Driver caught twice for no English language proficiency

It strikes me that in a country where the free market rules (at least hypothetically) and money talks loudest, the obvious solution to this issue would be for the insurance companies to make it financially prohibitive to have foreign-born drivers who don’t pass a test as a condition of employment. They sure make it hard for drivers with DUI and reckless driving records to get a job.

The cynic in me wonders if maybe they don’t care because statistically it isn’t enough of a problem to affect their bottom line.

 

That is entirely the point. Until hiring unqualified drivers/carriers becomes a liability, companies will continue to do it.

 

But is it even a problem if the actual frequency of insurance claims is so low that the insurance companies aren’t bothered by it? It might seem like a mountain to us, but what if it actually is just a molehill?

 

It can be both a mountain and a molehill simultaneously.

Non-domiciled cdl holders don't appear to be higher risk than domiciled drivers. While in my opinion those without ELP present a large danger to the carrier, the industry, and the general public - there isn't any real data to draw conclusions from. However these populations are easy to identify and vilify, so it's easy to make a bunch of noise that makes it look like the administration is doing something about road safety, in a way that makes their base very happy, without actually doing anything. The number of Esteemed Members who thought this crack down on ELP and non-domiciled drivers was going to quickly spike rates was startling. Through vitriolic rhetoric, a molehill becomes a mountain, and when it suits them, they can claim they turned a mountain into a molehill.

But let's assume the targeted population presents a significantly higher risk, and results in much higher insurance claims both in number and size - it doesn't mean that companies will do anything about it. Ford knew the Pinto was going to blow up before production, but they did the math and figured that paying the death claims was going to be better for the company than proactively fixing the issue. All the major players - shippers, carriers, brokers - have decided that the increased costs of substandard drivers is more than offset by the reduced labor costs. This is evidenced by the business model of the megas - a constant stream of new meat whose inexperience cause expensive errors, but doesn't hurt the bottom line. General Mills/GP/P&G/etc will get fed up with Schneider's screw ups, and switch to Swift, then Roehl, then Heartland, then back to Schneider. Everyone knows a few more loads will end up in the ditch and service will be an issue, but the cost of hiring good drivers and setting up the logistics properly costs too much.

And that's what's being admitted. The real picture is much scarier. Look at how Amazon has things set up. They have a limited number of their own drivers, but 90% of their internal freight is moved through outside carriers - either Power Only or brokered loads. OOS inspections go to the carrier, not Amazon, and when the CSA score gets too bad, the contractor is canceled. When one of their contractors wrecks, it doesn't come back on Amazon. Amazon makes a claim against the carrier's freight insurance, and other involved parties will make claims against the carrier's liability insurance. Let's say the carrier gets nailed with a 'nuclear verdict' $20 million in compensatory and $40 million in punitive. Punitive damages are capped in most states, so let's call it $30 million. Insurance pays out the policy max ($1 million), then the carrier is on the hook for the rest, but by the time the case is done the carrier will have zero assets to go after. Does anyone think Amazon is going to kick in? Nope, didn't think so. The lawyers all know this and cases get settled for pennies on the dollar. If they don't, the artificially depressed minimum insurance standard and 'tort reform' means the costs get spread around enough that none of the at fault parties really get hurt.

There is no easy way to document and demonstrate just how dangerous the Amazon Power Only business model is, and Amazon has built a pretty solid liability shield. Rough math indicates that saving 10 cents per mile on the rate it pays it's contractors saves Amazon over $200 million a year. Industry wide it's about $22 Billion - an awful lot of claims can get paid out while still turning a profit.

CDL mills, the ELDT boondogle, L/P, brokers - they all contribute to putting unqualified drivers on the road. I'm not just talking about ELP or foreign drivers. Wave a magic wand and eliminate them - the void would be filled with native born American idiots doing the same things. So it's a mountain of a problem, it just pales in comparison of the mountain range of profits to be made.

 

I think we are all capitalists here, but you have to understand the incentives for capitalism to work. In the case of insurance companies they make their money by getting trucking business to sign policies. They make even more money the more drivers they have covered. So on two counts having more immigrant drivers makes them more money.

Secondarily, entry level insurance rates for trucking companies are significantly higher than a seasoned company. These immigrant trucking companies, and chameleon carriers, make insurance companies a lot of money.

More policies - More Money
More drivers - More Money
More profitable policies - More Money.

There is no doubt these immigrant drivers cost them more money, but since only a fraction of the drivers in any group cause accidents, it is still very profitable to insure all these companies. As the safety risk increases, as violation appear, these insurers have no issue raising individual policy rates to compensate for the risk.

Any losses form this gamble are easy to amortize, just rase rates on all your policy holders. Not only raise the individual rates in theses immigrants policies, but raise rates on all entry level trucking policies. Even move the costs, to all policies, raising rates of all the insured.

By all means, check to see if am correct, and go up to the owner-operator forum and reed. Have their rates have increased substantially in the last few years since we have seen immigrant drivers take over more? What about entry level trucking company rates?

There is part of the problem. What test as a condition of employment? English test? Driving test? Written Driving test?

By having a CDL, even non-domiciled, the state and federal government are certifying that driver is skilled enough to drive a truck!

Yet, most states and federal government allow you to take the tests in any number foreign languages, in total contrast to the English language clause.

Most states have independent CDL testers because they know it is easier to tester shop and find one that is sympathetic to the immigrant, or even bribable.

No carriers are ever made liable, or held to account for hiring a driver that cannot speak or read English.

Insurers don't administer English tests to individual drivers. That is unlikely to happen when the state and federal government certify, by nature of the license, that the driver is fit to drive. To test for English would open themselves to a whole new world of discrimination lawsuits.

Glad you brought this up. Before M.A.D.D. DUI was not an issue for insurance. It wasn't until laws changed to reflect the danger in drunk driving was insurance forced to adjust the risk analysis for drunk driving.

Non-English speaking drivers are much more dangerous than drivers that have drug and alcohol convictions. They are much more dangerous than drivers that are speeders.

 

I'm not from Arkansas but I wrote them an email after seeing this.
This is the response I received.

Dear Fellow Arkansan,

Thank you for writing to the Office of Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Governor Sanders welcomes and appreciates hearing from Arkansans across the state on issues important to them. The Governor is working hard to implement bold, transformational policies that help make Arkansas one of the best places to live, work, and raise a family.

I have communicated with the Arkansas Highway Police (AHP) and been assured that they are following all federal laws and regulations. The AHP do not have the authority to revoke a commercial drivers' license. That authority lies with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Association and the courts. AHP does, however, place vehicles out of service, and have those vehicles towed, when appropriate.

Thank you for contacting our office.

Sincerely,
Office of Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders
Department of Constituent Services

 

The offense needs to include jail time for the driver and impoundment of the truck, trailer and load until the company can produce a driver that can speak English and pass the ELP test.. That would be real change.. these folks don't care about OOS for a day or so... Not a real deterrent...

 

Sure they show only 2... but how many equipment assets do they share with other trucking enities??? And how many inspections have they had in the last 12 months??? With 2 trucks they should only have MAYBE a dozen inspections.... but I'd bet they have many more than that, which means they are cheating the system as a camillion carrier.

 

Actually you raise a very valid point in an incident where a driver of a Tractor Trailer was illegal would the issuance company cover the incident? They have lots of clauses written in the policy that would allow them to get out of paying including as was mentioned if the driver was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Makes one wonder why any company would operate with drivers who were illegal. Unless they aren't illegal perhaps entered the country illegally originally, then obtained asylum which would make them legal and hence perhaps why a state like NY would issue them a CDL. Anyway, food for thought, one thing I do know is I bet the attorneys around the country are rubbing their hands with glee at all the pending court cases. One business I'm sure that won't be feeling any effects of the economic decline.