So you want to "own " your own company

The rate that's quoted on the loadboard is "the rate". You can attempt to negotiate if you wish. It's a flat fee to the truck.

 

Always ask for more money don't think that the rate that is on the board is all the money in the load if you ask for more it just comes out of he brokers cut which I think should be regulated to a flat rate.

 

Are you for a free market or regulation. In a free market you can charge what you want for your service. With regulation there will be a limit to what you can earn.

My point, be carefull what you wish for, you just might get it. If the broker becomes regulated on his income, you will too.

 

I have mixed feelings concerning whether broker rates should be regulated. I prefer a free market to one that is so regulated. This type of legislation would enable the government to get into my business more than they are now. Most broker agreements name the broker as an "AGENT" of the carrier. If the broker is acting as an agent of the carrier then it should be the carrier who decides what they should pay the broker for their services. As an agent of a carrier the agent should be paid by the carrier rather than the shipper. It is the carrier that should receive any money collected from a shipper and then pay the broker once those funds are received. If you look at the services most broker perform, it is much like the relationship between a manufacturer and a manufacturer's representative. In the manufacturer's representative relationship with the manufacturer, the representative is paid a flat commission by the manufacturer. The representative is considered an independent contractor and may represent more than one manufacturer, and usually does. But it is the manufacturer who decides what the services of the representative are worth and it is the manufacturer who handles all paperwork, collection of funds and distribution of commissions to all representatives.

The way the current relationship is set up the carrier is put in the position of representing the broker rather than the other way around. It is almost like the carrier works for the broker. In most other representative relationships, such as real estate, there are specific commissions which are usually charged, although there is no regulations which govern those commissions. I think the difference is disclosure. Most Realtors disclose their commission rate up front when the buyer or seller signs the contract.

I would like to see the broker/carrier relationship change. If the carrier paid the broker then it would eliminate the need for the broker to have a bond. However, it could require the carrier to have a bond.

I would expect most brokers to oppose this type of relationship. It would make them more accountable to carriers. It would also make them dependent on the carrier for payment. If this were implemented then brokers could require carriers to have a track record. In other words, they might require that a carrier be in business for a minimum amount of time before they will represent them. There could also be more requirements that brokers could require before they would do business with them. A free market always works better than one that is too heavily regulated.

 

The part of the industry that I would like to see regulated would be to have shippers and receivers have a certain type of authority which could be revoked for failing to achieve certain items. If a truck has a 10:00am appointment time and he is still there after 12:00pm then an OOS would be issued. If the goal is to keep drivers safe on the road and worry about our hours of service then it should be a regulated part of the shipper and receiver to do there part. Get the pallets off the truck and sign off on the paperwork and if the receiver wants to break the pallets down and count then that is there business however it shouldnt take more than 2 hours. Regulate manpower assigned to loading and unloading so that 2 hours is always an acceptable time.

As for brokers being regulated I am not sure that would be a great idea however maybe a cap on the % taken from the load or that it be disclosed like in real estate on the above example would be great. I feel as though most of us on here do not have a problem w/ a broker taking a cut just make sure it is a fair cut ( which I think it usually is ) and not 50% or some crap.

 

You make a valid point. Could a regulation be implemented under Section 376 of the Leaseing Regulations instead of creating a new law?

 

Instead of leasing on, why not look at a dispatch service company? That way you can drive and you have an office working for you 24/7 based on your preffered lanes and how you want to run. This means if the load pays 1.75/mile, the money goes directly to you.

 

The $1.75 is still after the broker's percentage, which is what the last few posts were about.

As for using a dispatch service, it depends on how the service is paid for. The few I've contacted want 10% of the gross. This in my business opinion is too much. i.e. $1.75 x 10% = .175 x 2500 (industry average) = $437.50 per week. For that much $$$ I'd train my wife to do my dispatching.

 

Since this would not involve leasing to a carrier I think that we would need to have a separate law which specifically addresses this particular issue.

 

Most broker agreements name the broker as an "AGENT" of the carrier

This is what I based my question on. However it is the broker who is an agent (leasee ?) to the carrier (independent o/o). Could the terms of this lease, even on a load by load bases, be subject to the 397 regulations?