What Would You Say and Do?

[Biscuit Lips]

Cdswans, do you actually read your post before you hit the submit button? I am surprised that they are not deleted by the moderators.



Do you recognize this man: His name is Peter DeFazio, a Congressman from Oregon who serves on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In the following link, in which is part of the congressional records, Rep. DeFazio shoots down your very argument. Here's the link ,House Gets Trucking's Counsel on Highway Policy . I will post it here as well. Read the whole article, but pay attention to the part in bold. I love the last paragraph, that would have been interesting to see him say that in person.







House Gets Trucking's Counsel on Highway Policy


The House committee that oversees transportation policy asked a trio of trucking executives for their insights on how to reduce highway congestion, keep freight moving on time and pay for improvements in the highway system.
The challenge has been the subject of extended public discussion, but this hearing produced an encouraging observation: People in competitive transportation modes might be ready to set aside their longstanding habits of contention in order to find a solution.
Christopher Lofgren, president and CEO of Schneider National, put it this way: "I think people recognize that there isn't one answer, there isn't one mode to solve the problem. There's more of a willingness to say how do we work through this, where traditionally we have fought each other to get whatever share we could get. It is different today. There is a new spirit of collaboration in the industry."
Lofgren was echoed by the other panelists, Douglas Duncan, president and CEO of FedEx Freight, and Tim Yatsko, senior vice president of Wal-Mart Stores. Still, as the hearing before the House Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines made clear, the challenges facing the federal highway program will test the collaborative spirit.
Duncan noted that commercial vehicle miles will increase by 70 percent between 1998 and 2018. That growth will have to fit onto a highway system that is not keeping pace – highway lanes grew 3.4 percent between 1994 and 2004.
The highway program Congress passed last year "will probably just barely maintain our existing highways. It certainly won't expand them," Duncan said.
Highway funding probably is the biggest challenge. The subcommittee is an arm of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which in the most recent legislative round pushed for raising federal fuel taxes and indexing them to inflation. That idea was rejected by the Bush administration. The final bill put considerable emphasis on alternative funding mechanisms, such as tolls and private financing.
Duncan told the subcommittee that these alternatives can work if they are properly controlled, and they are preferable to doing nothing, but his first choice would be to use the fuel tax system. "It's in place, it's an efficient way to raise dollars (and) it can put those dollars ... to infrastructure needs."
Duncan said he supports raising the fuel tax and indexing it to inflation.
While many in the highway community either support tolls or are resigned to them, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., said he is not convinced that they are inevitable. "I'm worried about the fragmentation of what is now a great national network of highways," he said. "I'm thinking that moving to tolls has really taken us back more to the beginning of the Republic, as opposed to the dedication we had in the 1950s to a national system that was going to be the best in the world. I'm really worried about its future."
Another Oregon Democrat on the panel, Earl Blumenauer, predicted that the administration that takes over in 2009, whether Republican or Democratic, will be more open to raising the fuel tax.
Yatsko gave the panel some hard facts about the cost of congestion: Wal-Mart averages 21.26 percent fewer miles per tractor per week in metropolitan areas compared to rural areas, and 14.39 percent fewer miles compared to its entire fleet, he said.
The company has developed techniques for working through and around congestion, he said. It has refined its pickup and delivery operations, built consolidation facilities, and uses "drop and hook" trailer pools rather than live loading and unloading.
Lofgren suggested a raft of policy changes, from tax breaks on federally mandated equipment to lowering speed limits. One suggestion was directed at the driver shortage.
"Driver pay is our No. 1 cost," he said. "It hasn't changed in real terms since 1980 – it's actually less. We have to be able to recover that cost and the market does not allow us to do it."
Part of the solution would be to expand permanent employment visas to cover immigrant truck drivers, he said. "We know there is a significant population of potential immigrants with truck driving experience. Existing immigration laws have allowed us to successfully recruit a limited number. To do more, the laws must recognize truck driving as a critical skill."
This drew a sharp response from the Teamsters' DeFazio, who said that instead of importing cheap labor, the industry should raise driver pay. "If we don't open the door to immigrants who will work for less, then maybe everybody will have to raise their wages and you won't be at a disadvantage."DeFazio also suggested a federal minimum wage and benefit standard for truck drivers .
"With all due respect, sir," Lofgren told DeFazio, "I don't know that you guys have been proved to be real successful with these kinds of activities."
"Well," DeFazio replied, "it doesn't sound like you've been real successful in your business here, because you want to import labor into a country that has a labor surplus among people who have less than a college education. And, as you pointed out, you're paying people less than in 1980. I don't consider that to be a great success, either. Maybe profitable, but at some point you have to have a middle class, and truck drivers used to be middle class. And if you want to put them in the poverty class then you are moving in the right direction."

[nctrucker1]

I had an experience that no driver wants just this past week. About 2 weeks ago, I was sent to a clinic by my company for a random drug test. I have done it a few times before, so it was no problem for me to do this. But the other day, I was told by dispatch to go to the terminal managers office. He informed me that my drug test came back positive for amphetimines.He said that he was going to have to pull me off the truck until this matter was resolved. I told him that there has to be a mistake, because I know that I do not do drugs. Of course, he looked like he did not believe me, but I insisted on knowing the details about that report, since it is policy of thses testing companies to talk to you first, if you tested positive for drugs. I learned that they said they tried to call me, but were unable to contact me for almost 2 weeks. Thats funny, I did not get a call from any such testing company. After I called the testing company and was redirected to 5 different people to talk to, it turned out that they had indeed made a mistake. thay had me mixed up with someone else. The lady of the testing company told me that she would call my company to clear things up. After a time of waiting, the terminal manager came up to me and said to go pick up a load. he said that things were not completely straighened out, b ut I could continue to drive. The next day, I asked the terminal manager if things were straighened out, and he said he did not know, but he got no phone call, so at that time everything was cool. So, now I have to wonder if any more trouble will come up. If they want to try to fire me, I was going to dispute the report and request a new test that I would pay for. But I will have to pay for something that is not my fault, Like I said, I KNOW I DO NOT DO DRUGS!!!!! Has anyone else had this eexperience???

[cdswans]

Defazio's reference to wages and benefits, while honorable, was no reference to the existing law.

The following links all point to the same thing but each is a broader view. I didn't want you to think I was cherry picking.

Fact Sheet #19: The Motor Carrier Exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs19.pdf

What does the Fair Labor Standards Act require?

elaws - Fair Labor Standards Act Advisor

Fair Labor Standards Act Advisor

elaws - Fair Labor Standards Act Advisor

This is the law, the rules and the facts. It matters not which method of subterfuge or obfuscation your Recruiter, Dispather, Manager, Human Resource People, Owner or whatever tries to pull over you.

What is your CPM rate for . .

Pre trip
Fueling
Waiting for a load
Route planning
Walking to the shop
Talking to the shop
Talking to Dispatch
Whizz quiz
Truck in the shop
Fixing something
Cleaning something
Onroad breakdown
Waiting for a trailer
Sweeping a trailer
Looking for a trailer
Waiting in traffic
Waiting behind an accident
Chain up and off
Road closure
Waiting at a customer
Loading/unloading
Shagging a local load for $3.40 (miles excepted)

Anything and everything that SHOULD be recording on line 4 is compensable labor. It's not just "part of the job".

Your employer's gamble is that they can provide you with sufficient "CPM" miles to cover their minimum wage obligation to you. Likewise, they are counting on the fact that you will not accurately record all Line 4 activities. You and they both know that line 4 reduces your 70 hour clock thereby reducing your ability to produce income for the company.

[Orangetxguy]

Defazio's reference to wages and benefits, while honorable, was no reference to the existing law.

The following links all point to the same thing but each is a broader view. I didn't want you to think I was cherry picking.

Fact Sheet #19: The Motor Carrier Exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs19.pdf

What does the Fair Labor Standards Act require?

elaws - Fair Labor Standards Act Advisor

Fair Labor Standards Act Advisor

elaws - Fair Labor Standards Act Advisor

This is the law, the rules and the facts. It matters not which method of subterfuge or obfuscation your Recruiter, Dispather, Manager, Human Resource People, Owner or whatever tries to pull over you.

What is your CPM rate for . .

Pre trip
Fueling
Waiting for a load
Route planning
Walking to the shop
Talking to the shop
Talking to Dispatch
Whizz quiz
Truck in the shop
Fixing something
Cleaning something
Onroad breakdown
Waiting for a trailer
Sweeping a trailer
Looking for a trailer
Waiting in traffic
Waiting behind an accident
Chain up and off
Road closure
Waiting at a customer
Loading/unloading
Shagging a local load for $3.40 (miles excepted)

Anything and everything that SHOULD be recording on line 4 is compensable labor. It's not just "part of the job".

Your employer's gamble is that they can provide you with sufficient "CPM" miles to cover their minimum wage obligation to you. Likewise, they are counting on the fact that you will not accurately record all Line 4 activities. You and they both know that line 4 reduces your 70 hour clock thereby reducing your ability to produce income for the company.

Bravo CD. A valid and lucid post. This has been a sore subject between myself and a couple former employers. LOL...if you were to talk with one former manager...He would gladly ask you to kill me!!!

My biggest beef is the lack of OT at certain companies.

[cdswans]

From the Lips Report, above

"Driver pay is our No. 1 cost," he said. "It hasn't changed in real terms since 1980 – it's actually less. We have to be able to recover that cost and the market does not allow us to do it."

I can't imagine that more arrogant words have ever been spoken.


"This drew a sharp response from the Teamsters' DeFazio, who said that instead of importing cheap labor, the industry should raise driver pay. "If we don't open the door to immigrants who will work for less, then maybe everybody will have to raise their wages and you won't be at a disadvantage."

" . . And, as you pointed out, you're paying people less than in 1980. I don't consider that to be a great success, either. Maybe profitable, but at some point you have to have a middle class, and truck drivers used to be middle class. And if you want to put them in the poverty class then you are moving in the right direction."

Amen.

How many times have I said it? Change the law and eliminate the overtime exemption. It will apply EQUALLY, thus fairly to all carriers. Fair wages and fatter paychecks . . the market doesn't allow us to do it?

[Double R]

Anything and everything that SHOULD be recording on line 4 is compensable labor. It's not just "part of the job".

Ain't that the truth.

That would make an excellent sig. line. Of course, you will get credited for it.

[jonp]

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

A motto that I live by. You can rest assured that it won't happen again.

[jonp]

Can we get back to the subject of this post? You guys are wandering all over the place.

[jonp]

Rawle & Henderson: Reports & Articles: Transportation Law Update:

This is very interesting. I might have been proven wrong on this. Its not something I have ever really thought about as an OTR I assumed with most of the others out there that I was paid per mile and that was that. This is going to take more research.

cdswans: As of now, I say that you are right and I am wrong on this point! Well Done.

[cdswans]

. . tell them they're being paid by the mile, most will believe they're being paid by the mile. Tell them that CPM amounts to piece work, they'll say so what? Tell them that piece work was outlawed in 1938, they'll tell you you're crazy.

Ladies and Gents! Your employer uses the CPM rouse (fraud) because it sounds so much sweeter than "minimum wage". They tell you CPM so that you'll fall all over yourself and do anything to make yourselves ready for more driving including cheating yourself out of the wages you're entitled to by making yourselves ready.

That same court case came up in the last go around and I said then that it was the beginning of the end to CPM and the overtime exemption. I had Gman in tears! (anguish, not glee)


Next up . . have to run for now . . Do you think you have no dog in this fight? Think again!

[cdswans]

Next up . . have to run for now . . Do you think you have no dog in this fight? Think again!

I had hoped to receive some insider information on one of these items but that hasn't happened.

For those who've been around for awhile, do you recall the "Goinforitswife" thread? Her husband's second job was with a flatbed company that up and decided to go all owner op on very short notice. I'm pretty sure they were out of Spokane and I'm wondering if the overtime ruling had anything to do with it.

If you look at the press release posted by Jonp . . it looks like it went out to a lot of companies in WA. I'm looking for anything in the news that might suggest if there are any new trends in how Driver/employees are being handled.

Rev! You picked a great time to ban BigD. He could very well provide some insight here.

The other thing is training companies usually have more trainees than trainers. That's been written about a 100 times on CAD. I inquired about being a trainer for a pretty substantial WA based fleet but was told they won't be adding anymore trainers to it. Without going into all the details, it was one of those things that seemed extremely counter-intuitive to me. It was the last answer I expected to hear and now I wonder if it is not somehow related to the overtime thing.

General Knowledge . . every state (I think) has a Department of Labor. I got to know one of their enforcement people pretty well thanks to a young turd I made the mistake of giving a job to. These are the wage and hour guys and a big part of what they do is make sure you're being paid fairly. Fair pay not only benefits you, it benefits the state with (usually) greater tax revenues.

Anyway, these are the avenues I'm pursuing. If any of you have first hand experience, know someone who may be able to shed some light or, certainly if you have time, take a look around and see what you can come up with

[Snowman7]

I see some benefits here but a higher weekly check isnt one of them. So lets say you turn out to be right. What stops OTR companies from paying 10/hr. 40 x $10 = $450 and 30 hours overtime at $15/hr adds up to $850/week. The only difference is you will no longer be pissed off while waiting because you are being paid. But weekly paychecks will remain roughly the same. Another benefit could be stricter adherence to HOS regs. I guarantee some guys would dog it and mileage productivity would go down. LTL companies pay mileage when driving and hourly for all other duties. Some sort of blended plan would work better and have shippers and recievers actually get charged for abusing drivers time. Make it a law where a driver is on the clock while waiting.

[cdswans]

I see some benefits here but a higher weekly check isnt one of them. So lets say you turn out to be right. What stops OTR companies from paying 10/hr. 40 x $10 = $450 and 30 hours overtime at $15/hr adds up to $850/week. The only difference is you will no longer be pissed off while waiting because you are being paid. But weekly paychecks will remain roughly the same. Another benefit could be stricter adherence to HOS regs. I guarantee some guys would dog it and mileage productivity would go down. LTL companies pay mileage when driving and hourly for all other duties. Some sort of blended plan would work better and have shippers and recievers actually get charged for abusing drivers time. Make it a law where a driver is on the clock while waiting.

Regular/irregular low budget checks have forced a lot of people out of trucking. It's one thing to head out for a month and return with a pocket full of money. It's a different story if you're always coming home broke. I think it would be a big step forward for everyone to know that if "I leave today and I'm back on Friday" or whenever . . 2 - 3 - 4 - weeks out, whatever floats your boat, that "this $$" is what I'll be paid, minimum. It takes the penalty off the Driver and puts the onus back on the employer . . WHERE IT BELONGS . . to keep the truck moving. I'm willing to bet there'd still be plenty of room for service, productivity and safety bonuses.

As for the dogs? If Swift wanted, they could monitor me for farting. There is nothing that they need to know that they don't already have access to. I agree that the screws would tighten and the days of non-forced dispatch would be gone. The lazy pukes would find their axxes on the street in a hurry. The slackers would have a choice . . do I like this pay or don't I? Using your example of $850, I say if you started recruiting with "$850 to start" there'd be lines around the block at every carrier in the country. I also believe safety, service and productivity would rise dramatically.

Most importantly, honest pay for company Drivers is going to force rates to go up. Not ridiculously, just honestly. If it takes an extra $250 to move a trailer load of TP, how much more will the consumer pay . . in the end?

[steeringwheelbracket]

Just one thing to say.....It's your choice... My outlook on things of this matter is. "If it causes problems for me I either fix it or get rid of it" It's really that simple.