Mokan-Distribution in Kansas City, Mo

I've been a driver 22 yr's, had 1 non-chargeable accident & 1 over axle weight ticket, because I didn't weigh the load, my bad since Mo-Kan Dist. pays for all scales. Yes I drive for Mo-Kan, have for 2 yr's & enjoy working there very much.

Now to adress Mr. Mcd's belly aching:

!.

 

I've been a driver 22 yr's, had 1 non-chargeable accident & 1 over axle weight ticket, because I didn't weigh the load, my bad since Mo-Kan Dist. pays for all scales. Yes I drive for Mo-Kan, have for 2 yr's & enjoy working there very much.

Now to adress Mr. "Mcd's" belly aching:

1. Since I've been # Mo-kan, never has one of our units been put out of
service # a DOT inspection, ChuckMcd the last time I saw him was
driving for a container service whose equipt. looked worst than ours.

2. Who in their right mind pulls a trailer w/40,000 lb load down the road,
w/ a blown tire? I've been asked to but have said NO! and am
respected by Mo-Kan for my desicion.

3. What the Mo-Kan Rep. & ChuckMcd stated about the tandum
incedent was all true except, neither said that there was aprox
300+ yards of concrete driveway between where the trailer was
hooked & the street where ChuckMcd made a left onto before he
ripped the trailer tandums's out on. Who in their right mind pull's a
trailer onto a public through-fair w/o the pins set in the the rails?

4. Now about working over DOT hours of service, 3 things all have to
match ; time card, driver log, & trip manifest, all for DOT purposes.
I've not yet been on a run where it has happened, but those that have
the company pays for the motel, & when I have come in # 14 hr's
been told no matter what the scheduled start time NOT! to come in
before 10 hr's off.

CHUCKMCD made his bed, now he has to sleep w/the bug's and should
quit belly aching about it!!!!!!!!!

To all Driver's:
If you believe your's or others' safety is endanger only tell the story
on a web page, tell DOT!!!!!!!!!

 

This is why I own my own truck/trailers. I had to pick up one of my trailers in St. Louis right after the first of this year. On the way from out Colorado I took a trailer from the RB Auction to a contractor just north of KC and then wound up taking a stack of container chassis from the Mocan yard in KC to someplace in St. Louis and had absolutely no problems. That was my one and only experience there and I would probably go back. I have some opinions about the first gentlemans problems there but I think they are best kept to myself. All I want to say about it is sometimes you make your own luck.

 

Wow - this guy has enough resentment to satisfy Osama Bin Laden. If this driver took 1/4th the time, energy and emotion he dedicated to write and outline this story and put that same effort into trying to be a good and conscientious driver, he'd have every transpotation and trucking company in the country pursuing him to come to work.
My life and business experience tells me that this is clearly fear driven behavior which typically comes from an inherhant lack of confidence and self esteem. It has been my experience, and is supported by everything I learned in my high school and college pshycology class, that when we are forced to confront our own faults or shortcomings, which apparently this guy has plenty, we either get honest with ourselves and work at improving our situation, or we refuse to look at what our part was and we blame everyone else for our problems.
The real problem here is not the company, as I see it, but the drivers own inability to look at those areas where he fell short of the mark, and get honest and get honest with himself. He, and his attitude is the problem. If he had the so called good "union" job, he'd screw that up too. This guy sounds like just another disgruntled worker somewhere trying to blame someone else for his screw ups.

 

Little Princess here,
Not to get involved in the "bad company" conversation, just quoting to mention something that too had happened to myself. While working for a former employer, I had to pick up a trailer at a shipper. The trailer was front heavy, and the nose was cranked up so high that the landing gear were jammed. It took an hour to crank the gears to catch the gears to lower the nose for connection. Once I scaled on the companies property, being that the company did have a load scale, I had to slide forward.

How does that relate to my quote, simple. The pins would not properly release from the rails. At the time, I did not know it, but the pin release pull spring had been stretched out. The pull arm was not long enough to catch the tension spring to apply the tension to release the pins and lock so the pins would slide. I did grab a poor Knight Driver out of his cab, and had him hold the release arm so that I could slide. Without ripping the rail slides from the rails or trailer, which is what I have read has happened.

This Knight Driver stated that most, if not all, failures to release on the pins, are due to the springs which the pull arm are attached too. What he didn't know, and I did, is that the pull arm will not move or lock out, if the tractor applies any weight on the rail pins. All one has to do, is back up, applying rearward pressure, hold the foot brake, keep it help until air brakes engage, usually a 5-7 second count. One will not "Compound" ones brakes when maintaining foot brake for less than a 10 second count. 15 on a slope.

Little Princess out.

ps. the company deadlined all returning trailers for rail inspection of the entire rail system. Seems a driver ripped off the entire rail assembly, taking out 7 trailers parked on the property, by not taking the time, to take the time, to get help, when help was needed.

 

I've only had to slide tandems once on one of Arrow's old steel flatbeds. No matter how I worked the brakes or moved the truck, the pins would not come out. It took me 45 minutes to beat them out of the rail with my winch bar, and about 5 to beat them all the way back in after I very carefully slid it. I'd seen a truck loose its trailer tandems on the highway the week before so I was paranoid.

As far as the thread of the living dead, I grew up in KC. I remember seeing their trucks running around and every time I saw them I thought "Wow, that doesn't look safe. Rusted bent trailers with bald tires wobbling on bent rims.

 

Little Princess here, just some thoughts on both sides of the subject. Having had a similar conversation with previous employers, and not one to think that "It happened to me, therefore I know everything" point of view, just a debatable view that included the companies phd'd physics head mechanic.

From myself, your apology is accepted. What was left out of the posts, was that despite good intentions and openness, this is a nonmember readable forum, and no-one knows the mental stability of the total population base which has access to read this or any public readable board. That being said, it is a matter of "right to privacy" under the 14th amendment privacy act law, which does protect individuals 1st amendment rights of speech. It also covers the laws governing retribution, and deliberate creation of fear, things which are also covered independently by laws specific to those acts. This is just a point, not an attack.

Alright, two very valid points. The not arguing schematics, and having ones mechanics check all equipment "sitting" on your property.
Where this diverges, and where alot of drivers today, have issues with, is the status of the equipment "off property". Customers, irreguardless of status, do have careless employees who do do damage to equipment. The first individual to discover this damage, is the Driver. Despite what ones own paperwork states, one cannot control the treatment of equipment once it leaves both the property or the drivers physical control. This being said, I bring up the second half of this point. A Driver cannot, not! do a visual inspection of "Obvious warpage" of the trailer rail tandem rail system. Once cannot help but see obvious warps, looking at the ICC bumper, since the edges of the bumper are almost in a direct visual line with the rail system, nor can one not see visible warpage when one is checking the cables, airbags and underside of the trailer at the tandem attachment end of the trailer. Looking down the rails from the underside of the trailer, with ones back towards the front, or tractor end, anything short of 1/16th inch warpage is visually observable, side to side, or downward. This would include egg shaped warpage of the actual pin holes. This "Visual Inspection" can take less than 5m, which is a long time to stare at something. What the Driver cannot see, and our divergence joins again, is the microwarpages which require special equipment to detect, this includes microfractures or stress fractures relating to metal, including the actual pins themselves. What a Driver cannot visually see, would be the 1/16th stress warpage of the pins, or less than obvious from the point on or facing pin point, warpage. This does require a mechanic, simply because the rail has to be removed to visually inspect the pins themselves. This would also include internal disintigration of metal due to microfractures which are not visibal to the naked eye, but have allowed the environment in, this is usually hidden by paint to protect exposed metal from the elements. Now, painting over exposed metal, especially metal that had ALL rust removed, is a good idea, if the pits are removed as well, otherwise, one runs into the hidden rust damage, which does cause equipment failures, including rail systems becoming detached from the trailer upon the application of a braking system, (a simple law of forward kinectic physics reguarding momentum). Rust damage like that, can be hidden damage, not obvious to visual inspection. (Thank goodness, I met a mechanic who loved a good conversation as much as I do )

This is a sound practice, irreguardless of which business point of view it comes from. There is "probably" not a driver out there, who will argue that point, from the point of non-preventable driver witnessed incidents. Yet, most, if not all equipment "preventable" failures, are not due to driver irresponsibility, it falls back onto either the customer, or company. And that arguement always devolves into the "he said/he said's and "It's not my employees" de-evolution of refusing to accept responsibility. Hense it is a no-win situation for everyone involved, except the insurance company, which recovers through rate hikes. I will not argue, that there are drivers out there, who are irresponsible, not just with company equipment, but with the individuals own property.

This is precisely the "it's not my employee who messed up" pointed out above. Since neither of us was physically present, and from a business owner point of view, one cannot state that the driver did not call in with any certainty, which has devolved into a "dispatcher vs. driver" said argument. What has not been stated before, is that there are individuals who have had experiences, with dispatchers, which falsified notification of the driver to the employee in an effort to avoid being terminated over that individuals failure to notify the next person in line. The claim of "it is not my responsibility" does not protect the office employees, any more than it protects the mechanics, business owner, or drivers, when the chain of notification is broken. Since the driver in questions chain of notification began with the dispatcher, total support of said dispatcher is questionable, purely from a business point of view, for one cannot state with absolute certainty, irreguardless of whether one works with that employee daily for years, days or months. Not all employees behave the same, when the "boss" is around, as that individual would behave had such association not been made, or the "boss" was not around. Phone records are wonderful things, should things even be allowed to devolve to that point, and usually, it already has devolved to that point where phone records must be solicited to support or unsupport statements made by either employee, simply due to the inappropriate office relationships with those whose responcibility it is to monitor the daily routines of the office, and where most, if not all drivers, have issues, is that the dispatcher does not see the driver, or seeing the driver, has the ability to exploit office relationships when it comes to committing prosecutable offenses and abuses against the "non-office" or driver employees, irreguardless of contract of employment of the driver employee. In such instances, it leaves the "driver employee" with little recourse but to make it public knowledge that such abuses are taking place. Not all personalities lean towards litigation, when peer pressure, or collection of systematic abuse can be collected or used to enforce workplace laws, not just company policies. (( This is a mistake, alot of business's make. Not just the HR employees, or those who are narcisistic enough to believe a college education equates to intelligence...my humble stated opinion. )):smt102 what can one do ^.^

Not being there to witness firsthand, will not offer an opinion, since it falls under the "he saids" rules of discussion.

You did bring up a good point, on #11-13. On the flip side of that point, not all tires go with a noise. That being said, one can lose a complete set of tandems, or even a single tire on the trailer, or drives of tractor, and not have either truck or trailer rims, touch the ground. Depending on how the rubber yields, how the load is secured, or loaded, there will be no noticeable effect in the steering mechanics felt through the steering wheel. In some instances, depending on the above mechanics, one can lose both sets of tandems, one across from each side or opposite staggered, without rolling the entire vehicle. One WILL feel such in the steering wheel. It is therefore, in the best interest of all, to begin a "Controlled" stop, whether this stop takes 5 minutes, or 100 miles. Trailer will "fall", but it won't roll killing driver or anyone else unfortunate enough to be alongside the vehicle. The rims, if the hub assemblies are still there, will not be on the road, due to the physics involved in the framing of the dual sets of wheel assemblies, at least until the vehicle is rolling slow enough to tip the balance onto the rims. Where is also becomes unnoticable, is during daylight hours, one cannot see sparks. Even using ones fender and side mirrors, without actual smoke or noise, one cannot see inside tires, sparks, or directly behind that trailer. It therefore leaves the driver to rely upon the accessorial safety device commonly known as the "chatterbox" or Citizens Band (cb)radio. Without one in the vehicle, short of other drivers risking everyones life by distracting, or causing sudden wheel movements through excessive noise, there is no way to safely notify a driver in such a situation, that the vehicles balance has been compromised. There is another divergence of opinion, yet I shall leave it unsaid for now.

That is true, not just for commercial equipment. Where Drivers have issues are with companies or the employees of companies, that do not factory maintain equipment as much as possible to allow for an older aging fleet where cost effective. There are business's where the employees do not maintain unbroken equipment, waiting rather to wait until neglect becomes more expensive to maintain, than maintaining the equipment would have been to begin with. "Rolling Wrecks" on the other hand, from a safety point of view, unless said property owner can prove beyond a shadow of doubt, that such "wrecks" are purely cosmetic, are cause for contention with drivers simply because it leads to the first impression of financial neglect or hardship by the business owner, not a good thing, since it is tantamount to personal hygeine neglect extending beyond the medical standpoint of permissable hygeine neglect of 8 days without a shower. Also such appearing equipment, when not cosmetic, contains hidden frame warpages, which, had the vehicle been a smaller vehicle would be permissable to operate from ones home to work, or school, or store, which in a commercial motor vehicle, is not acceptable due to the tire wear, potential for hidden stress fractures, which can cause fatal equipment failures, including death, and unnecessary fatigue. Such fatigues for the 100a.m. (aeronautical mile) driver, would not necessarily cause a safety issue, but for those operators/employees operating outside this milage radius, it is a safety issue. Not to mention Not Cost Effective, in the expense of replacement tires, and rubber recycle fees, due to unnecessary wear of said rubber equipment necessary for the momentum based operations of said equipment.

From a purely OTR point of view, I can see the safety minded sense of mandating a break after 5 hours of work, this is also an OSHA law/regulation governing all forms of workplace hours. Meal times for lunch are mandated by OSHA, and federal guidelines. For the OTR driver, this mandated break, can be extended to 1hr, due to the hour work schedule. For the OTR, this does not include, mandated breaks for break, or equipment checks. Implementing the mandated break for less than OTR, is commendable, since this does guarentee the driver not only a meal break, but under the heavy manual labor laws, a fatigue recovery break. OSHA also dictates mandatory manual freight movement breaks pertaining to the loading and offloading of the vehicle by warehouse employees, and drivers, by mandating mandatory break times associated with the manual removal of freight.

What the shipper/reciever employees do, is out of the driver and company control, except for the shipper or reciever business authority. One can only hope, upon arrival or departure, that the customer is not behind schedule, or has negligent employees, which has caused equipment damage.

Federal budget spending solicitated from congress the previous year, dictates the cost effectiveness of on road inspections of your companies equipment, it does not, mean that on property site inspections by DOT personnel are not cost effective, such inspections can either be prearranged, with perhaps payment for such inspections, or beyond your informed knowledge, a "surprise" inspection of equipment, which again is probably payment arranged. This has a two-fold purpose. It sets a company safety standard, and shows that such standards are being maintained by the lower level employees. Now, while it does not cost a driver, to pull into any DOT Inspection equiped site, and request a vehicle inspection, it does cost the company, should there be any violations found under voluntary inspection of vehicle initiated by the driver. Not to mention, it gets those cool colored stickers stuck on ones windshield
The DOT Safety Department, does not control prepass, that is purely mandated by the highway authority pertaining to tolls and scales, and is a purchasable service not a requirement for operations. Satisfactory ratings are based not only on "on the road" inspections, but also on company property level inspections, preventable and non-preventable incidents, including wrecks, yet what mandates the level of Safety Care from a Drivers employment point of view, would be the number of vehicles placed out of service due to company level neglect. The rate of driver turnover (which operating a school, and hiring same students to complete the mandatory 310 hour vehicle operations education for entry level employment CAN artificially inflate such statistics, and Aught to Be kept Seperate, from Actual turnover rates due to company abuse, neglect, ect) which dictate whether the company is a "good" or "bad" company to work for.

Now that I have written a book, based on a conversation, had a long, long, long time ago, I shall politely bow out.

Good night everyone.

Little Princess signing off.

 

I worked for mokan for three years and they had really bad equipment (although they have been upgrading because it was costing to much to keep those heeps running) , they were also in the process of cutting down pay for new drivers to pay for those not so new replacements.
like i said i worked there for 3 years and at first it was pretty easy going. the only issue besides the equipment was a lack of back up from the home base,,,i dont know how many times i had equipment problems or a problem with my delivery and no one would answer at dispatch,, so you just have to walk and find help or make the call on what to do when there was no one to receive what you were delivering.
And everything stays good until you start demanding better equipment or criticize the office staff for not doing their job (which they would usually blame on the driver, like everything else).,,,,,,more or less as a driver at mokan you just have to suck it up or quit, they have a revolving door policy and that is all they will probably ever have,,,it isnt bad for a temporary gig but not a long term one ,,,unless you know someone in the office and then you might be able to keep some of your dignity!

 

If your a member of the staff and the way you have your name hidden I can assume that your name is Troy! I also worked there not as a driver but in the warehouse! My father also worked there at the same time as I as a driver of one of the box trucks! I must agree with every one else who says stay away from there! They also treated the warehouse workers like crap after we would bust our butts off! Our hours was also vanished on our check including the last paycheck after quiting! I myself had a total of 29 hours built up on my check but only got paid for 15! I was also there longer than the three month grace period that if you quit you paid for the drug testing and that also was taken from my last paycheck after 4.5 months of being there! so what should of been a 300 dollar check turned out to of been a 57.38 dollar check! So I agree stay away from mo-kan!