Who's Responsible

[dhalltoyo]

Many O/O's have asked me directly, or they have sent me an email, to offer an opinion regarding errors in billing and settlements.

Situation: The O/O receives a load offer via the Q/C. The load mile rate and the FSC are posted and the O/O accepts the offer based upon the information he has received from the carrier. The O/O verifies the information with the dispatcher over the phone.

The load delivers and 10 days later the settlement reflects a FSC that is substantially less (75% less) than the original load offer. The O/O contacts the carrier and is told that the shipper called in the load as if the shipper was paying for delivery of the freight, but the consignee was actually being billed for the load and their contracted FSC is lower.

I say the shipper gets rebilled for their error and if they choose not to pay the carrier, the carrier stands behind their load offer to the O/O and makes up the difference.

YES:

NO:

 

[terryandrene]

Depends on the lease agreement in sofar as it concerns load offers and final pay. I'd say that if the offer to the truck is understood to be subject to change, then you have no cause for dispute. If you have nothing in your lease agreement covering ambiguous FSC charges and a load offer is as good as a contract, it should be honored. If it is not honored after the fact then it might be time to search for a carrier that pays at the rate at which two parties agreed.

 

[davekc]

Terry has it right. It depends on how the contract and terms are written. Panther has a "estimated" FSC that could be higher or lower depending on the customer. Sometimes it is higher, and sometimes it is lower. If someone can't adapt to that program, then they can elect to go on a flat rate program which is a guaranteed rate.

 

[cheri1122]

As it is the responsibility of whomever books the load to determine who is to be billed, what the carrier is saying is "We dropped the ball/made a mistake/screwed up, but you're going to pay for it."
I think ....um.....NOT!
I can't see why anyone would work for or with anyone whose word can't be trusted, period.
If that scenario happens often enough to cause the carrier financial distress, then they ought to be cleaning house, not passing the buck [instead of the agreed upon payment] to the drivers.

 

[davekc]

Cheri
In a perfect world that would work. Many times when a load is being booked, they don't know who is paying until several hours later. See this a lot with auto and manufacturing loads.
When a load comes in for example, they may not know if it is Toyota, or one of their suppliers that is paying the bill. Both would have different FSC's based on their volume. This of course is just looking at Panther. And as mentioned, they can elect to go to a flat rate if at any time they think they are getting short changed.

 

[cheri1122]

Ok, Dave - but "not knowing who's paying the bill", or what the payment will be, when booking the load, seems a pretty strange way to do business to me...And a 75% reduction in the quoted FS is a very major difference - enough to have turned down the load, when offered. I stand behind my comment: if I can't trust their word, then I don't work for or with them. (Occasional errors notwithstanding, cause we all do that).

 

[davekc]

I will agree 75 percent is a pretty huge gap. Haven't seen anything to that extreme. As far as who pays the bill, happens all the time.
Most just don't see a difference because they are on a flat rate.

 

[x06col]

It's not ALL just black and white. I'll agree tho 75% is a bit much, say maybe thirty cent or so. If you are that anal bout those things now, jes stick around. Worse *****'in is yet to come.

 

[dhalltoyo]

davekc & terry,

Granted, the estimated FSC is a realistic expectation that both parties can accept.

The variations in the FSC that I have experienced were basically a change in delivery location while in route. Recently, I was asked to deliver 12 miles closer than originally scheduled per the load offer. It saved the consignee from paying another trip charge from the airport air freight terminal back to their location. In this instance, it is a realistic expectation.

The situation presented was a matter of misinformation on the part of the shipper. From the information given to me, carriers have experienced this same scenario multiple times with this particular consignee as several O/O's have told me; therefore, it would seem the carrier bears a certain amount of responsibility to train their employees to ascertain the validity of who is paying.

Hence, the shipper needs to be rebilled and the carrier needs to reimburse the O/O regardless if the shipper pays or not. IMHO

 

[davekc]

I would agree that the carrier needs to step up if this is a reoccurring theme from the same customer.
If so, then one would think the carrier is aware of the issue but instead has a made a decision to cover the load on the back of the operator. One thing for sure if one is to continue on with this carrier, I would make a note on that company and simply refuse any offer that had them involved.

 

[panthercub]

Is it too late for an ex-expeditor to chime in?

I had this happen to me more times than I would have expected in my brief but horrendous expediting career. The answer I was always given (th the point where I just quit asking) was "what you were given upon acceptance was the ESTIMATED FSC; sometimes that ACTUAL is more or less". Maybe so, but the actual never turned out to be more than a fraction of a cent, while it often turned out to be 20, 30, even 40% lower when I got my statement. Now, I don't claim to know how my former carrier, nor any other for that matter, does business, but considering a couple of the runs I did that wound up with substantially lower FSC's, it sure felt like the "estimated" FSC was exaggerated in order to get a load covered.........Just a failed rookie's observation.

Hope you're all keeping busy and profitable

 

[Suds43]

Dave has the right answer......make a note on the company and simply turn down load offers from that specific company. Problem solved.
Isn't it amazing how it's always the O/O that takes the 'hit'?

Get me once, shame on you!
Get me twice, shame on me!

 

[LDB]

I almost never get a statement with the fsc exactly as offered. It's usually always a fraction of a cent higher or lower. It evens out in the long run. I did have one run one time where the fsc dropped from 43 to 24. I complained but got nowhere. Whatever amount is offered is the minimum amount that should be paid, within the less than a penny margin for arithmetic rounding. Period. No exceptions. Loads are accepted or rejected based on fsc more than any other factor. The carrier should step up to the plate and honor the offer that was accepted in good faith. They should bill the party who set up the load and hope to collect it. The customer should also be flagged so they can get everything straight before booking any further loads from that customer. The carrier is in a far better position, or at least should be, to eat a $100 hit from a bad customer than the operator is. The operator should NEVER receive less than the originally offered cpm fsc. The total could change if the miles changed but the rate per mile should be absolute. A carrier doing anything other than that can never achieve best of the best status.

 

[TS462]

well i worked for an owner at panther and this is where he and i had problems on almost every load the FSC being an estimated charge 90 % of the time is was always lower than what panther had quoted. so the moral to this story is since i never got to see the pay sheet only what he told me they paid i didn't stick around very long because there is no way almost every load lost money on the fuel

 

[LDB]

My teams get a copy of their portion of the weekly email showing runs paid and all pay items, i.e. fsc, d/h etc. The fsc is off by less than 1cpm in 99 out of 100 cases. It is exactly the same as the offer, i.e. xx.0cpm in maybe 1 out of 10 at most. The other 90 or so are either 00.x over or 00.x under and those even each other out. It's that 1 out of 100 where the customer pulls shenanigans that should be covered so the operator gets what they were promised for taking the load.

 

[Broompilot]

Is the QC not being charged to the owner being the LINK between you and the company?

Is the information on LOAD ACCEPTANCE not a written contract? Are the dollar amounts not final as the load is being put on the truck?

My only suggestion to those in dispute TO SEND A MESSAGE Stating the following

I accept this load with the Dollar amount of the LOAD being XXX FSC being XXXX milesXXXX PU point being such and such address and delivery: Time of Arrivial etc..

I am now requesting INSISTING that you Mr. or Mrs. Dispatch or load planner acknowledge my above amounts.

This is UNFAIR an amount agreed upon is exactly that. Everything that comes via the QC or over the phone and agreed upon SHOULD BE PAID in that amount. All verbal conversation dealing over the QC should be sent via QC.

Talk about away to screw the drivers, like its your fault that the Shipper and Consgn. are arguing about Terms of whos gona pay SO LETS LET IT GO TO DISPUTE AND THE DRIVER IS THE ONE WHO GETS SCREWED. It should always be the Carrier NOT THE DRIVER.

Gotta give my old co. credit here: They NEVER EVER PLAYED THAT GAME with me EVER.

Paid me what I got, if a dispute came up I could prove my point I always was treated fair and usually won my dissagreement regading pay.

 

[davekc]

well i worked for an owner at panther and this is where he and i had problems on almost every load the FSC being an estimated charge 90 % of the time is was always lower than what panther had quoted. so the moral to this story is since i never got to see the pay sheet only what he told me they paid i didn't stick around very long because there is no way almost every load lost money on the fuel

For someone in simular circustances, I would advise getting a copy of the settlement sheet. Additionally, you should be able to call payroll to confirm a amount on a paid load. If there is a problem at that point, then it would likely be the fleet owner if Panther is showing one thing, and the owner is paying something different.

 

[geminiblue]

Until the laws are changed to enforce that owners operators are in fact "Business People" we will always have these issues.

GB

 

[nightcreacher]

Guess I've never seen what you are all talking about.In the 30 years that Ive driven truck,both as a company driver and owner opp,I have never had a load pay different than what I was contracted to haul it for.When I had my own authority,early 80's and up til now as a leased owner opp,every load I do pays exactly as dispatched to me.Doesnt matter if paying party changes rates,i still get paid what I was told it will pay,guess some of you might need to lQQk into your contracts.