Monarch Transport, LLC - Kansas City, Ks.

NY, something is definitely up in trucking when it comes to recruiting, orientation, adding new drivers, etc.

Based on other posters' claims, testimony from drivers I've heard out on the road, and my own suspicions, it looks like there is some sort of fleece-job some companies are using to milk the government regarding the myth that is the "driver shortage". These companies are apparently getting tax breaks on recruiting, orientating, and even training new drivers.

Yeah, you guessed it. It's in these companies' interest to see that the turnover problem remains a "problem". They may even keep the wheels of this machine (pardon the pun) rolling by giving certain drivers bad treatment so they'll quit. When these drivers quit, new drivers are then added that come through the "machine".

There are three burning questions about it all:

1. What is the "ceiling" turnover rate? There must be some sort of upper limit, a limit beyond which the government says "no" to further relief. If there were no ceiling, companies like Swift would have no trucks on the road. Those outfits could just park their trucks on their lots and milk the relief for all it's worth.

2. Do these companies get tax relief for their trucks that have been left on terminal lots by quitters? These are the trucks that remain on those lots for days, maybe weeks, before they are taken back on the road. Somehow, the fixed costs on those trucks have to be paid while they are idle. Given the claimed low profits any individual truck brings in each day, a lot full of empty trucks will drive a company into the ground pretty quick. Of course, a government break of some kind would both help with this cost and help keep the"machine" rolling.

3. Does renting trucks instead of buying them "help" these companies in some way when it comes to turnover? Is renting a way this "machine" is maintained? The tax laws do tend to favor capital over labor. Don't know on this one. I suspect renting is somehow advantageous.

High turnover at larger companies is a problem to us outsiders, but it's obviously not that much of a problem to the companies. If it were, these companies wouldn't have the outrageous turnover they have. ####, if they ARE sucking the government titty, high turnover isn't a problem at all. It's actually something these outfits would want.

What about small companies? Well, small companies don't have high turnover because they can't afford it. If a company can't keep its drivers in the cabs, that company will go broke fast if it's small. More than likely, the tax structure is such that only when a company gets past a certain size does it benefit (allowed?) to suckle the government titty, up to a limit, of course. Trucking company profits per-truck aren't high enough to cover the fixed costs of trucks that are parked for prolonged periods. Some relief would be needed to cover those costs, and the huge companies may be getting it.

Yeah, something is definitely up here. Some companies are getting relief. They have to be. The industry is just too competitive for companies to allow turnover rates that are in the 100-200% range. One hugeantic would get smart and cut its turnover if there was no relief, which would give it a huge cost advantage over its rivals. But why bring the "machine" that is the turnover 'problem' to a grinding halt? It'd cost companies too much if they had to give up their welfare.

We're getting it figured out. Slowly, but surely.

 

^^^^^^^^^Nicely put Tip. Just consider one other factor, recruiters get paid to recruit right? The more turn over means the more job security on their part. It sounds ironic I know but based on a similar experience of my own (NFI of Vineland NJ) I agree, -something fishy with all that.


I haven't been able to make any sense of it as well. You are probably on to something.