Truck Driving Jobs

Rev.Vassago · Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:19 pm Post subject:

Dispatch_This wrote:
The depressions in the early 1900s attracted hardworking individuals who were able to start
their own business on a “shoe string” budget of a few hundred dollars.

Sounds familiar, just add a few zeros.

Quote: Unfortunately, the growing abundance of trucks led to an oversupply of
transportation services that depressed prices and profit margins. Overzealous
salesmen aimed to take advantage of opportunities made possible in the
absence of regulation – often to the disadvantage of customers and the industry
overall. Unscrupulous operators skipped maintenance of their equipment;
operators discontinued freight services midway between load and unload
points to pick up more profitable freight; carriers avoided insurance coverage;
freight was stolen; drivers were pressured to work unreasonable and dangerous
hours.

Yup. Sounds familiar.

Quote: During this period of lax regulation and fierce competition among
carriers, the need for brokers and freight forwarders grew substantially
particularly because these intermediaries offered carriers a method to
streamline their transportation services by facilitating communications between
shippers and carriers.
Unfortunately, “because there were no prerequisites to
entering the business, these agents were often shiftless and irresponsible.”

Can't disagree yet.

Quote: Third party intermediaries often profited heavily by contracting carriage
services with dishonest and irresponsible operators who would offer low rates
in return for the broker’s blind eye towards lacking business practices.

BINGO!!!!!!!!

While today I doubt that most brokers even care about the business practices of carriers, it's clear that carriers are irresponsible by allowing brokers to peddle cheap freight. Which is why I place the blame squarely at the feet of the carrier, for allowing dishonest brokers to thrive.

Quote: in 1935, Congress finally felt
compelled to provide for broad relief.
The solution appeared in the form of the Federal Motor Carrier Act of 1935
which gave the Interstate Commerce Commission the power to promulgate regulations for reigning in transportation
intermediaries.
Specifically, the policy underlying the Act was to “protect
carriers and the traveling and the shipping public against dishonest and
financially unstable middlemen in the transportation industry.”
Rigid regulation until 1980 met with only partial success.

So no regulation didn't work, and tons of regulation didn't work......

Quote: While the 1935 Act and the ICC appeared to succeed in relieving shippers from dealing
with dishonest and corrupt transportation intermediaries, the regulations
imposed extreme regulatory burdens “that, among other impositions, required
anyone applying to become a broker demonstrate [that] their services would be
consistent with the public interest” and that its services would not
“unnecessarily duplicate existing brokerage services.”
At the height of this regulatory “bell curve,” federal oversight created virtual monopolies for select
intermediaries and consequently increased the cost to shippers for transporting goods.

Which is something I already predicted would happen if you regulated brokers - you'd have a select few brokers still in business, and everyone else would fall by the wayside. That would certainly do nothing positive in the long run.

Dispatch_This · Joined: 10 Jan 2007 Posts: 141 Location: Barstow, CA.

Rev.Vassago wrote: But if you wanna play the brokers' game, then complaining about the rules of the game while you are playing it just doesn't cut it.

Oh really?

To all Independents who would like to see better regulations for brokers-

Please give this opinion (from a Lease O/O who doesn't deal with brokers) the amount of consideration it truly merits.

I see your BINGO, and raise you two YAHTZEES.

Dispatch_This · Joined: 10 Jan 2007 Posts: 141 Location: Barstow, CA.

[quote="Rev.Vassago"] Dispatch_This wrote:
Quote: Third party intermediaries often profited heavily by contracting carriage
services with dishonest and irresponsible operators who would offer low rates
in return for the broker’s blind eye towards lacking business practices.

BINGO!!!!!!!!

While today I doubt that most brokers even care about the business practices of carriers, it's clear that carriers are irresponsible by allowing brokers to peddle cheap freight. Which is why I place the blame squarely at the feet of the carrier, for allowing dishonest brokers to thrive.

Now there is something I can agree on. Brokers today ARE turning a blind eye on carrier suitability if they can get the loads moved cheaper, to the point that they are doing a disservice to their shipper clients. I see it every day.

BanditsCousin · Joined: 05 Jun 2004 Posts: 3337 Location: Chicago, IL

If the Rev can can a healthy cut of the rate and not have to pay for the trailer, find/solicit the customers, or worry about collecting from the customer, it can be a deal at whatever percentage.

no_worries · Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 859

Quote: If I believed I could bypass Landstar, and get their gross rates, I would be a fool not to.

Alright, now say you could get their gross rate, whatever it may be...how would you decide whether or not it would be worth it? You'd have to know what LS is getting for a rate, right? How are you going to get that information?

Quote: If the Rev can can a healthy cut of the rate and not have to pay for the trailer, find/solicit the customers, or worry about collecting from the customer, it can be a deal at whatever percentage.

Except that's not what he's saying. That's only true for as long as he thinks he can't get a better deal himself.

Rev.Vassago · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:05 am Post subject:

Dispatch_This wrote:

Please give this opinion (from a Lease O/O who doesn't deal with brokers)

Ummmm.......

I deal with agents (brokers) on a daily basis. :roll:

no_worries wrote: Quote: If I believed I could bypass Landstar, and get their gross rates, I would be a fool not to.

Alright, now say you could get their gross rate, whatever it may be...how would you decide whether or not it would be worth it?

I'd weigh the extra hassle and cost vs. the extra revenue.

Quote: You'd have to know what LS is getting for a rate, right? How are you going to get that information?

All that information is available to me. Lease onto a percentage based carrier, and it will be available to you too. :wink:

Quote: Quote: If the Rev can can a healthy cut of the rate and not have to pay for the trailer, find/solicit the customers, or worry about collecting from the customer, it can be a deal at whatever percentage.

Except that's not what he's saying. That's only true for as long as he thinks he can't get a better deal himself.

Yes and no. I am perfectly aware that as long as I deal with Landstar, I am going to have to play by their rules. If I don't like their rules, then I need to leave Landstar. As long as my bottom line is profitable for me, then it works for me and I have no reason to leave.

If, however, an opportunity presented itself that would allow me to greatly increase my bottom line, I'd be a fool not to pursue it. It has nothing to do with the percentage that they are taking. It has everything to do with the bottom line, and the fact that I am in business to make as much money as possible. Please notice I said I would leave them, not complain about the percentage they are charging.

Let me put the entire thing into a scenario that you may understand: If I were leased to, say, CR England, and I began complaining about the rates that they were paying me, what would you tell me to do? I'm sure you'd tell me to leave them immediately and find someone else to pull for (and rightfully so). I seriously doubt you'd tell me to go to my Congressman, and try to get him to put regulations in effect that would force CR England to pay me more. Why would your plight with brokers be any different?

Dispatch_This · Joined: 10 Jan 2007 Posts: 141 Location: Barstow, CA.

Rev.Vassago wrote: Dispatch_This wrote:

Please give this opinion (from a Lease O/O who doesn't deal with brokers)

Ummmm.......

I deal with agents (brokers) on a daily basis. :roll:

That infers that a Landstar BCO dealing with a Landstar agent is the same as an Indepemdent dealing with a broker. It's simply not true. You don't know what you don't know.

Rev.Vassago · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:30 am Post subject:

Dispatch_This wrote: Rev.Vassago wrote: Dispatch_This wrote:

Please give this opinion (from a Lease O/O who doesn't deal with brokers)

Ummmm.......

I deal with agents (brokers) on a daily basis. :roll:

That infers that a Landstar BCO dealing with a Landstar agent is the same as an Indepemdent dealing with a broker. It's simply not true. You don't know what you don't know.

Please enlighten me as to how it is different.

Dispatch_This · Joined: 10 Jan 2007 Posts: 141 Location: Barstow, CA.

1. You know the gross amount and your % upfront.

2. You don't negotiate and sign contracts based on unique situations with every agent you deal with.

3. You don't have to maintian credit records on every agent, and adjust payment terms as needed.

More to follow...

Rev.Vassago · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:32 am Post subject:

Dispatch_This wrote: 1. You know the gross amount and your % upfront.

Yes. This is one of the benefits of dealing with a non-brokerage system. If you don't like having to deal with that, then don't use brokers.

Quote: 2. You don't negotiate and sign contracts based on unique situations with every agent you deal with.

I certainly can and do negotiate with agents. If it isn't in writing, it doesn't exitst.

Quote: 3. You don't have to maintian credit records on every agent, and adjust payment terms as needed.

I definately have to maintain records on agents, and where you adjust payment terms, I choose not to deal with them.

Quote: More to follow...

I can't wait. :lol:

It still seems to me that your biggest complaint is you want all of the privelages of being leased, without actually having to do it.

Dispatch_This · Joined: 10 Jan 2007 Posts: 141 Location: Barstow, CA.

Rev.Vassago wrote: Dispatch_This wrote: 1. You know the gross amount and your % upfront.

Yes. This is one of the benefits of dealing with a non-brokerage system. If you don't like having to deal with that, then don't use brokers.

That is your OPINION. Don't assume that I don't like mixing it up with brokers.

Quote: 2. You don't negotiate and sign contracts based on unique situations with every agent you deal with.

I certainly can and do negotiate with agents. If it isn't in writing, it doesn't exitst.

Negotiating a rate and getting it in writing is quite different from negotiating and signing an umbrella contract which governs the broker/carrier relationship

Quote: 3. You don't have to maintian credit records on every agent, and adjust payment terms as needed.

I definately have to maintain records on agents, and where you adjust payment terms, I choose not to deal with them.

If what you are saying is if an agent skips out without paying a BCO and there is no recourse with the main office in Jacksonville, that is news to me.

Quote: More to follow...

I can't wait. :lol:

It still seems to me that your biggest complaint is you want all of the privelages of being leased, without actually having to do it.

The additional burden of being an independent is a choice that I made. I have never complained about having my cake and eating it, too. Doesn't mean I shouldn't support and advocate change where change is needed.

no_worries · Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 859

Once again, kindly point out where I have once complained about the rates I get or the percentage that the brokers keep. But I'll say it again, I don't measure the health and efficiency of the industry based solely on my own experience. And I'd be a fool not to have an interest in those things considering they ultimately have an effect on me.

I understand exactly what you're saying. All I'm saying is look beyond the tip of your own nose. You have information readily available that allows you to make informed decisions. You acknowledge that that information is valuable to you in assessing your operations. I still fail to see what objection you could have to that type of information being readily accessible to all. You want a free market to dictate who makes it and who doesn't based on business acumen? Part of a free market is open information. By the way, that information is not the sole benefit of those leased to a percentage carrier. The government long ago acknowledged the importance of that information in the industry. Anyone that hauls for a broker can find out what the shipper paid. But those regulations are outdated. There's a big difference between information's being available and readily available. It defies all logic to mandate that information be available and then not insure that it's available in a form that actually makes it useful.

Quote: If, however, an opportunity presented itself that would allow me to greatly increase my bottom line, I'd be a fool not to pursue it. It has nothing to do with the percentage that they are taking.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the percentage they are taking. Say, by getting your authority, you could easily cut them out and take their percentage on a $3 load. That's what...$1.05? You'd do it in a heartbeat. What if they were only taking 5%? It would hardly be worth $.15/mile for the added hassle.

Rev.Vassago · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:41 pm Post subject:

Let me run this scenario by you: Let's say you are in your local grocery store. You want to buy some tomatoes. Your local grocer has tomatoes for $1.39 per pound. Do you really care how much they paid for those tomatoes, or are you more concerned about what they want to charge you for them? Would it affect your decision in purchasing those tomatoes if you knew that the grocer only paid $0.80 per lb, as opposed to having paid $1.00 per lb? According to what is being advocated in this thread, you should know how much those tomatoes are costing, and the government should limit the amount of markup the grocer can put on those tomatoes.

Now, if you could get those tomatoes directly from the grower for $0.80 per lb, then by all means you should do it. BUT, the chances of that happening are unlikely, as the grower doesn't deal directly with single buyers - they deal with middlemen who buy up all their tomatoes at once, and mark them up along the way, each taking their cut. In a free market society, each of those people marking up the tomatoes is doing so because the consumer has decided that they are willing to pay the marked up price for the tomatoes. If the final consumer of the tomatoes doesn't like the price that is being charged, then they can show their dissatisfaction by not buying them anymore. The middlemen will be forced to rethink the way they mark up the tomatoes, or will go out of business. If your fellow consumers continue to buy tomatoes at that marked up price, then obviously the free market has dictated that the price is not too high. In that case, your issue would be with your fellow consumers who are still paying the marked up price for tomatoes, not with the middleman who is marking up the price.

allan5oh · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:42 pm Post subject:

Say no to cheap tomatos.

Rev.Vassago · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:05 pm Post subject:

allan5oh wrote: Say no to cheap tomatoes.

ROFLMAO :lol: :lol: :lol:

Truck Driving Jobs

Trucking Jobs

Truck Drivers

Trucking Companies

Class A Drivers.com