ATA at it again

It is some of the big carriers who wrote and have pushed Pryor of Arkansas and Alexander of Tennessee to introduce the bill for EOBR's. If I remember correctly it was the CEO who was credited for having actually written the bill. Those who signed on were USA Trucking, JB Hunt, US Xpress and Covenant. All are major players in the trucking industry.

The best way to deal with those who tie up our equipment is to not haul their freight unless they are willing to pay detention. I prefer that to having the government come in and put another regulation on this industry. I don't want the government telling me what I can charge for my services nor do I want them to force shippers or brokers to pay a certain amount of money for detention. I am capable of handling that myself. There are a couple of shippers whom I will not haul for due to them keeping my trucks tied up without wanting to pay detention. I didn't need the government to do that for me. It is my business and my responsibility.

 

TO:All you drivers that are advocating the "let's not haul their freight if they don't pay detention" approach

WHICH ONE OF YOU IS GOING TO BE FIRST???

The first to turn down a load that gets you out of a bad area and back into a better freight lane,
the first to turn down a load that gets you home,
the first to turn down a load when your payment is coming up,


AND


THE FIRST TO HAVE HIS TRUCK REPO'D BECAUSE YOU TURNED DOWN TOO MANY LOADS???

 

It works pretty well for me...

 

When I heard about this bill being put forth by Pryor and Alexander, I called both offices. One said something about making it a level playing field, but would not go into any detail. The other hit on safety. As we all know, both claims are bogus. For them to even mention smaller carriers should speak volumes. They are fearful of competition from small carriers. They are making claims without any substantiation of the facts. They feel threatened, so they say, and they want the government to help them compete. Never mind that they can undercut the rates that many of us run. How about giving small carriers the same fuel discounts and prices for equipment that the major carriers pay? After all, we should have a level playing field. Or perhaps they should just pay a higher price for their equipment and fuel.

There has never been a study that proves than EOBR's will improve safety, as far as I know. You cannot legislate safety. You can make all the rules you want, but you will NEVER have a 100% safe society. It will not happen. Besides, life without risk is not much of a life.

There is nothing to stop you from buying and installing an EOBR in your truck. It is your money. You are free to do with your money as you will. It should be my right to continue to use paper logs rather than go to the expense of buying an EOBR and paying a monthly fee to a company to do what I can do with my paper logs. It should be an individual decision. Competitors should not be allowed to force through legislation that is designed to limit competition. If they want a level playing field then they need to learn to compete. They need to stop whining to the federal government to help them compete.

If you want to put something about detention in your contracts with brokers or shippers there is nothing to stop you. In fact, you can put anything in your contracts that you want.

I don't know what has happened to Americans. So many want the government to help with everything. People are afraid to compete. They want the government to do the work for them. Things have certainly changed since I started in this business over 40 years ago. Back then, the last thing any of us wanted was another government regulation or agency sticking their nose into our business. The more the government does for you the more freedoms you will lose. The more indentured you become to the government the more you will be indebted to the government for your livelihood and existence.

If you get tied up at a shipper and they don't want to pay detention that you feel entitled, then don't haul their freight. It is simple. That is what I do. I didn't need a new government agency or a government regulation. I just say NO! I won't haul their freight.

 

I often make changes in contracts that I have with brokers. If there is something in which I don't agree, I either change it or don't do business with them. When it comes to rate confirmations, I get everything ironed out before the confirmation is sent. Occasionally, a broker will put something on a confirmation that I don't agree so I will market it out and initial or have them send a new agreement. There is no reason to sign any agreement which has language or terms that you don't agree. I don't do business with many people any more and most I have had a long relationship so it is now not much of an issue. If I happen to deal with a new company, then we both need to agree or we don't do business. I have never been afraid to walk away from a bad contract or agreement.

I agree that there will probably be unintended consequences to having EOBR's in trucks or having government regulations which force shippers to pay detention. Once consequence could be that rates will be dropped to offset the cost of paying detention. It might, as you noted, provide for a fixed amount for detention which could be less than rates that some have already negotiated. On a positive side, it might make shippers more accountable. There has been some discussion about the feds forcing shippers to time stamp all bills upon arrival and departure for some time. This could be the means for them to get what they want without so much resistance. Some shippers do time stamp bills, but most don't.

It still comes down to whether you want to run your business or have the government do it for you. As a businessman, I can negotiate any terms that I choose and if the other party agrees, then we have an agreement and without government intervention.