Rates are crashing and fuel to the moon!

Ten4. Didn't say anything about quitting though. Just take a break. You might see things differently after some fresh air.

 

.

 

Not happening. Dumbest thing ever.

Carriers already try to back solicit. Why would I ever give them my rate to undercut? You run your business and I’ll run mine. If you need someone to hold your hand then go do something else.

On my side as a carrier I would never ever expect to see the brokers rate. Transparency is for those that cannot handle themselves. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

Thanks now I will have to read a couple books to gain whatever iq points I lost reading all the comments

 

From so called, free market perspective, if the transparency law is deplorable, so should be the non-solicitation clause.

Let's see now;
A broker says; I did my work to earn that customer and you back solicited them?!

You say; "Free market means no hindrance on neither end. Your customer chose me over you. Up to them, who they want to work with, not you or me. How's that not a free market?"

He says, "You signed the non-solicitation clause and ignored it, didn't ya?"

That's where they get you, on contractual legalities.
Do they belong to the free market paradigm?
Some could say yes because they are part of the negotiations. You have a choice not to sign the contract or try to mitigate it with your own terms. Other say no, due to the negotiating disparity between a broker and a carrier, in which the broker is more often than not, in a superior position to dictate their own "anti-free market" impositions.

 

Hard not to agree that it is none of my business to know what TQL is making on that load of toilet paper from Lewiston, PA to Augusta, GA. Sure.

Be that, as it may, and for sheets and giggles, let's assume that the transparency law is enforced and observed. What good would it do, anyway? Could it be even an interesting debate?

Practically, imo, transparency would do little, if anything at all, to improve rates. Carriers, in times like these, would still haul for cheap but at least aware of whether it was the broker or the shipper who didn't want to pay.
Or perhaps be pissed off at themselves that they could do little about so much money on the table grabbed by the broker's hands.
That's all I can think of.
Anyone else?

 

The only argument for transparency is for company drivers paid on percentage. Only because they’re employees. Lease Operators and Independents that want transparency should get a job driving for someone else. All it will accomplish is propping up an already bad business plan. Make a choice. Be Independent, or pretend to be Independent and cry about the bad business practices you agree to, and continue to participate in. The whole idea of lease agreements has been a major cause of lower company driver pay. Same people are now begging for help. Independent? I don’t think so. Can’t survive? Get a job.

 

This is stupid, knowing what the broker makes is not a problem unless you can’t run your truck right.

what is a problem is knowing who initiated the load and knowing who the customer is.

this is broker transparency, not knowing what they make.

the ooida and the fmcsa don’t get it, this doesn’t stop the real problems for the independents.

I have more problems with drivers only going through the broker to solve problems, so knowing the originating broker and the real customer up front helps.

 

About that, I was being sued last year by a broker who claimed breech of contract on the issue of non-solcilitation. The problem is we ended up with the customer because of our performance and that the company came to us about the shipment delivery. They wanted to remove the brokerage portion of their shipments because of double brokering and damage claims being filed.

So I got sued, it was short lived and the broker learned a lesson when she was facing a lot of legal fees from her lawyer to continue what amounted to a couple thousand dollars that she lost on a load she double brokered.

 

Interesting.
The direction was that they approached you first, so by logic, you did not solicit them.
Why did they sue you then?

But, this may also depend on how they phrased the contract; could it prevent you from doing business with them directly, without them in the middle?

Maybe there are some legal limits as to how the contracts are made. So, them approaching you to do work for them is not something they could legally prevent.

Any Contract Law practitioners around here?