller trucks is independent of us and I'm getting a lot of "egg in my face".

We had a amazing 1st quarter(overall) as I'm sure everyone had and everyone knows this industry is a out of control roller coaster.

As there are always 2 sides to every story, I hope that there where good reason to "relieve" them of their position. Our cargo vans are not under contract and run for multiple companies. And if these contractors would like to call and discuss the reason they where relieved I hope they do.

did anyone read johns pos?. look at the bolded part. if they were relieved of their contracts it wasn't thru j.d. clark.

when they actually post here then we will have their side of the story and not the second hand side. in any case further speculation is pointless until they come forward. even then i doubt this will be settled in public.

 

[LisaLouHoo]

Seeing as how the news was delivered by JD himself to our camp, then I guess there is no reason for a call to be made to JD to discuss said reasons for terminating service, right? The reasons he gave were spelled out in the original post of this thread and it was more than just insurance.

Unless there is an imposter posing as JD on the phone...oops, did I just create an "out" for this?

Moral of the story: it can happen from any carrier. It may continue to happen. Be on your toes.

I am done with this thread now. I have to go see if I can convince Mr. Bill to invest in Mexican Jumping Beans as a source of biofuel....

"Bruises fade and bones will mend-but a psyche can be ruined FOREVER" : LisaLouHoo, c. 2008

 

[Turtle]

Seeing as how the news was delivered by JD himself to our camp, then I guess there is no reason for a call to be made to JD to discuss said reasons for terminating service, right? The reasons he gave were spelled out in the original post of this thread and it was more than just insurance.

I'm confused. So you're saying that he wasn't, in fact, using excuses instead of telling the truth, and he was, in fact, telling the truth? Also, another point of confusion... the original post and a followup said two cargo van expediters were "relieved" of their contracts with J.D. Clark, yet John Clark stated quite plainly that they have no contracts with cargo vans. So it appears the original post was incorrect from the getgo.

I would try to explain my position again but frankly I am the one to blame for trying to once again give a flying f about fellow expediters who I should know by now live in their own little worlds where their only view is their own colon.

What position? You started a thread of hearsay and gave no position or explanation other than "Sign of the times? More to follow?" If you have a position or an actual reason for posting something, it would be nice if you'd just state it outright, rather than having people try to sift through a bunch of followups and read your mind. It would also be just great if you wouldn't get all mad because they can't read your mind, or because you're all over the place in your responses. You implied more than once that there was deception on the part of JD Clark, now we find out there wasn't any at all, and now all of a sudden the entire thread was because you want to warn other expediters and because you give a flying f about them? We've seen this scenario before from you where you've posted cryptic text and then got mad at everybody because they couldn't decipher it to get to the real meaning of what you were trying to say.

It's as if you suddenly realized that carriers cancel contracts or end relationships with contractor. It may be a sign of the times, but carriers have been canceling lease agreements with independent contracts ever since the first contract was issued. And you can bet there will be more to follow. Carriers cancel contracts all the time for a myriad of reasons, and they may or may not state the full truth as to why. They may give a reason, or give no reason at all. Contractors do the same thing where they cancel their lease with a carrier, and sometimes they tell the carrier why, sometimes not.

Now that you've been at this for a few months, welcome to the wonderful world of independent contracting in the expediting industry. Maybe you should have been here 2-2.5 years ago when things got really ugly and contracts were being canceled, by both parties, about as fas as they could be ripped in half.

Moral of the story: it can happen from any carrier. It may continue to happen. Be on your toes.

Moral of the story: It absolutely can and does happen from all carriers. It always has happened and will continue to happen. We don't really need to be on our toes because it's stated right there in the contract that the contract can be canceled at any time for any reason. We know that. We aren't surprised by it. Why are you? A few contracts get canceled and you think the sky is falling? Perhaps you need a flashlight?

 

[TheDark1]

Thanks for starting this post...

Everyone should know that their contract can be terminated at any time. We've all seen this: "We reserve the right not to serve anyone for any reason other than race, creed, sex, etc..."

Drivers and O/O should understand that there are carriers out there that do not tolerate poor performance and basically don't need to specify an individual reason for termination. If it's not the economy maybe it's consistently being late, not calling with updates, being out of service for long periods of time, multiple turn downs, yelling at dispatch and stating "I DON'T LIKE BEING WOKEN UP" when he calls to check your status at 09:00 and you were supposed to be in service at 07:00? (sound familiar) Maybe it's easier for someone to blame the economy rather than be truthful and then have to listen to a rant of excuses. There is no nice way to say "your services are no longer need"...

Some of the members had it right. It's not up to anyone to argue as to why someone else got terminated. Smart companies don't terminate good help but they do cut dead weight.

Also, why does it appear that some Owner Operators find it amusing to state that a Company may be in financial distress? I've never notice any posts from Company Owners posting that a fleet owner with two trucks must have a problem with cash flow because he pulled one of his trucks from the fleet because he needs to sell? (again, sound familiar)

It has always amazed me that even though we're all in this crazy business together, we still can't unite and work together. There will always be that handful that thinks it's "us against" them.

Here's an idea for everyone: Try posting something positive for a change. If you constantly say we're in a recession, we'll stay in a recession. If you constantly say you got screwed, it's probably your fault.

Just my two cent....PEACE!

 

[LisaLouHoo]

I'm confused. So you're saying that he wasn't, in fact, using excuses instead of telling the truth, and he was, in fact, telling the truth? Also, another point of confusion... the original post and a followup said two cargo van expediters were "relieved" of their contracts with J.D. Clark, yet John Clark stated quite plainly that they have no contracts with cargo vans. So it appears the original post was incorrect from the getgo.

What position? You started a thread of hearsay and gave no position or explanation other than "Sign of the times? More to follow?" If you have a position or an actual reason for posting something, it would be nice if you'd just state it outright, rather than having people try to sift through a bunch of followups and read your mind. It would also be just great if you wouldn't get all mad because they can't read your mind, or because you're all over the place in your responses. You implied more than once that there was deception on the part of JD Clark, now we find out there wasn't any at all, and now all of a sudden the entire thread was because you want to warn other expediters and because you give a flying f about them? We've seen this scenario before from you where you've posted cryptic text and then got mad at everybody because they couldn't decipher it to get to the real meaning of what you were trying to say.

It's as if you suddenly realized that carriers cancel contracts or end relationships with contractor. It may be a sign of the times, but carriers have been canceling lease agreements with independent contracts ever since the first contract was issued. And you can bet there will be more to follow. Carriers cancel contracts all the time for a myriad of reasons, and they may or may not state the full truth as to why. They may give a reason, or give no reason at all. Contractors do the same thing where they cancel their lease with a carrier, and sometimes they tell the carrier why, sometimes not.

Now that you've been at this for a few months, welcome to the wonderful world of independent contracting in the expediting industry. Maybe you should have been here 2-2.5 years ago when things got really ugly and contracts were being canceled, by both parties, about as fas as they could be ripped in half.

Moral of the story: It absolutely can and does happen from all carriers. It always has happened and will continue to happen. We don't really need to be on our toes because it's stated right there in the contract that the contract can be canceled at any time for any reason. We know that. We aren't surprised by it. Why are you? A few contracts get canceled and you think the sky is falling? Perhaps you need a flashlight?

Actually, thanks to an insider info PM, I found out he wasn't on the level about terminating van contracts. Hus excuses only skirt the truth. Therefore, given the true reason behind it, I reiterate: it can happen to anyone.

No, I do not need a flashlight. Maybe some people need reading comprehension refreshers. I wasn't surprised...I believe the thread title was very clear, hence the word "inevitable". Once again, in an attempt to help, the cyberbullies come out of the woodwork...

"Bruises fade and bones will mend-but a psyche can be ruined FOREVER" : LisaLouHoo, c. 2008