the TRUCC act

[riverrat]

I have been doing a lot of reading on what people are saying about the TRUCC act and find it unbelievable that a bill that is only 4 paragraphs long can be interpreted so many ways.

About all true independents are for it and have been from the start

Most leased O/os are for it with a few that seem to have a real high paying gig going against it, although I think that some of them may actually be brokers.

company drivers at first were indifferent as they could see no benefit to them but as more people post on the different sites the drivers are starting to lean towards being in favor of it.

The Brokers are rabid about it and are trying everything to get this bill stopped.

I personally think that it will fundamentally change this whole industry for the better the transparency part of the bill will fix the issues that have been caused by unscrupulous practices in this industry without resorting to the government regulating rates

 

[davekc]

The issue I see only addresses the fuel surcharge. Some brokers have told me that "freight will move at market costs".
I believe in many cases, fuel surcharge will pay at 100 percent, however they will pick up the difference they have been keeping with a lower freight rate.
I am all for it, but I am not sure of its effectiveness.
Full transparency from the customer is the only real solution.

 

[riverrat]

Davekc,
I agree completely that is why I like this and support it here is the TRUCC act in its entirety

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Trust in Reliable Understanding of Consumer Costs Act' or the `TRUCC Act'.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE AND PASS THROUGH OF MOTOR CARRIER FUEL COSTS.

(a) In General- Section 14102 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(c) Disclosure and Pass Through to Cost Bearer- A motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder, providing or arranging truckload transportation or service using fuel for which it does not bear the cost, shall provide to the person that bears the cost of such fuel--

`(1) a payment in an amount equal to the charges, invoiced or otherwise presented to the person directly responsible to the motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder, which relate to the cost of the fuel; and

`(2) at the time payment is made under paragraph (1), a written list that specifically identifies any freight charge, brokerage fee or commission, fuel surcharge or adjustment, and any other charges invoiced or otherwise presented to the person described in paragraph (1).'.

(b) Billing and Collection Practices- Section 13708(b) of title 49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(b) False or Misleading Information- No person may cause a motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder to present false or misleading information on a document or in an oral representation about the actual rate, charge, or allowance to any party to the transaction or transportation.'.


section 2 part c paragraph 2 reads;
2) at the time payment is made under paragraph (1), a written list that specifically identifies any freight charge, brokerage fee or commission, fuel surcharge or adjustment, and any other charges invoiced or otherwise presented to the person described in paragraph (1).'.
Which provides for complete transparency and,

the final paragraph reads;
False or Misleading Information- No person may cause a motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder to present false or misleading information on a document or in an oral representation about the actual rate, charge, or allowance to any party to the transaction or transportation.'.
which gives the legislation some teeth.

from what I have been reading the only people against it are the brokers who are fighting it with everything they got.

 

[riverrat]

here is the link to the senate hearing concerning it, click on the video of the hearing in the middle of the page and you can fast forward to about the middle it is about 2 hrs long but it is also raw footage and you can fast foreward thru some of it and an hour will give you time to see the important parts

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee:

 

[TeamCaffee]

Why should any business person have to show what they make on a deal? I do not see how this makes any sense to anyone if the load does not pay enough turn it down. As a business person when we get a load offer that pays way above what our minimum is I sure the heck do not call our carrier and tell them they are paying us to much to run a load. If I understand this bill right all it says on the FSC is IF a FSC is charged 100% must be passed on to the person buying the fuel. So why not just quit charging a FSC and not have that hassle?
There is no way we want this bill to pass as I feel it will be detrimental to our business.

 

[pjjjjj]

The way I read it, they have to disclose to the person paying for the fuel (us), all the charges. I don't read it as they have to disclose to the shipper, how they pay it out.
Keep in mind that not all carriers are as generous with fsc and information regarding loads as your carrier probably is.
But all this aside, you can bet the carriers who are currently taking a large percentage of the fsc for themselves, will not end up getting 'less' revenue; if they have to pay out more to the right hand, they will just deduct it from the left hand. (Well you get what I mean!)
So, I don't see how this will fix anything. Those not giving it already, will find a way to keep more of something else instead.
And if the rate to the OO gets lowered, to allow them to pay 100% of the fsc, what will happen if fuel costs come down? The OO will get less fsc, as well as the lower rate, so they will get even less!
That's my 3cents anyway!

 

[Crazynuff]

Why should any business person have to show what they make on a deal? I do not see how this makes any sense to anyone if the load does not pay enough turn it down. As a business person when we get a load offer that pays way above what our minimum is I sure the heck do not call our carrier and tell them they are paying us to much to run a load. If I understand this bill right all it says on the FSC is IF a FSC is charged 100% must be passed on to the person buying the fuel. So why not just quit charging a FSC and not have that hassle?
There is no way we want this bill to pass as I feel it will be detrimental to our business.

The issue is the cost to the shipper . If the FSC isn't passed on as intended there is no justification for charging the shipper a FSC . Why not quit charging a FSC ? Hypothetical figures but say a broker takes a 10% cut and charges a shipper $1.20 a mile plus $.40 FSC . The broker keeps the FSC and gets $.52 a mile . If the FSC is not charged will the broker lower the shipper's rate or charge a` flat $1.60 a mile only getting $.16 a mile and giving the O/O $1.46 a mile ? 3PL companies are very opposed to disclosing their rates . What do they have to hide ?
Also interesting is while many here are opposed to legislation regarding FSC , OOIDA has been strongly supporting it . OOIDA supporters say OOIDA is the voice of the trucker . How can one voice speak for all when all truckers don't agree on all issues ? It's the same with the split sleeper regulation . OOIDA and teams want the old rules back . Many solos want the new rules to stay .

 

[riverrat]

interesting comments, I guess its the old school in me where I like honesty and fairness for all concerned, I know the days when a handshake stood for something are long gone, and honesty in a business transaction is whatever you can get away with is the new meaning of honor and integrity but what really persuaded me that the truck act is needed was learning that there are a LOT of brokers that end up with 60% and more of the cost in a load and somehow I just don't feel that is right and with the way the internet is used to skim profits from the loads without any controls at all and human nature as it is today without at least some controls the brokers are going to do and say anything to keep even more of the profits.

 

[fastrod]

I think this bill is the best thing that has happened in trucking in a long time and hope it gets passed quickly.

 

[pjjjjj]

I think it's so sad that the government has to become involved to make people play fair.

 

[Vinnie T]

This is a terrible bill

Brokers do serve a role and it's very positive

Panther, Fed EX, Landstar, Ryder, Penske, National Logistics etc etc etc will have large divisions or in some cases the whole company will have to change how they do business, or if they can do business at all. I know most 3PL's charge a flat fee (NLM, Ryder, Penske)..Panther, Landstar, and Fed Ex will suffer the most from transparency. The brunt of the pain will come down on owner ops..no more robbing peter to pay paul, there will be much less extra cash to pay employess etc. This is BAD news for the large expediting firms that most of us work for, they whole expedite industry will suffer. Brokering and asset based trucking is more interrelated them all of you think! Brokering brings in a lot of extra cash so they can pay us good money to run expedite. This is bad news..real effin bad if this gets passed!!!

 

[Vinnie T]

I think it's so sad that the government has to become involved to make people play fair.

Not one company on this board takes that cheap freight from brokers! Play fair..it's capitalism! I am far from a hard core conservative, but the government already handicapped this industry with NAFTA and letting the Mexican truckers in..noe this?

WHat a nightmare!

 

[riverrat]

all i can say is watch the committee hearings it sure opened my eyes.

And I am against regulating freight as much as the next person that is one of the reasons I can support the TRUCC act it is NOT regulating anything just putting us on a level playing field with the brokers