There was legislation that some attempted to pass about a year or so ago concerning the fsc. It didn't pass. Even if it had passed, there was no teeth in the enforcement. If the owner operator or carrier wanted to pursue enforcement it was basically up to them to do so through the courts at their expense. I don't think it would have made any difference to the industry had it passed. Basically, it was feel good legislation. Unless this bill has some enforcement teeth in it, I don't see that it will benefit the majority of owners. Unless there are real consequences to this type of legislation, they might as well save their time and paper. There are a lot of people who would prefer that this type of legislation not pass. You see, most of the major carriers have their own brokerage departments. If this type of legislation passed, they would need to pass through a lot of extra cash. :P

 

I believe it was part of the transportation bill GMAN.

 

Thanks, Alan.

 

Just a thought...

Did any of those that immediately chimed in to complain that TRUCC will never get anywhere make a call yet to tell your congressman or congresswoman that you support it?

Hmmm... If not it is sorta like bitching about farmers and high food prices with your mouth full isn't it?

Let's get on the phone people and at least do our part eh????? I say a little less talk and a lot more action is what this country needs.

Longsnowsm

 

The problems are:

1) In the future, brokers will not negotiate fuel surcharges

2) How do we know what the actual amount is?

3) When will it stop? This may be only "step 1" into a slide back into regulation.

 

The problem is if someone needs a bill like this just to survive, they should be out of business anyways.

 

IMO, knowledge is a good thing. Everyone should know what the FSC is.

 

True that. If the broker is required to pass on money that has a special name (like FSC), then the broker will simply not negotiate the FSC into the rate (or negotiate some crap amount) and raise the standard rate by that specific amount.

Yet another reason why the overall rate is more important than some part of the rate with a certain designation.

 

The real problem is that there are too many owner operators and carriers who are hauling freight for less than it costs them to operate and have a fair profit. Personally, I don't think we really need a fuel surcharge. We need higher rates. In my case, I don't look at the fuel charge that much but the total rate. If the entire rate meets my needs then I take the load. If not, I pass and go on to something else. The fsc has become a shell game. There are some brokers who are profiting from the extra charges. Carriers and owner operators need to gain the intestinal fortitude to demand a higher rate from brokers and/or shippers. The fsc is a way to put the burden of demanding a higher rate on a 3rd party, the oil companies, rather than simply raising their rates.

I am not sure that we really want the government to once again regulate our freight rates. Capitalism works. Socialism doesn't. Regulated rates are simply price fixing or socialism. Everyone doesn't provide the same level of service. Those who do go the extra mile deserve and can command a higher rate than those who provide mediocre service. The marginal or weak owner operators and carriers will not survive. Become proactive. NEVER take a cheap load to get to a better area.