mercer transportation

Which doesn't refer at all to what is commonly called double brokering in the industry. All that did was make it so a carrier couldn't broker. Big deal, just start a brokerage, meaningless law. I remember when that happened.

Broker A books from shipper, broker B books from broker A, carrier books from broker B = double brokered freight. Happens all day every day.

 

You ask for references, then clearly dont read them...

"Something that is completely new, “Specification of Authority” (49 USC 13901) requires written notice to buyers of transportation, specifying under which authority the future transportation services will occur. The only objective obtained in this separation cure in the law is to prevent double brokering, thus creating transparency in the chain of responsibility in the event of a loss."

 

Frankly..they have lost most if not darn near every major customer they had that had great freight...i guess that's what happens when you start bringing on anyone witg a pulse...cause the safety score to plummet..

 

That said she represented herself as a carrier that she wasn't, didn't say anything about double brokering

 

Double brokering law is addressed in MAP 21. Also known as the motor carrier protection act. I’ll let someone find it and post it. But, it clearly spells out what double brokering is and the legality of it.

FMCSA (49 USC 13902 [6]). Motor carriers can no longer broker as they always operated when accepting more freight than equipment to handle. Motor carriers simply “brokered” the overload to other motor carriers without a license.

 

It doesn’t matter if it’s illegal or not to anyone who’s leased, because you’re not the carrier! Read your contract, you signed your rights away to collect to the carrier.

 

Agreed, but the 2 articles prior to yours did not say that.

 

*This is not an insult, or meant to be derogatory in any way. Just to be clear, because I'm not smart enough to word it any better.*

Do you not know how easy that is to get around?

Apparently you've never run under your own numbers. Maybe you did but didn't pay close attention to load boards, or were probably smart enough to not need them.

BTW I apologize for the lunch counter comment, it's obvious you're well informed. It's probable that what's happening here is different experiences leading to differing conclusions.

 

That's kind of the definition of double brokering... Carrier A accepts the load, then "rebrokers" the load to Carrier B. Carrier A does not have a brokering authority, and inturn is acting illegally.
When Broker A has a load from a shipper, and cannot move this load, they can seek the help of Broker B, which I believe they must have the approval from the shipper, which is probably defined in their contact. This action is co-brokering, and is legal, and still offers the legal protections to the carrier.

 

What I see on the load boards most often is multiple brokers have the same load but I've also seen loads that were offered by one broker that disappeared and then came back on from another broker. LS is notorious for this. Now, if a LS BCO pulls the load it's fine but if an outside carrier pulls the load then that's double brokering. I've always been under the impression that this is illegal but I've never seen the regs because I haven't looked for them. I do know that the shippers and other brokers don't like it and won't work with the double brokering broker if they find out.