Crime,inc

This is where we get into a slippery slope because practically everything in life can be declared bad for me and therefore I should be prevented from getting it, doing it, buying it, using it, or be a part of it. All it will take is the right motivation for a bureaucrat to decide what is bad for me and that's it, I just gave up liberty under the delusion of protection. I would rather fail at doing something rather than be prevented from doing it in the first place by a bureaucracy.
The government's job should be to inform and leave it to the individual to decide for himself what to do with his life. The pursuit of happiness is a natural right and if leasing on to a fleece program is what turns my boat then so be it. Life has consequences.

 

In 1976 I entered into a purchase agreement for my first tractor, a 1974 White Road Commander with what was then one of the biggest truckload and specialized carriers in the US, northAmerican Van Lines.
Notice I said purchase, not lease. The title was in my name from the beginning, with them listed as leinholder. I was under no obligation to purchase maintenance from them, although I was encouraged to do so. The interest rates were competitive with used truck loans at any dealer. I had to put $2500 down on a $25K tractor, the equivalent of the price of a new car at the time.
We had over 5000 drivers in 3 fleets, most of them doing the same. NAVL had high turnover rates, the New Products fleet had almost 100% turnover meaning they sold 2000 tractors per year to new hires.
Did they make money from just selling tractors? Yes.
Did they manipulate dispatching, giving the drivers with the biggest payments more loads? Yes.
Did they get successfully sued and were required to modify the practice by the courts? Yes.
I was one of the successful ones who is still in the trucking business 43 years later as an owner operator.
Many forfeited the down payment when they let the tractor go back to NAVL, in lots of cases trashed, because they were not suited to be an owner operator.
A lot of the Lease Purchase contracts out there, including the one from Prime are illegal, with so many conditions that you no longer control huge segments of your operation, effectively making you an employee, which is why they need to be regulated. Things like absurd deductions for a maintenance fund, loan shark rates on the borrowed money, non fulfillment of load promises etc. And the same abuses are causing more legislation to come into being like in California.
Which is my point. I don't know where to draw the line to protect people from themselves. But I am willing to let a court of law make this judgement.

 

do we really want more government intervention or do we want less?

If most want to regulate L/P contracts (which look at how well regulating brokers and carrier leasing is going), then why are you all crying about ELD and physicals?

 

The part you said, the government should inform the individual and leave it to them to decide, that's what I've been saying about companies offering lease purchase. I like that idea. Let's face it though, we all know the government doesn't know how trucking works, so they should at least put it on the companies to educate them about the industry, about business, then the lessors can decide for themselves. At that point, the accountability is all on the lessor. I dig it

 

Personally, I am a fan of government intervention certain things need to be looked at closely. In the case of the Prime lawsuit, if the government looks at this closely, there wont be quite as many lawsuits. Many people in the trucking industry talk out of both sides of their mouth. They preach accountability on a person if they do a lease, turn a blind eye to the company ####ing over the the driver. The regulations that dont affect him or her directly, they are all for. The ones that do, then its, " We need less government." No, we need more government intervention because people dont want to act right. Having little or no government wouldn't be a good thing.

 

You couldn’t be more wrong. So I’ll play along. We bought a house in western MT in 2005. You know what happened in 08-09. We took a huge loss at the end of 2011 getting out of it. I left the marriage with no debt and a paid for 2005 Chevy pickup. I moved back home from Western MT, so no relationship with the local bank. No finance company would touch me without cash for a down payment. The guy at the bank didn’t know me from Adam because I had moved away from home 14 years prior. So my friend, who does all his banking at said bank, co-signed a loan. And I went trucking. It’s tough to freeload on someone’s couch when I was in a small bunk FLD for 3 months at a time running cattle out of California.

But you can stick with your story if it makes you feel better. I’m thankful every day for what I have now because I know what it took to get me here. Like I said, somehow I’ve made it this far in life without working for a mega and getting into a lease purchase, so it can be done. People don’t research and want to blame others for their own shortfalls and that doesn’t sit with me.

 

Unprepared people lose money and are taken advantage of every day. When someone steps onto a truck lot the salesperson knows right away who is in front of them based on the questions they’re asking. Should the salesperson say “Sorry, I can’t sell you a truck. It’s clear you have no idea what you’re getting into” or should they be allowed to sell them the truck? The burden of research is on the purchaser or lessee. The companies are glorified used car salesman.

 

If a person doesn't have the means to pay for it, like you said repeatedly here and other threads, then no they should not be allowed to sell them a truck. A salesman on a lot isn't going to sell anybody anything if they dont have money, a steady income, and/or a good line of credit. These companies have no business being salesmen, glorified or not. They aren't selling anything, they ####ing people. Big difference. I can't understand why you dont think it's wrong for companies to offer lease purchase in the model that they do but to each his own

 

Because I don’t feel “I didn’t know any better” is a valid excuse for doing something stupid. And my concern is that stuff like this will bleed over into other areas where the government will say they know what’s best for my life. I don’t think I should be asked to give up certain things because other people do dumb stuff.

And I should’ve been more clear, I wasn’t talking about someone buying a truck with no money. In my mind I was thinking about the guys we see on here who dump their life savings into buying a truck and then have no idea what to do past that point. I didn’t make that part clear and I apologize. So in that premise, even though they can get the truck the questions they ask and how they inspect it will tell the salesperson what they need to know. And what they need to know is if this person is an easy mark that they can point towards a less desirable truck on the lot that has some issues they may not catch. They could lose everything by not doing research on the truck. But it’s not the salesperson’s job to steer them away from it. Their concern is getting the truck off the lot.

Anyone can google “is trucking lease purchase bad” and get all the information they should need. But I guess that’s too tough for most.

 

Are you trying to apply common sense to the situation? You know how this will end