Hey, Bandit's Cousin!

[Rev.Vassago]

Thank your company for me for the hell that they are putting the entire HHG industry through. :wink:


I hope you know what I'm talking about. If you don't, they are worse than I thought.

[TK THE TRUCKER]

Yeah WTF ? The whole deal is ridiculous !!!!........ Actually I have no clue what your talking about. :?: So what is the deal ?

[Rev.Vassago]

Yeah WTF ? The whole deal is ridiculous !!!!........ Actually I have no clue what your talking about. :?: So what is the deal ?

Copied right from the memo I received today (my comments are in red):

Earlier this year the Household Goods Carriers Bureau (HGCB) approved the adoption of Tariff 600 and scheduled it to replace Tariff 400-N on January 2, 2008. A tarriff that was created and pushed by UnitedThe new tariff is the industry’s response to customer requests for further simplification. The first step in customer-focused simplification in Tariff 400-N was well received, but it still left too many items to be reviewed and approved and too many unpleasant surprises at destination. The reduction of the number of tariff charges to be approved, verified and audited will save time and hassle for service providers, carriers and customers. Everyone likes a win, win, win. Especially the carriers on this one
The following charges will be rolled into Item 135, Origin and Destination Charge: Extra Stops, Light and Bulky Articles (except weight additives) and Pickup or Delivery at Third Party or Self Storage Warehouse. The Origin and Destination Service Charge and Insurance Surcharge will be rolled into transportation revenue. What this means is that accessorial pay, which used to be something that the driver got 100% of, will be lumped in with the transportation charge, which the driver gets about 52% of, depending upon their lease agreement In an effort to bring discounts to a much more reasonable level, all transportation-related rates will be reduced by 50% and all SIT-related rates will be reduced by 25%. Finally, the minimum weight will be increased from 1,000 to 1,500 pounds.
The rates developed from the aggregation will be revenue neutral, i.e., neither a rate increase nor decrease. Yeah - revenue neutral for the customer, but not for the driver. The carrier wins by screwing the driver It is impossible to have every shipment be revenue neutral as it depends of the level and location of services, but in total the charges under the current and future pricing tools should be the same.but not the compensation

United Van Lines has a history of trying to take what rightfully belongs to the I/C - their accessorial pay. They did it last year when they introduced the fuel surcharge caps, and they continue to do it by trying to get accessorial charges lumped in with the transportation charges, so they can demand a cut of it. They are a pathetic carrier, and a scourge on the HHG industry.

I won't even go into the other changes that are afoot. They claim it isn't deregulation, but it reeks of it.

[Teal 95 KW]

I wouldn't call UVL pathetic, as there are much worse carriers to pull for. Not necessarily pointing fingers, or naming names, but they all have their strong/weak points. I NEVER hear positives about Graebel, but then there are people that also seem to do alright with them (you). I pull for the highest revenue generating agent in the Atlas Van Lines system, (as in the teens of millions a year)...downside, is the agent I pull for is a big self-hauler, and they are a full pack and load hauler as well. Just depends on what/who's bull**** you can put up with. I'm more than happy here. So, you lose what...$1k a trip? If that? The I/C's in the HHG industry have been taking pay hits annually from the introduction of this, and the loss of that..part of the business, I guess...as long as I'm not pulling for England, I'm happy

[Rev.Vassago]

So, you lose what...$1k a trip? If that?

Quite a lot more than that. If I do 30 trips a year, that is a $30,000 pay cut. All thanks to United. And I don't even pull for them.

The I/C's in the HHG industry have been taking pay hits annually from the introduction of this, and the loss of that..part of the business, I guess...

It didn't used to be. But, thanks in large part to the efforts of United Van Lines, it is becoming the norm. This is going to affect you as well.

Like I said - I'm not even gonna go into the other part of it.

[Teal 95 KW]

I never stated that it wouldn't affect me. You cannot place the blame 100% on UVL, for the new Tariff being placed into action. What I was talking about, was the big hype when Tariff 400N was brought into play. I couldn't find the article I was lookng for, but here's an excerpt from HouseholdDrivers.com, with the breakdown of the paycut that was taken when this tariff was set in motion.

Skip said:
Skip remembers a time when an 18% fuel surcharge was charged to assist with the high cost of fuel. In 1983, the moving companies of America chose to roll that 18% fuel surcharge–formerly delegated to only the transportation unit–into the tariff as a transportation rate increase. At that point, they then received half of the fuel surcharge. Clever, huh?
Now to modern times! This tariff 400N was touted to drivers as having long carries and stair carries built into the Item 135 charges. In addition, a 3.8% increase in transportation charges was included to help compensate drivers for the long carries and stair carries removed from the new tariff. Excuse me!! The transportation companies receive half of this 3.8% increase. A lower increase from previous years (an increase that is generally negated by an increase in sales discounts). It seems to me that all they're doing is sliding money from drivers' accessorial charges into the transportation charge, thereby decreasing the drivers' compensation while increasing the companies' bottom line.
Well... The truth be known, a 10,000 pound shipment from South Beach, FL to San Diego, CA with many long carries and an elevator at origin, paid the truck over $1,000.00 under the old tariff for those two services alone (these figures are from a shipment I hauled last year). This particular shipment, I could not get into the complex before 9:00 a.m. and had to be out by 4:00 p.m. I had to hire six men in order to meet their timetable (four more men than is needed for a normal 10,000 pound shipment). It cost over $800.00 in labor to load.
Well... Rating the same shipment under tariff 400N, if I take the Item 170 charges plus an origin and destination washer service from the combined new tariff Item 135 charges, only $73.00 goes to the truck. Let's do the math! $1,000.00 - $73.00 = $927.00 this means I received a $927.00 pay cut for the same shipment! Pay attention, $927.00.
• Question: How many comparably sized shipments with no long carries or stairs do I need to load and deliver before I break even?
• Answer: 12
• Question: How many pounds do I have to load and deliver before I break even?
• Answer: 240,000
• Question: At 112,000 pounds loaded and delivered per month average for the past year, how many months will it take me to break even for that one shipment?
• Answer: Just over two months
Remember, we're breaking even for only one 10,000-pound shipment with excessive long and/or stair carries.
Last year I encountered 17 shipments with more than 500 feet of carry (a straight truck couldn't have gotten closer) out of the 78 total shipments I hauled–that's almost 22% of total shipments hauled. In order to break even, I would have had to haul 204 shipments with no long carries or stair carries in addition to the 17 labor-intensive shipments. I for one stand to lose greatly with this new tariff.
What we really need is an exemption (go back to the 400M tariff way of charging for apartments, condominiums, high rises, and mini-storage warehouses) in situations where inside long carries and stair carries can be excessive. Skip's number one rule of staying in business: if it costs me more to do a job, I have to be able to charge more for the job–averages be damned. Bottom line is, we are in a position where there is no provision for jobs that are extremely labor-intensive when we use Tariff 400N.
Look at the shipments you've hauled in the past and do the math yourselves. Will you make money or lose money? It seems to me that the Household Goods Tariff Bureau should have asked a few drivers to contribute their knowledge and experience when developing the Tariff 400N.

[solo379]

Well, as long as you guys, are willing to haul, for that pay, they have no reason, to pay you more!
Market is very weak, and everybody is affected! :sad:

And since your expenses still stay the same, or more, that 30 grand, comes from your bottom line. Brace yourself guys, we have a real rough times ahead!

[Rev.Vassago]

I never stated that it wouldn't affect me. And, if I recall, it was the American Movers Association that came up with the whole deal,

Household Goods Carriers Bureau, led by United. If it weren't for them, this wouldn't have happened.

and the carriers as a whole pushed it through. Not just United.

If I remember correctly (which I do), Graebel stood their ground and refused to implement the FSC cap at the beginning of the busiest time of the year. Now, they are trying to figure out a way around this stupid Tariff 600. They will likely end up completely rewriting their I/C contract so that they can split apart all the things that United is lumping together with this new tariff. Graebel has stated (yet again) that they will not do these underhanded things to their I/C's, just because United wants to do it to theirs.

[Teal 95 KW]

Pay cut or not, it's still better than yanking a reefer, flat, or dryvan around!

[Teal 95 KW]

It's all a big screwy ordeal, I believe somebody once told me (a Bekins Driver) that Bekins was one of the only carriers out there, not operating under 400n, b/c the owner didn't belive in screwing his I/C's out of money that is rightfully theirs. Don't know if there is any truth to that statement, or not but it sure sounds nice lol.

[Kranky]

So, you lose what...$1k a trip?

I have no experience with HHG.

That said, why should anyone get paid $1k less a trip?

Trucking expenses are going up all the time.

As long as O/O's and drivers continue to shrug their shoulders and accept less, and less, and less for their work, the companies will keep paying less, and less, and less for said work.

How low will it go??????????

[Rev.Vassago]

It's all a big screwy ordeal, I believe somebody once told me (a Bekins Driver) that Bekins was one of the only carriers out there, not operating under 400n, b/c the owner didn't belive in screwing his I/C's out of money that is rightfully theirs. Don't know if there is any truth to that statement, or not but it sure sounds nice lol.

Well, I can say for certain that isn't true. We still operate under some of the older tariffs, depending upon the contract. I doubt they don't use the 400N at all, even if they attempt to limit its exposure. That is, unless they have figured out a way to keep every contract from using it.

[solo379]

Pay cut or not, it's still better than yanking a reefer, flat, or dryvan around!

And that's exactly their logic's! Where would you go?
So may be next year, they'll cut some more.
What a hell! Still better than "England"! :P :sad:

[Rev.Vassago]

If these new changes go through, I'm contemplating getting out of the business altogether. Labor is getting terribly expensive, people are filing more claims then ever trying to make a buck, fuel is reaching all time highs, surveys are consistently coming in several thousand pounds lower than they should, and the carriers are trying to take away our accessorials - my bread and butter. Accessorials are normally between 30-50% of my revenue on a trip - a single 19,000 lb trip I am loading next week has over $2000 in accessorials. Under this new tarrif, it would have about $1000. Sure, the transportation charge is supposed to go up $1000 to cover it, but GVL takes 48% of that. So, I would have to live with $480 less in my pocket. That is unacceptable.

[RostyC]

Things are tough all over guys.

I guess it's not as simple as I/C's not doing business with UVL's huh?

[allan5oh]

I won't even go into the other changes that are afoot. They claim it isn't deregulation, but it reeks of it.

Actually it reeks of regulation, another example of how the government can't even run a lemonade stand.

[Rev.Vassago]

Things are tough all over guys.

I guess it's not as simple as I/C's not doing business with UVL's huh?

Unfortunately, no. All the major HHG carriers are in a consortium (kind of like OPEC). They make sure that all the standards and practices are uniform throughout the HHG industry. United, unfortunately, is the largest HHG carrier in the world, and they have quite a bit of leverage within the Bureau.

I won't even go into the other changes that are afoot. They claim it isn't deregulation, but it reeks of it.

Actually it reeks of regulation, another example of how the government can't even run a lemonade stand.

The HHG industry is already regulated, and has been for over 70 years. What they basically want to do is allow each of the HHG carriers to operate under their own tariff that they write themselves. However, there is nothing in place to stop any of the carriers from writing a lowball tariff that undercuts their I/C's, and benefits themselves. Only time will tell if this actually happens, and what the new tariffs look like. Graebel is trying to assure us that they are not gonna screw us over. I hope so, but I am skeptical.

[BanditsCousin]

The memo I got from the AMA doesn't say anything about United influencing the new tariff change, although they are a component. The other components (ie: other carriers) were at the meeting to discuss the new change as well.

The reason for the new tariff is to combat the aggressive discounts in the arket. Heck, Allied/North American approved 74% discount around a month ago. Now thats another competition is the rate-war.

United lost just as many drivers as the other carriers once 400N was passed. The purpose was to put discounts to an end, and that lasted a whole 2 weeks. This is another change to a tariff just like any other.

Bekins were (and still might be) operating under the 412 tariff. I know 2 years ago, they were.

To point the finger at United is a bit bold and outlandish when you think about it. Why would United want to make LESS money?

[BanditsCousin]

Sidenote: Where did your memo come from, Rev?

Money has been leaving this industry for years. My father, 30 years and still going, always tells me about the old days. Back then, once you put a piece of furniture on the truck you made money. When I bought my dad's truck, he told me "You have to be a business man FIRST, and a mover 2nd". It was vice versa in the old days.

Things have to get worse, before they can get better.

I have about 2 months until I get into enclosed car hauling. My dad is getting his trailer converted for the car hauler while me and him are vacationing in the dominican republic this winter 8)


Like it or leave it. I'm going with the latter option :wink:

[Rev.Vassago]

The reason for the new tariff is to combat the aggressive discounts in the arket. Heck, Allied/North American approved 74% discount around a month ago. Now thats another competition is the rate-war.

How does taking money away from the I/C's and putting it in the pocket of the Van Lines combat discounts?

To point the finger at United is a bit bold and outlandish when you think about it. Why would United want to make LESS money?

Perhaps you should re-read what the new tariff will do. United will make MORE money, and their I/C's will make less, as they will get a huge percentage of the item 135 accessorial, where as before they got little or none.