Broker Transparency

I thought you were leased to LS? If so, LS is the carrier and you are a lease op. Also, what’s up with the express cash screen shots?

 

I guess you can call yourself whatever you want. But a carrier is the one with the MC/DOT number. Far as the screen shots go, I’m not impressed, especially so if you do indeed have multiple trucks. Also, with photoshop, is there really anything that’s factual anymore?

 

I jumped into being an O/O too soon and paid the price for it, so I'm not exactly a sparkling model of business success. However, I am an experienced driver and a moral/ethical person. I also have a great understanding of business (except my own...). So, looking at both sides of the coin, here's what I see.

I watched a load on the boards sit for over a week. $1.17 a mile cross-country flatbed. I was talking to one of the brokers that had it listed (about a different load) and we both chuckled at the rate. I mentioned it had been there over a week and wouldn't be going anywhere anytime soon. She wholeheartedly agreed with me and admitted she wished she could get the shipper to pay more. From her perspective, it's an unfulfilled promise to the customer. That's when I realized it's not always the "greedy broker." Some shippers don't want to pay.

I bring this up to make a point. The rate was too low, so nobody took it. We found the point where not even a bottom-feeder would take the load, which is amazing.

I don't believe the problem is with the brokers. They are in business to make money, too. They provide a service and deserve compensation. Same for drivers. Our new O/O, GPD, has a valid point. It should be us vs. them, not everybody against everybody. Unfortunately, as long as there are bottom-feeders driving rates down, we'll never be able to establish a "going-rate."

The broker knows this. The drivers know this. The solution isn't stripping the brokers naked for the world to see, and I reallllllyyyyyyy don't want to see Jimmy 2 Times naked, the solution is to find a way to weed out the bottom feeders. If that means going back to the days of regulation and making authority harder to come by, I'm all for it. Even if it meant I might not have been granted my authority, it's better for the industry as a whole.

(BTW, not a bottom-feeder, just a poor judge of mechanical equipment. Bought a lemon and tried to keep it on life-support too long. The amount of $ I poured into the truck overwhelmed me so that when it did finally go belly-up, I had already run out of cash reserves to replace it. My mistake that I hope others will learn from.)

 

You act like this is the first time this has come up. Mid 80's, mid 90's, 04.

Not just old laws, transportation cfr's pre-dating the MCA.

You truly believe that a party that is not regulated should have their confidential information made public?

 

Not gonna lie, this one cut deep.

 

That isn't true, if one person knows, so can many. Like i said, many times you sign a NDA even doing a RFQ. When i sign that in a contract i'm not allowed to disclose those costs.

Again you're insisting a non-regulated entity allow the disclosure through a second party of confidential information.