OOIDA: FMCSA, motor carriers violating EOBR decision, circumventing rules

Discussion in 'Truckers News' started by Brickman, Nov 16, 2011.

  1. Brickman

    Brickman Trucker Forum STAFF Staff Member

    12,905
    12,201
    Sep 17, 2006
    WY
    0


    http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/2011/Nov11/110711/111111-01.shtml
     
    Eaton18 Thanks this.
  2. Truckers Report Jobs

    Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

    Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.

  3. ds2dale

    ds2dale Bobtail Member

    31
    13
    Nov 8, 2011
    Lompoc, CA
    0
    Wow. The use of EOBRs is illegal. Everybody must go back to paper. How interesting. This is going to be a real mess.

    Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk
     
  4. RickG

    RickG Road Train Member

    12,812
    6,135
    Jul 22, 2008
    Owensboro , KY
    0
    Here's a key point being overlooked
    " He pointed out that with the regulation removed from the books, motor carriers can now only use devices that were legal under the regulations prior to June 2010 when the reg went into effect, and they must resume maintaining all supporting documents."
     
  5. dave26027

    dave26027 Road Train Member

    1,284
    804
    Sep 10, 2009
    Dallas, Texas
    0
    What a wonderful free democracy we live in! A blissful place where big and small Government fight itself and Big Business tries to referee for profit.

    Just like red light cams and X-ray equipment, EOBR's are being shoved down our throats for profit- under the false cover of "Public Safety".

    What a JOKE.
     
  6. mgfg

    mgfg Road Train Member

    1,753
    626
    Mar 29, 2010
    0
    Can you imagine ALL the newbies that have come out of school and gone to work for the likes or Werner, etc, etc, etc and have NEVER had to do a coloring book!

    There won't be enough trees to print all the log sheets to cover all the mistakes!
     
  7. ECU51

    ECU51 Heavy Load Member

    I read the article( i paruse Landline alot lately),,and this article made me chuckle,it almost sounded like he was crying that they won a case and somehow nobody listened(Big company's) Now let me make a few diessenting points about this from a person that DOESNT belong(or would I) to OOIDA,,so here I go

    They "won" a case that vacated a law that Requires company's with bad safety records be placed on ELOGS,and yet he himself decrys carriers and their safety records,So okay what is it here Jim??? are you FOR safety(when it dont apply to OOIDA,and your members) and NOT When it Infringes on your members:biggrin_2554:

    Case in point,a few weeks ago their was an article about one of OOIDA's members that was denied parking at a Family Dollar DC in Duncan Ok,in the article he complained on two points that the said driver(OOIDA member) was forced to be on ELOGS and was out of hours when he arrived at the DC,so the receiver should have provided parking(Even tho Family Dollar has a long standing policy of no "Overnight" parking at their DC's)

    OOIDA contended that the FEDS needed to step in and FORCE shippers and receivers to provide "safe area" so drivers(eeeerrrr MEMBERS) could take their break,and yet in the very same issue he wrote an OP-ED as to why the ELOG/EOBR rule be vacated as it "infringed" on it members "rights"

    In one breath he wanted the Govt to step in and Force another part of the industry to comply with a standard and yet he wants our industry FREE of Govt Intrusion?:biggrin_2554:

    When it applies(Federal Mandate) to another entity GOOD!!! BUUUUUUT when It applies to OOIDABAAAAAAAAAAAD:biggrin_25521:

    If a company chooses to use ELOGS/EOBR's well it is their decision to use them,just like its your choice to be employed by them,Its just funny that OOIDA in this article wants a company to be mandated but they(eeerrr I mean he) dosnt want his members to be mandated.

    Isnt it obvious(or in his mind Oblivious) that major carriers want ELOGS(for their ease of compliance) so shouldnt he,,oops i mean OOIDA respect their right to run their company to run how they deem necessary:biggrin_25525:
     
    Brickman Thanks this.
  8. Eaton18

    Eaton18 Road Train Member

    1,755
    1,103
    Sep 3, 2011
    Waverly, KS
    0
    That's one way to look at it. This is what I'm seeing with this whole EOBR thing.

    First, my understanding that Werner claims credit for inventing Elogs. Werner is a mega-company. So I wonder if they stand to make big $$$ if all companies are forced into using them?

    Second if there was a way to convince FMCSA to mandate a carrier transition to them, then the sales would tend to increase.

    Third, what about the very small carriers, the mom/pop type of companies? The ones that have say less than 50 trucks. What would the expense be to them, to be forced into using them. Yes, while the FMSCA uses the original excuse of bad safety, ie; HOS compliance, that's the door opener. It's been posted about how within a few years everyone will be using ELogs. So those little companies that may not have HOS issues, will still be forced to use them? Why? Could it be the almighty greenback?

    This is just my opinion, just my out-of-the-box thinking, but this could possibly be another tool being used by the almighty mega-carrier to force everyone else out of business. If you can't beat them with honest market-place competition, then you run them out, bankrupt them. Force so many regulations on them that is near impossible for them to keep the trucks moving. Just keep chipping away, until there's only a couple left standing for the big fight.

    It's not OOIDA (no I'm not a member), it's the court that threw out the nonsense. If FMSCA had their ducks in a row, it would have stood up in court. The court seen through the smoke, and tossed it out. What OOIDA is complaining about, is that they are ignoring the court's ruling. Would you complain if you knew someone was blatantly ignoring a ruling? Your neighbor gets told by the court to turn his music down at night, yet chooses to ignore it. The neighbor on the other side, complains, yet you think they shouldn't?

    I see your point about wanting to force the DC, which should not be done. That's not the real problem with that issue. The real problem is the driver, not planning, pushing the limit, then suddenly being in a bind.

    If the courts rule on something than even those like FMCSA should comply, not act as though the laws do not apply to them.
     
  9. RickG

    RickG Road Train Member

    12,812
    6,135
    Jul 22, 2008
    Owensboro , KY
    0
    Do I misinterpret this or do you really believe Werner invented e-logs and gets royalties on their sales ?
     
  10. ECU51

    ECU51 Heavy Load Member

    Plz dont take this the wrong way,but on all of your points it sounds like your "shooting from the hip",need to do a lil research to bolster what you are saying,,okay one at a time here we go

    1.Werner,no they didnt "invent" ELOGS,they were the 1st Large company to mandate all of their trucks to have them(been over 15 years)it was a choice they made to run them,in fact they were the only "large carrier" to do so up until the FMCSA mandate came dow,but they wernt the only ones,many many O/O's have used some type of electronic logging on PC's for years,also they are multiple companies that make and support some kind of ELOGS system

    2.carriers were selected on the overall score (I.E.safety rating),not all have or will,if your company is non compliant well then your forced on them

    3.Cost to "Mom/Pop's well that could be as little as $50.00 a years in a Iphone App,also when they compare company to company they only compare same size to guage your score,so Mom/Pop vs SWIFT,,No that wont be a fair comparison so they are only compared to same size,and if they are a compliant company with no issues then they wont

    Mega Carriers running Vs Smaller Ones: Again apples and Oranges argument,

    Regulations: they apply accross the board,so what applies to Mega,applies to Small

    Comparison:they only rate carriers as to the size against another same size carrier

    Cost:Mega has more trucks so in essence they actually PAY more per truck to be compliant

    Court Ruling: It was OOIDA that brought this to the court(court didnt just make this up by its own),and all the carriers(Like Werner) CHOOSE to use ELOGS as they way they are required to do so,its just a method of keeping track of a drivers HOS(as would be paper),if anything by using EOBR's they are adding to the safety aspect of their company by making drivers run100% Compliant,if not they wont be employed

    The ruling didnt mandate a carrier be forced to take out the ELOGS, ifso the country would have come to a literal stop on that day,,RIGHT?:biggrin_25513:

    and trust me CRASH & PATT filed right behind that ruling also,,so stay tuned
     
  11. ds2dale

    ds2dale Bobtail Member

    31
    13
    Nov 8, 2011
    Lompoc, CA
    0
    Before everyone goes off like a bottle rocket, keep in mind that the lawsuit concerned the potential for driver harrassment. The rule didn't address the issue.

    All the other stuff is incidental. If you have a really sick sense of humor, it's pretty funny, too. (One could ask, "Who would a driver harrass, anyhow?") Hardy har har, yuckety yuc.

    Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk
     
  • Truckers Report Jobs

    Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

    Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.