Last 10 Posts
And Justice For All
Do workers have the right to work in sweatshop conditions if they so choose? Does the state have the right to protect workers by locking out those who would work longer hours for less pay?
In 1905 the United States Supreme Court, deciding the case Lochner vs. New York, struck down a statute that limited the workweek of bakers to 60 hours. The Court explained that the statute in question wrongly limited the bakers’ freedom of contract (although such a right is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution). By affirming the workers’ right to choose sweatshop conditions, this decision pleased the sweatshop owners who, in turn, convinced their workers that they had won a major victory: Their jobs were secure so long as they were willing to work longer hours for less pay than any other worker.
Today’s working people are thankful that the labor principles encapsulated in the Lochner decision did not stand. The subsequent passing of the Minimum Wage Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which sets the normal work week at forty hours and grants premium pay for all hours worked in excess of that amount, sounded the death knoll for the sweatshop.
Or did it?
While the great majority of American workers now enjoy the protection of the laws mentioned, several million hard working men and women are still forced to sweat their labor; working ever-increasing hours for ever-decreasing wages.
I am speaking of American truck drivers, all of whom are excluded from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Since deregulation of the trucking industry in 1980, competition among truckload carriers has become a destructive force. Trucking companies, in a frantic attempt to attract shippers, are cutting their rates to almost sub-profit margins. Drivers are now used as cushions whereupon companies can place much of their cost risk. This is accomplished by paying drivers by the mile. Most of the driver’s time spent on the job, but not driving, is uncompensated time. This has led to a situation where drivers must cheat on their Hours of Service records (logbooks) in a losing attempt to slow a fast downward spiral in their earnings. It is now common for a non-union truckload driver to spend 16 to 18 hours per day in quest of a full 11 hours of paid driving. Sadly, many of these drivers have been conditioned by the industry to accept this as a matter of course in their vocation. Indeed, a majority will, like the sweatshop workers of the last century, violently defend their right to work under such conditions, seeing the present system as their only means of earning an acceptable livelihood.
However, not everyone accepts these sweatshop conditions. Many drivers with valuable over-the-road experience are leaving the industry rather than accept the steadily worsening status quo. The continuing exodus of experienced drivers is resulting in a critical driver shortage. New drivers, after being introduced to the harsh realities of the job do not usually stay long. With the current driver turnover rate in excess of 100%, the trucking industry has sought permission from the government to place 18 years olds in the cabs of 80,000-pound semis, has sought drivers in the prison population and is considering importing minimally qualified drivers from Mexico. These untapped labor resources will, of course, be paid far less than the experienced drivers they are intended to replace.
By forcing drivers to absorb cost variables that the trucking companies refuse to address, these companies allow themselves the imagined luxury of inefficient operations. In so doing, they and their professional associations such as the American Trucking Associations (ATA) and the Truckload Carriers Association (TCA) are, like mesmerized rats, following the sound of their own pipes into a sea of oblivion.
In truth, the trucking companies, their collective associations and drivers win nothing by fanatically defending the status quo. Indeed, they do not see the fact that they are being set up for a much larger loss. The extremely high bankruptcy rate and the general hard times trucking has been suffering since it was deregulated in 1980 will be nothing measured against what is to come.
The current truckload carrier industry, proceeding in what it thinks is a direction of lean and mean business practices, will, if the current direction remains constant, self-destruct in a few years. Then, forming from a few, very large, very powerful companies, a Phoenix will arise from the ashes with the strength to dictate rates and conditions not only to drivers, but to shippers, receivers, the public and the limited number of smaller companies they will allow to exist to do their less pleasant, less profitable work.
There is still time for the trucking industry to move back from the brink. A radical bulldozing of the pock-marked field of competitive battle is needed to give all worthy competitors an even chance at success. To level the playing field and begin treating its current disease, the trucking industry must:
• Do away with pay by the mile and supplant it with a fair hourly wage.
• Bring all its workers under the protective umbrella of the FLSA by repealing trucking’s out dated exemption.
• Mandate that onboard recording devices be installed in all commercial vehicles. This is the only way that compliance with the Hours of Service rule can be effectively monitored. Without OBRs, compliance with such rules will remain a joke.
• Stop employing the scare tactic of threatening dire injury to the American economy if the above are implemented.
Economic justice has never hurt America. It did not when the minimum wage laws were passed. It did not when the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed. It will not now. The real threat to our economy lies not in granting justice to a group of working people, but in the future emergence of a few overly powerful trucking companies. If the trucking industry continues their refusal to address these issues they will lose, their employees and contractors will lose and the American people will lose.
Category: General
Posted on Sat, Oct 20 2007 @ 5:09 PM [EST]
[Permalink] [Comments - 1] [Send Article] [Improper]Mark My Words
It seems that the Hours of Service Rule, which was supposed to have been finalized more than a year ago, is as permanent as a sand-castle. Under withering fire from various safety groups, the newly born rule had just emerged when it was shot full of holes by the courts. Then, spinning, but before it could fall, its head was lopped off by yet another justice.
The talking heads all say that the portions of our baby dealing with the 34 hour restart and the increase in driving time from 10 to 11 hours have been thrown out “on procedural grounds”. Does this mean they no longer exist? Can our infant rule survive? Is it alive at all?
Before the smoke had cleared motions were filed requesting the court’s action be stayed, or delayed, for up to 12 months while the FMCSA attempted to address the court’s concerns. Although the court has not as yet responded to the requests, the fact that such request have been made acts as sort of a temporary stay, giving the court time to consider.
In the meantime the FMCSA has choices of its own to consider. 1) It can rewrite the sections of the rule in question. 2) Deal with the “procedural matters” that the court finds so offensive. 3) Do nothing.
The FMCSA knows full well that the safety groups that have been attacking the new rule are getting very good at their job. They also know that no matter what they do to address the situation some will not be pleased, especially the ATA.
This is where I want you all to mark my words.
The FMCSA will drag its feet for the next twelve months then it will:
• Drop the 34 hour restart provision returning us to daily recaps under either the 70 or 60 hour rules.
• Cancel the 11 hours driving time provision and slide back to 10 hours.
• Leave all other provisions of the new rule intact, e.g., 14 hour rule, 10 hour off duty requirement, etc., etc...
Why do I believe the FMCSA will act thus? Because such actions require the least amount of effort on their part.
I am not saying that these FMCSA bureaucrats are lazy, but they are bureaucrats after all and bureaucrats have been known to work very hard at avoiding real work. They have had a lot of practice and are good at it.
Category: General
Posted on Mon, Sep 24 2007 @ 6:35 PM [EST]
[Permalink] [Comments - 2] [Send Article] [Improper]Hangdog Report
The Hangdog Report:
In days gone by, the general public looked upon truck drivers as "knights of the road." Those big and burly men (women truck drivers were almost unheard of back then) were quick to stop and help a motorist who might appear stranded. Motorists, in turn, looked for the roadside diners where the "big trucks" stopped, assuming, often correctly, that the food inside must be good.
That was yesterday. Today, the media portrays truckers as the Mad Maxes and Maxines of the highway; out to terrorize the public in thundering, smoke-belching instruments of destruction -- "killer trucks." The former knights of the road have become demons, the old highway cowboys, outlaws.
In the past, I have been quick to defend the trucking industry and truckers against such attacks, but now my experience dictates "coming clean."
In reality, there are very few killer trucks on the road today, but there are many killer truck drivers. They travel at speeds well over the posted limit. They weave in and out of traffic and follow less than a car length behind autos, using intimidation in hopes that the smaller vehicle will move. They cheat on their logbooks, drive when over-tired and fill the CB airwaves with language that would cause a barroom dog to drop its bone.
There was a time when such drivers would have been rejected by the trucking industry before they ever got behind the wheel.
Why the change? To understand what has happened, let's look at a little recent history.
Prior to1980 trucking was classified, not as an industry, but as a utility and, as such, was heavily regulated by the federal government. As a designated utility, trucking had developed into an honorable, sought-after career in which the wages were good, the life-style hard working, but relaxed, and the future secure. Well-qualified persons stood in line waiting for an opening to occur.
In 1980, the federal government ended trucking's utility status by deregulating the industry. Free market forces were immediately released and began a feeding frenzy on the fledgling industry, which now found itself completely without protection.
In fairness to the Carter administration, it must be said that it did have enough forethought to imagine market forces creating competition based solely on overworking employees. To head this off, lengthy studies were initiated, and new rules and safety regulations were proposed. However, these new rules failed to be fully enacted during Carter's administration.
Later, the Reagan administration--armed with a cost-benefit analysis that claimed the costs of the new rules and safety regulations outweighed the benefits -- tossed the new rules and regulations out.
One must wonder if Reagan's cost-benefit analysis eases the grief of the mothers and loved ones of those killed on our highways. They must live with the results of our government's decision to reject increased safety because "the costs outweighed the benefits."
Because the trucking industry had -- until 1980 -- always been regulated as a public service, it enjoyed an exemption from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
In 1981, during the confusing early days of deregulation, the Minimum Wage Study Commission (MWSC) reviewed and recommended a continuance of this exemption. Their recommendation was based on the erroneous proposition (garnered from old, out-of-date information) that 80 percent of all over-the-road drivers were covered under union contracts and thus benefited from standards that exceeded the FLSA.
The true facts were as clear then as they are now: union organization in the truckload sector of the industry -- the largest sector -- is, and always has been, next to nonexistent. Whether this was an honest error on the part of the MWSC or a means of arriving at a desired conclusion is left to speculation.
Once government opened the floodgates, changes came thick and fast. New companies, formerly limited in number by tight regulation, sprang up overnight. Unbridled competition, hoped by many to have a cleansing and beneficial effect, became destructive. Freight rates fell, bankruptcies skyrocketed and wages plummeted. Research shows that without the protection of either the union or the FLSA, wages of drivers in the non-unionized truckload segment of the industry fell as much as 30 percent to 50 percent between 1980 and 1997.
In a desperate attempt to maintain some semblance of a middle class lifestyle, drivers were forced to work much longer hours for the same take-home pay.
Faced with this new reality of extremely long hours and substandard pay, many professional drivers began leaving the industry just as the new companies began adding thousands of trucks to the competitive free-for-all. Drivers, who had been standing in line waiting for a good job, disappeared as trucking became a job of last resort.
In a frantic attempt to find new drivers, trucking company recruiters significantly lowered their expectations and requirements. The resulting "scraping of the barrel" exacerbated the downward spiral. It is estimated that the current turnover rate among nonunion drivers is 100 percent.
While loudly crying about an ever increasing "driver shortage," truckload carriers make no real attempt to address the serious issues that have created the shortage. Spurred on by competition run amuck, they continue to hire the lowest wageworkers, available from wherever they can find them. This drives wages further into the dirt, compounds the skilled driver shortage, and spills more blood on the highways. Is it too much to assume that if the pay and working conditions were addressed, the driver shortage might evaporate?
In his book, "Sweatshops on Wheels," Michael H. Belzer -- an assistant research scientist at the University of Michigan Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations -- cogently analyzes the effects deregulation has had on the trucking industry. According to his analysis, deregulation has resulted in fierce competition; extremely low wages, killing hours and a never ending struggle to maintain safety in such an environment.
The 20th century saw those dins of human exploitation and misery called "sweatshops" legislated out of existence. Could it be that the sweatshops of the last century have been replaced by thundering, rolling versions of the same thing?
My hangdog look is the result of knowing that Belzer is correct in his assessment: the "new" truckload carrier industry has created sweatshops that enslave many more individuals than the sweatshops of yesterday ever dreamed of.
Unbridled competition, coupled with no wage protection for its drivers, has sent the truckload segment of the trucking industry into a death spiral. While the public wants, and has every right to expect, safe highways and a reliable transportation system, drivers, under pressure to deliver quickly and at low cost, are being forced to push far past safety parameters.
The federal government, in an attempt to improve trucking safety, has issued a new Hours of Service (HOS) rule, which, barring any last minute court challenges, will take effect October 1, 2005. But as the waters around the new HOS rule continue to roil, out on the horizon, like a small wave gathering strength and momentum as it rolls toward the beach, drivers are beginning to demand economic and social justice in addition to safer working conditions.
Can a nation that is so dependent upon its vast transportation network continue to deny basic employment rights to those who keep the network running smoothly?
It is indeed time for change and a good place to begin is to have Congress repeal the trucking industry’s absurd exemption from provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Such a repeal will grant truck drivers the same overtime rights and protections currently enjoyed by the great majority of American workers while creating jobs and discouraging carriers from overworking their drivers.
There is strong opposition in the business community to such action. Those with a financial stake in keeping men and women shackled to rolling sweatshops argue that since the Department of Transportation already regulates a truck driver’s hours of service, further regulation under the Fair Labor Standards Act amounts to overkill.
They confuse apples with oranges.
Whereas the FLSA affords minimum protections regarding pay and overtime, the HOS rules set maximum hours for the purpose of safety. For example: Although airline pilots are protected under the FLSA the FAA tightly regulates pilots’ hours for the purpose of public safety. Such regulation has never been referred to as “overkill”.
So long as motor carriers are allowed to disregard the FLSA they will continue to compete solely on the basis of low wages. Such competition encourages negative efficiency among carriers and shippers while contributing positively to the continued bloodshed on our highways.
Pay by-the-mile and percentage pay must also be outlawed and replaced with pay-by-the-hour. Drivers must be paid for all time worked, including loading, unloading, fueling, wait time, breakdowns, etc. Without this change in the status quo, removal of the FLSA exemption will be meaningless. Transport companies will simply circumvent the requirements of the FLSA by continuing to pay drivers on a piecework basis. Drivers currently paid in this manner (this includes most of the drivers in the truckload segment) find they must work the maximum amount of hours allowable (and then some) to maintain their position in the lower middle class. Armed with such a strong economic incentive it is easy to understand why so many drivers continue to falsify their logbooks and work beyond the limits of safety.
If the new HOS rule was coupled with pay by-the-hour for all work performed and full protection under the FLSA, drivers would see their paychecks increase, their working conditions greatly improve and the American public would find the highways a much safer place.
Enforcing the HOS while preventing drivers from bilking their companies will require the employment of technology (black boxes, EOBRs). Although much of the industry argues vehemently against such technology being mandated, they are at the same time rapidly outfitting their trucks with tracking and recording devices.
The new HOS rule is a workable one. Not only will it help prevent carriers from using overwork as their main competitive edge, but it also goes a little way toward removing truck drivers from their rolling sweat shops and allowing them to enjoy a modicum of the fruits of their labor. Hopefully, the new rule will accomplish this while energetically and forcefully addressing its prime objective—safety. To work so hard at formulating a rule like the new HOS and then continue to base compliance on driver maintained paper logbooks is tantamount to polishing an apple and then storing it in a manure pile.
These changes will not come cheap. Although much of any increased cost will be born by increased efficiency of both transport companies and shippers, some will have to be passed on in the form of increased freight rates with the consumer paying a share. The payback to consumers in terms of increased highway safety will be great. The motoring public is currently paying in blood and sorrow for maintaining the status quo. How much are safer roads worth?
As I write this, good men and women are leaving the trucking industry in droves. The take-home pay of the American trucker, plummeting since 1980, continues its downward plunge. Too many persons are dying in truck related highway accidents. It is my most sincere hope that the federal government will somehow find the fortitude to put this once noble industry back on target. Left to its own totally unregulated devices, trucking, as it is known today, will self-destruct in a few short years. Market forces are, even now, forming a new creation in the bowels of the current unrest. The American public will not like this new creation. I believe they should fear it. I do.
In days gone by, the general public looked upon truck drivers as "knights of the road." Those big and burly men (women truck drivers were almost unheard of back then) were quick to stop and help a motorist who might appear stranded. Motorists, in turn, looked for the roadside diners where the "big trucks" stopped, assuming, often correctly, that the food inside must be good.
That was yesterday. Today, the media portrays truckers as the Mad Maxes and Maxines of the highway; out to terrorize the public in thundering, smoke-belching instruments of destruction -- "killer trucks." The former knights of the road have become demons, the old highway cowboys, outlaws.
In the past, I have been quick to defend the trucking industry and truckers against such attacks, but now my experience dictates "coming clean."
In reality, there are very few killer trucks on the road today, but there are many killer truck drivers. They travel at speeds well over the posted limit. They weave in and out of traffic and follow less than a car length behind autos, using intimidation in hopes that the smaller vehicle will move. They cheat on their logbooks, drive when over-tired and fill the CB airwaves with language that would cause a barroom dog to drop its bone.
There was a time when such drivers would have been rejected by the trucking industry before they ever got behind the wheel.
Why the change? To understand what has happened, let's look at a little recent history.
Prior to1980 trucking was classified, not as an industry, but as a utility and, as such, was heavily regulated by the federal government. As a designated utility, trucking had developed into an honorable, sought-after career in which the wages were good, the life-style hard working, but relaxed, and the future secure. Well-qualified persons stood in line waiting for an opening to occur.
In 1980, the federal government ended trucking's utility status by deregulating the industry. Free market forces were immediately released and began a feeding frenzy on the fledgling industry, which now found itself completely without protection.
In fairness to the Carter administration, it must be said that it did have enough forethought to imagine market forces creating competition based solely on overworking employees. To head this off, lengthy studies were initiated, and new rules and safety regulations were proposed. However, these new rules failed to be fully enacted during Carter's administration.
Later, the Reagan administration--armed with a cost-benefit analysis that claimed the costs of the new rules and safety regulations outweighed the benefits -- tossed the new rules and regulations out.
One must wonder if Reagan's cost-benefit analysis eases the grief of the mothers and loved ones of those killed on our highways. They must live with the results of our government's decision to reject increased safety because "the costs outweighed the benefits."
Because the trucking industry had -- until 1980 -- always been regulated as a public service, it enjoyed an exemption from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
In 1981, during the confusing early days of deregulation, the Minimum Wage Study Commission (MWSC) reviewed and recommended a continuance of this exemption. Their recommendation was based on the erroneous proposition (garnered from old, out-of-date information) that 80 percent of all over-the-road drivers were covered under union contracts and thus benefited from standards that exceeded the FLSA.
The true facts were as clear then as they are now: union organization in the truckload sector of the industry -- the largest sector -- is, and always has been, next to nonexistent. Whether this was an honest error on the part of the MWSC or a means of arriving at a desired conclusion is left to speculation.
Once government opened the floodgates, changes came thick and fast. New companies, formerly limited in number by tight regulation, sprang up overnight. Unbridled competition, hoped by many to have a cleansing and beneficial effect, became destructive. Freight rates fell, bankruptcies skyrocketed and wages plummeted. Research shows that without the protection of either the union or the FLSA, wages of drivers in the non-unionized truckload segment of the industry fell as much as 30 percent to 50 percent between 1980 and 1997.
In a desperate attempt to maintain some semblance of a middle class lifestyle, drivers were forced to work much longer hours for the same take-home pay.
Faced with this new reality of extremely long hours and substandard pay, many professional drivers began leaving the industry just as the new companies began adding thousands of trucks to the competitive free-for-all. Drivers, who had been standing in line waiting for a good job, disappeared as trucking became a job of last resort.
In a frantic attempt to find new drivers, trucking company recruiters significantly lowered their expectations and requirements. The resulting "scraping of the barrel" exacerbated the downward spiral. It is estimated that the current turnover rate among nonunion drivers is 100 percent.
While loudly crying about an ever increasing "driver shortage," truckload carriers make no real attempt to address the serious issues that have created the shortage. Spurred on by competition run amuck, they continue to hire the lowest wageworkers, available from wherever they can find them. This drives wages further into the dirt, compounds the skilled driver shortage, and spills more blood on the highways. Is it too much to assume that if the pay and working conditions were addressed, the driver shortage might evaporate?
In his book, "Sweatshops on Wheels," Michael H. Belzer -- an assistant research scientist at the University of Michigan Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations -- cogently analyzes the effects deregulation has had on the trucking industry. According to his analysis, deregulation has resulted in fierce competition; extremely low wages, killing hours and a never ending struggle to maintain safety in such an environment.
The 20th century saw those dins of human exploitation and misery called "sweatshops" legislated out of existence. Could it be that the sweatshops of the last century have been replaced by thundering, rolling versions of the same thing?
My hangdog look is the result of knowing that Belzer is correct in his assessment: the "new" truckload carrier industry has created sweatshops that enslave many more individuals than the sweatshops of yesterday ever dreamed of.
Unbridled competition, coupled with no wage protection for its drivers, has sent the truckload segment of the trucking industry into a death spiral. While the public wants, and has every right to expect, safe highways and a reliable transportation system, drivers, under pressure to deliver quickly and at low cost, are being forced to push far past safety parameters.
The federal government, in an attempt to improve trucking safety, has issued a new Hours of Service (HOS) rule, which, barring any last minute court challenges, will take effect October 1, 2005. But as the waters around the new HOS rule continue to roil, out on the horizon, like a small wave gathering strength and momentum as it rolls toward the beach, drivers are beginning to demand economic and social justice in addition to safer working conditions.
Can a nation that is so dependent upon its vast transportation network continue to deny basic employment rights to those who keep the network running smoothly?
It is indeed time for change and a good place to begin is to have Congress repeal the trucking industry’s absurd exemption from provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Such a repeal will grant truck drivers the same overtime rights and protections currently enjoyed by the great majority of American workers while creating jobs and discouraging carriers from overworking their drivers.
There is strong opposition in the business community to such action. Those with a financial stake in keeping men and women shackled to rolling sweatshops argue that since the Department of Transportation already regulates a truck driver’s hours of service, further regulation under the Fair Labor Standards Act amounts to overkill.
They confuse apples with oranges.
Whereas the FLSA affords minimum protections regarding pay and overtime, the HOS rules set maximum hours for the purpose of safety. For example: Although airline pilots are protected under the FLSA the FAA tightly regulates pilots’ hours for the purpose of public safety. Such regulation has never been referred to as “overkill”.
So long as motor carriers are allowed to disregard the FLSA they will continue to compete solely on the basis of low wages. Such competition encourages negative efficiency among carriers and shippers while contributing positively to the continued bloodshed on our highways.
Pay by-the-mile and percentage pay must also be outlawed and replaced with pay-by-the-hour. Drivers must be paid for all time worked, including loading, unloading, fueling, wait time, breakdowns, etc. Without this change in the status quo, removal of the FLSA exemption will be meaningless. Transport companies will simply circumvent the requirements of the FLSA by continuing to pay drivers on a piecework basis. Drivers currently paid in this manner (this includes most of the drivers in the truckload segment) find they must work the maximum amount of hours allowable (and then some) to maintain their position in the lower middle class. Armed with such a strong economic incentive it is easy to understand why so many drivers continue to falsify their logbooks and work beyond the limits of safety.
If the new HOS rule was coupled with pay by-the-hour for all work performed and full protection under the FLSA, drivers would see their paychecks increase, their working conditions greatly improve and the American public would find the highways a much safer place.
Enforcing the HOS while preventing drivers from bilking their companies will require the employment of technology (black boxes, EOBRs). Although much of the industry argues vehemently against such technology being mandated, they are at the same time rapidly outfitting their trucks with tracking and recording devices.
The new HOS rule is a workable one. Not only will it help prevent carriers from using overwork as their main competitive edge, but it also goes a little way toward removing truck drivers from their rolling sweat shops and allowing them to enjoy a modicum of the fruits of their labor. Hopefully, the new rule will accomplish this while energetically and forcefully addressing its prime objective—safety. To work so hard at formulating a rule like the new HOS and then continue to base compliance on driver maintained paper logbooks is tantamount to polishing an apple and then storing it in a manure pile.
These changes will not come cheap. Although much of any increased cost will be born by increased efficiency of both transport companies and shippers, some will have to be passed on in the form of increased freight rates with the consumer paying a share. The payback to consumers in terms of increased highway safety will be great. The motoring public is currently paying in blood and sorrow for maintaining the status quo. How much are safer roads worth?
As I write this, good men and women are leaving the trucking industry in droves. The take-home pay of the American trucker, plummeting since 1980, continues its downward plunge. Too many persons are dying in truck related highway accidents. It is my most sincere hope that the federal government will somehow find the fortitude to put this once noble industry back on target. Left to its own totally unregulated devices, trucking, as it is known today, will self-destruct in a few short years. Market forces are, even now, forming a new creation in the bowels of the current unrest. The American public will not like this new creation. I believe they should fear it. I do.
Category: General
Posted on Mon, Jul 23 2007 @ 2:17 PM [EST]
[Permalink] [Comments - 2] [Send Article] [Improper]Time to move on
I have been and remain a friend to Daphne and Steve Izner and thank them for what they are trying to do for us professional drivers. I recognize that many of us are not fully aware of what PATT is trying to do. Believe me when I say that when you talk to those who know, you will be, like me, a champion of their cause; for it is our cause as well.
Today I received an e-mail from Daphne. The contents are pasted below as is my response. I welcome further response from any and all who are familiar with what it means to be a professional
driver today.
Daphne writes:
Following another horrific truck crash in Pennsylvania, the newspaper there has 3 stories in today's (Sunday) paper. I spoke with him at length this past week. If you would like to read them go to http://www.mcall.com "I-78 deaths fuel debate over truckers' rest time"(2 stories) & "Victims' families want driving hours cut"
Daphne
I responded:
Daphne and all:
I read these articles and they made me furious. The rules as they NOW exist have gone a long way toward mandating adequate drivers rest. I have been "sleepy" after 2 hours driving following 10 hours off. It comes with the territory whether you are driving an 18 wheeler, a car, or a motorcycle. When I feel this way I stop and either take a cat nap or walk around. The fourteen hour clock as it now is implemented, is a boon to the professional driver. 14 hours is enough. Fool further with driving time etc and we professional drivers will end up with still longer and more tiring work days. People get killed on the road every day--too many to be sure. Some are the result of accidents involving big trucks, most are not. It is time to get off this case and start working for economic justice, i.e.., hourly pay, higher pay, more stringent driver qualification requirements etc. Bring the truck driver up close to par with at least the railroad engineer not to mention the airline pilot in professionalism and the rest will work out as best it can. Further beating the HOS regs will only cause more smoke to cloud some real issues. It is time to center on the department of labor while keeping a watch on the dept of transportation.
Guy
Being the class act that she is, Daphne quickly updated me:
Guy,
I spoke with this news reporter for quite a long time and a good part of the time I talked about drivers pay as we have always have done. As you know we have said it time & time again- until drivers are paid for all time worked nothing much will change. I , in fact, asked the reporter "how would you like to go to work and have to WAIT in the parking lot maybe 6 hours before you could start earning pay?"
Over the years we have made numerous trips to the Dept. of Labor in DC over that very issue-hourly pay. We got sent from the DOL to DOT , etc. We worked with both for years to have it made mandatory for companies to post a drivers' rights poster . That went no place. We ended up mailing hundreds of posters to drivers and some drivers posted them at truck stops.
It appears the reporter decided to focus on the HOS only . We have absolutely no control over what is written in a news story following an interview.
Thanks for getting back to me,
Daphne.
Today I received an e-mail from Daphne. The contents are pasted below as is my response. I welcome further response from any and all who are familiar with what it means to be a professional
driver today.
Daphne writes:
Following another horrific truck crash in Pennsylvania, the newspaper there has 3 stories in today's (Sunday) paper. I spoke with him at length this past week. If you would like to read them go to http://www.mcall.com "I-78 deaths fuel debate over truckers' rest time"(2 stories) & "Victims' families want driving hours cut"
Daphne
I responded:
Daphne and all:
I read these articles and they made me furious. The rules as they NOW exist have gone a long way toward mandating adequate drivers rest. I have been "sleepy" after 2 hours driving following 10 hours off. It comes with the territory whether you are driving an 18 wheeler, a car, or a motorcycle. When I feel this way I stop and either take a cat nap or walk around. The fourteen hour clock as it now is implemented, is a boon to the professional driver. 14 hours is enough. Fool further with driving time etc and we professional drivers will end up with still longer and more tiring work days. People get killed on the road every day--too many to be sure. Some are the result of accidents involving big trucks, most are not. It is time to get off this case and start working for economic justice, i.e.., hourly pay, higher pay, more stringent driver qualification requirements etc. Bring the truck driver up close to par with at least the railroad engineer not to mention the airline pilot in professionalism and the rest will work out as best it can. Further beating the HOS regs will only cause more smoke to cloud some real issues. It is time to center on the department of labor while keeping a watch on the dept of transportation.
Guy
Being the class act that she is, Daphne quickly updated me:
Guy,
I spoke with this news reporter for quite a long time and a good part of the time I talked about drivers pay as we have always have done. As you know we have said it time & time again- until drivers are paid for all time worked nothing much will change. I , in fact, asked the reporter "how would you like to go to work and have to WAIT in the parking lot maybe 6 hours before you could start earning pay?"
Over the years we have made numerous trips to the Dept. of Labor in DC over that very issue-hourly pay. We got sent from the DOL to DOT , etc. We worked with both for years to have it made mandatory for companies to post a drivers' rights poster . That went no place. We ended up mailing hundreds of posters to drivers and some drivers posted them at truck stops.
It appears the reporter decided to focus on the HOS only . We have absolutely no control over what is written in a news story following an interview.
Thanks for getting back to me,
Daphne.
Category: General
Posted on Sun, Jun 10 2007 @ 5:37 PM [EST]
[Permalink] [Comments - 2] [Send Article] [Improper]Heavyweight Problems
Arguments pro and con concerning raising truck weight limits on the non-turnpike miles of Maine interstate are getting hot. As a Maine resident and trucker with 20+ years over the road experience, I too am beginning to heat up.
The argument purports to center on safety, with proponents arguing that overweight trucks (those in excess of the federal limit of 80,000 pounds) must be allowed to use the Maine interstate north of Augusta. Such a change would remove these trucks from their current secondary routes (where Maine law allows them) and would thus make these roads safer for the motoring public.
Not so fast.
Maine officials have stated that they will continue to allow 100,000 GVW trucks on local streets even if these trucks were permitted on the remainder of Maine’s interstate highways. Yes, many trucks would remove to the four-lane, but many would continue to use the two-lane routes for a variety of reasons and they would be perfectly within the law. Very few if any 100,000 pound loads, or 80,000 for that matter, originate or terminate on the interstate. At some point they must make the trek down a ramp and onto a secondary road. If safety is truly the goal here, and not just a smoke screen to confuse the public, then raising the weight limit on the interstate from 80,000 to 100,000 is not the real issue; lowering the 100,000 limit to 80,000 on secondary roads and the Maine turnpike is.
A recent Lewiston Sun Journal editorial stated, “MDOT estimates that waiving federal weight limits would result in three fewer truck crashes in Maine every year. In addition to the safety benefits, waiving weight limits would save MDOT between $1 million and $1.65 million every year on pavement costs, and approximately $300,000 per year on bridge rehabilitation costs. The overall economic benefit to Maine and its citizens would be between $1.6 million and $2.3 million annually.”
Fewer truck crashes? An economic benefit to Maine citizens?
Oh really?
A 1988 study conducted by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute found that the chances of a big truck crash resulting in death and serious injuries increase with each extra ton of weight over 80,000 lbs. A truck weighing even a legal 80,000 lbs. is more then twice as likely to be involved in a fatal crash as a truck weighing about 50,000 lbs.
The U.S. Department of Transportation, in reports dated 1997 and 2000, found that overweight trucks, particularly 100,000 lbs. GVW trucks, dramatically underpay their fair share of taxes and user fees for the repair of U.S. roads and bridges. By damaging roads, large trucks further degrade highway safety.
As far back as 1962, the Highway Research Board, NAS, reported that pavement damage is caused almost entirely by heavy trucks, not by passenger cars. One legal 80,000 lbs. GVW tractor-trailer truck does as much damage to road pavement as 9,600 cars.
Wilbur Smith Associates, a noted infrastructure consulting firm, was contracted by the state of Maine to conduct a “Study of Impacts Caused by Exempting the Maine Turnpike and New Hampshire Turnpike from Federal Weight Limits”. In their final report issued in April, 2005, this team concluded: “Rescinding the federal truck weight exemption on the Maine and New Hampshire Turnpikes would cost the states of Maine and New Hampshire an additional $3 million to $4.1 million each year.”
The Maine DOT and the trucking industry did not like that report.
Who will pick up this tab? You and I, the Maine taxpayers, will. Who will suffer beneath the wheels of these continually longer, continually heavier trucks? You and I and our children will.
Our beautiful state is not wealthy, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. We enjoy a way of life not known by many. We care about each other’s safety and welfare. It is for these reasons that I ask all my fellow Mainers to look the trucking industry and their beholding politicians in the eye as they gamble with our safety, and call them on their arrogance and assumption that they can bluff us into believing anything.
Enough is enough! 80,000 GVW on all Maine interstates. 80,000 GVW or less on all Maine secondary roads.
[size=18][/size]
The argument purports to center on safety, with proponents arguing that overweight trucks (those in excess of the federal limit of 80,000 pounds) must be allowed to use the Maine interstate north of Augusta. Such a change would remove these trucks from their current secondary routes (where Maine law allows them) and would thus make these roads safer for the motoring public.
Not so fast.
Maine officials have stated that they will continue to allow 100,000 GVW trucks on local streets even if these trucks were permitted on the remainder of Maine’s interstate highways. Yes, many trucks would remove to the four-lane, but many would continue to use the two-lane routes for a variety of reasons and they would be perfectly within the law. Very few if any 100,000 pound loads, or 80,000 for that matter, originate or terminate on the interstate. At some point they must make the trek down a ramp and onto a secondary road. If safety is truly the goal here, and not just a smoke screen to confuse the public, then raising the weight limit on the interstate from 80,000 to 100,000 is not the real issue; lowering the 100,000 limit to 80,000 on secondary roads and the Maine turnpike is.
A recent Lewiston Sun Journal editorial stated, “MDOT estimates that waiving federal weight limits would result in three fewer truck crashes in Maine every year. In addition to the safety benefits, waiving weight limits would save MDOT between $1 million and $1.65 million every year on pavement costs, and approximately $300,000 per year on bridge rehabilitation costs. The overall economic benefit to Maine and its citizens would be between $1.6 million and $2.3 million annually.”
Fewer truck crashes? An economic benefit to Maine citizens?
Oh really?
A 1988 study conducted by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute found that the chances of a big truck crash resulting in death and serious injuries increase with each extra ton of weight over 80,000 lbs. A truck weighing even a legal 80,000 lbs. is more then twice as likely to be involved in a fatal crash as a truck weighing about 50,000 lbs.
The U.S. Department of Transportation, in reports dated 1997 and 2000, found that overweight trucks, particularly 100,000 lbs. GVW trucks, dramatically underpay their fair share of taxes and user fees for the repair of U.S. roads and bridges. By damaging roads, large trucks further degrade highway safety.
As far back as 1962, the Highway Research Board, NAS, reported that pavement damage is caused almost entirely by heavy trucks, not by passenger cars. One legal 80,000 lbs. GVW tractor-trailer truck does as much damage to road pavement as 9,600 cars.
Wilbur Smith Associates, a noted infrastructure consulting firm, was contracted by the state of Maine to conduct a “Study of Impacts Caused by Exempting the Maine Turnpike and New Hampshire Turnpike from Federal Weight Limits”. In their final report issued in April, 2005, this team concluded: “Rescinding the federal truck weight exemption on the Maine and New Hampshire Turnpikes would cost the states of Maine and New Hampshire an additional $3 million to $4.1 million each year.”
The Maine DOT and the trucking industry did not like that report.
Who will pick up this tab? You and I, the Maine taxpayers, will. Who will suffer beneath the wheels of these continually longer, continually heavier trucks? You and I and our children will.
Our beautiful state is not wealthy, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. We enjoy a way of life not known by many. We care about each other’s safety and welfare. It is for these reasons that I ask all my fellow Mainers to look the trucking industry and their beholding politicians in the eye as they gamble with our safety, and call them on their arrogance and assumption that they can bluff us into believing anything.
Enough is enough! 80,000 GVW on all Maine interstates. 80,000 GVW or less on all Maine secondary roads.
[size=18][/size]
Category: General
Posted on Sun, Sep 17 2006 @ 6:23 PM [EST]
[Permalink] [Comments - 1] [Send Article] [Improper]One Driver's Appeal to Congress and the Trucking Industry
As recently as two years ago the trucking industry was being warned not to dismiss the idea of an acute truck driver shortage.
Did they listen? Apparently, not.
According to the American Trucking Association’s report: U.S. Truck Driver Shortage: Analysis and Forecasts, issued in 2005, the long-haul, heavy-duty truck transportation industry in the United States currently is experiencing a national shortage of 20,000 truck drivers. Another 219,000 must be found to replace drivers 55 and older who will retire in the next decade, putting total expansion and replacement hiring needs at 539,000 or an average of 54,000 new drivers per year for the next decade.
Careerbuilder.com, a leading national job bank, recently ranked heavy-duty truck driving No. 18 on its list of the top 25 jobs for 2006. That is not to say that heavy-duty truck driving is one of the best jobs out there; only that there is a very acute and increasing demand for experienced and qualified drivers.
David Goodson, a management consultant specializing in transportation recently wrote in e-trucker, “Many fleets believe they can compete with truckload carriers for drivers simply by increasing their wages. But even by keeping wages at parity, few fleets are equipped to effectively compete in a tight marketplace for drivers.” He further stated, “I still see numerous private fleets treating driver recruiting as if it were a personnel function. This mindset is based on the premise that good jobs are in short supply – that all the personnel department has to do is advertise the job, have prospects come in and fill out an application and pick out the best applicants.”
This is no longer the case.
Brad Wong in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s October 10, 2005 edition, reported Jim Tutton, vice president of Washington Trucking Associations as saying that to keep up with demand, the state (of Washington) will need about 10,000 to 15,000 new drivers in the next five years. “Motor carriers are telling us every day that they have trucks parked up against the fence because of a lack of drivers," Tutton is quoted as saying.
In spite of the growing acute shortage, which a very few are attempting to address by raising wages, www.BigRigJobs.com , in a posting dated January 30, 2006, reports “The Chicago district said of Business Spending that truck driver shortages persisted. In spite of these persistent truck driver shortages, ‘trucker wage gains reportedly slowed’.
While it is understandable that many in the trucking industry are holding back from addressing the shortage of drivers for fear of depleting their bottom lines, lack of an aggressive and meaningful plan to deal with this problem now will only result in exacerbating the problem. Immediate and substantial increases in driver remuneration may help, but more, much more, need to be addressed if this problem is to be cured.
To entice experienced and safe drivers to remain in the industry and to present a viable and attractive future to new driver prospects, the industry needs to sacrifice its antiquated sacred cows beginning with the industry’s closely guarded exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act
The American trucker deserves the same protection of law as other American workers enjoy. The era of remuneration based on piece-work (pay-per-mile) is sick and should be put out of its misery. A fair and competitive pay-per-hour with overtime after 40 hours would go a long way to addressing the growing problems. While the new HOS rule (if followed) addresses driver rest, such a rule will never address, nor is it meant to address, the economic and social justice that the American truck driver is being deprived of.
The repeal of this exemption will not cure all problems facing American trucking, but will go a long way toward a healthier and safer industry.
Did they listen? Apparently, not.
According to the American Trucking Association’s report: U.S. Truck Driver Shortage: Analysis and Forecasts, issued in 2005, the long-haul, heavy-duty truck transportation industry in the United States currently is experiencing a national shortage of 20,000 truck drivers. Another 219,000 must be found to replace drivers 55 and older who will retire in the next decade, putting total expansion and replacement hiring needs at 539,000 or an average of 54,000 new drivers per year for the next decade.
Careerbuilder.com, a leading national job bank, recently ranked heavy-duty truck driving No. 18 on its list of the top 25 jobs for 2006. That is not to say that heavy-duty truck driving is one of the best jobs out there; only that there is a very acute and increasing demand for experienced and qualified drivers.
David Goodson, a management consultant specializing in transportation recently wrote in e-trucker, “Many fleets believe they can compete with truckload carriers for drivers simply by increasing their wages. But even by keeping wages at parity, few fleets are equipped to effectively compete in a tight marketplace for drivers.” He further stated, “I still see numerous private fleets treating driver recruiting as if it were a personnel function. This mindset is based on the premise that good jobs are in short supply – that all the personnel department has to do is advertise the job, have prospects come in and fill out an application and pick out the best applicants.”
This is no longer the case.
Brad Wong in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s October 10, 2005 edition, reported Jim Tutton, vice president of Washington Trucking Associations as saying that to keep up with demand, the state (of Washington) will need about 10,000 to 15,000 new drivers in the next five years. “Motor carriers are telling us every day that they have trucks parked up against the fence because of a lack of drivers," Tutton is quoted as saying.
In spite of the growing acute shortage, which a very few are attempting to address by raising wages, www.BigRigJobs.com , in a posting dated January 30, 2006, reports “The Chicago district said of Business Spending that truck driver shortages persisted. In spite of these persistent truck driver shortages, ‘trucker wage gains reportedly slowed’.
While it is understandable that many in the trucking industry are holding back from addressing the shortage of drivers for fear of depleting their bottom lines, lack of an aggressive and meaningful plan to deal with this problem now will only result in exacerbating the problem. Immediate and substantial increases in driver remuneration may help, but more, much more, need to be addressed if this problem is to be cured.
To entice experienced and safe drivers to remain in the industry and to present a viable and attractive future to new driver prospects, the industry needs to sacrifice its antiquated sacred cows beginning with the industry’s closely guarded exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act
The American trucker deserves the same protection of law as other American workers enjoy. The era of remuneration based on piece-work (pay-per-mile) is sick and should be put out of its misery. A fair and competitive pay-per-hour with overtime after 40 hours would go a long way to addressing the growing problems. While the new HOS rule (if followed) addresses driver rest, such a rule will never address, nor is it meant to address, the economic and social justice that the American truck driver is being deprived of.
The repeal of this exemption will not cure all problems facing American trucking, but will go a long way toward a healthier and safer industry.
Category: General
Posted on Mon, Feb 13 2006 @ 10:20 AM [EST]
[Permalink] [Comments - 3] [Send Article] [Improper]Just An Old Hippie
I was "ridin' and guidin'" my 18-wheeler through the flatland just east of Montreal, Quebec, recently when I saw him. Like a specter that shouldn't be there, he was striding meaningfully along the side of AutoRoute 10, his eyes fixed straight ahead. He had an old duffel bag wedged under his arm and was dressed in patched bell-bottom jeans and a faded, tie-dyed T-shirt. The leather thongs of his Roman sandals were wrapped several times around his lower legs and a short cigarette (I think it was a cigarette) stuck out of the corner of his mouth. Looking back at him in my rearview, I noticed he was not young. His full beard and flowing long hair contained many streaks of gray. I wondered where he was coming from and where he was headed. As he faded from my view I felt a chill, then abruptly put him out of my mind.
Later, as I beheld the skyline of Montreal -- that conglomeration of old and new set upon a wide river -- the words of an aged pop song crept into my mind like a pre-dawn fog: "I'm just an old hippie and I don't know what to do, should I hold onto the old, should I grab on to the new. Just an old hippie trying not to make a fuss. I ain't trying to please nobody, I'm just trying real hard to adjust."
Where in the world did that come from, I wondered? Then I remembered the striding specter. I smiled.
Over the next couple of hours, I became a haunted man. I couldn't shake that darned song from my consciousness. I would shut it for an hour or so only to catch myself humming the tune. Tiring of the fight, I surrendered, flipped on the cruise control, relaxed and gave the song my attention.
I never was what anyone could call a hippie. I didn't have time to be: I was married at 18, a father at 19, and a grandfather at 35. While all the hippies I knew were running around naked and/or stoned at the corner of Haight and Ashbury, or rolling in the mud of drugs, sex and rock and roll at the original Woodstock, I was trying to put in a little overtime to buy my kids a new pair of shoes.
I tried marijuana a couple of times, inhaled and got sick (guess I wasn't presidential material). As a young 20-something, while members of my generation were spending money on Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd, I was falling asleep at the supper table to an old Johnny Cash record -- a 45 at that.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining. I made choices in my life and most I don't regret. I was made to be a family man, I knew that by the time I was eight years old. I don't regret not having been a hippie. I was happy with what I was and am happy with what I am. But, why was that darned old song bouncing around in my cranium like a possessed ping-pong ball?
Well, the miles went by, the days piled up and I forgot that old song and the specter. Then, Thanksgiving rolled around.
Thanksgiving was a joyous day. My oldest daughter and her husband arrived with their youngest daughter, my granddaughter (I have six grandchildren), for a visit. We laughed together, gave thanks together and over-ate together. Later, at the video store, the specter returned.
I opened the doors to that old hippie when I asked my granddaughter what she wanted to see. She gave me a quick litany of 50 or so current films complete with their stars and co-stars. I quickly realized that I had never heard of any of the movies, to say nothing of their shining stars. To make matters worse, whenever I questioned her about them she just smiled as though I were kidding and said something like, "Oh grandpa, you're so funny."
No, not funny, just an old hippie, emphasis on old. I began thinking about other things, about pop music and young fashions. These days I'm still listening to Buddy Holly, downloading Gordon Bok and think I'm cool in tweed (I always had a secret admiration for Henry Higgins' style in My Fair Lady).
Ask me to name two top singers on the pop chart and I'll give you a blank stare. Ask me to name a popular movie and I go mute. I still think baseball caps should be worn with the bill facing forward, rolled into a slight curve; baggy pants went out with the zoot suit; knee socks look good on young girls; sneakers should be made of canvas; and hip-hop only sounds good around a flaming barrel in the Bronx, and then only if there are no do-whoppers around.
Well that settles that. No, I cannot grab onto to the new, for besides computers I don't have a clue what the new is. Further, I'm not sure I want to know and if I do, I don't want to make the effort to find out.
Just an old hippie who was never a hippie -- that's me. So, if I can't grab onto the new I had better hold onto the old. I rather like that idea. I'll hold onto family, and love, children and puppies, snuggling and holding hands. I'll hold onto working hard and resting as if it were a blessing. I'll download some more Gordon Bok, throw in some good jazz and folk and then not have the time to sit and listen to it. I'll continue to despise insurance companies (health insurance most of all) question the godly stature of physicians, and completely distrust anything corporate including most politicians.
I will continue to hold sacred such things as Bing Crosby's "White Christmas," Gene Autry's "Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer," and Roy and Dale Rogers' "Happy Trails to You," while considering remakes of these by new artists anathema and new arrangements heresy.
I still like John Wayne movies, anything written by Mark Twain, and RoadRunner cartoons. I do not consider the Three Stooges violent (I'm so sick) nor do I necessarily view men who cry as being weak or women who stay at home as being unfulfilled. I have trouble tolerating intolerance and have been known to spend an hour looking for the eyeglasses that are on my face.
I'm just an older man getting to like getting older, getting to appreciate the increased perspective. No, I won't grab onto the new -- I'll pick and choose, thank you. I will hold on to the old for it has sustained me well for more than half a century.
By-the-way, some of that old stuff is becoming new. Go figure.
[summary][/summary]
Later, as I beheld the skyline of Montreal -- that conglomeration of old and new set upon a wide river -- the words of an aged pop song crept into my mind like a pre-dawn fog: "I'm just an old hippie and I don't know what to do, should I hold onto the old, should I grab on to the new. Just an old hippie trying not to make a fuss. I ain't trying to please nobody, I'm just trying real hard to adjust."
Where in the world did that come from, I wondered? Then I remembered the striding specter. I smiled.
Over the next couple of hours, I became a haunted man. I couldn't shake that darned song from my consciousness. I would shut it for an hour or so only to catch myself humming the tune. Tiring of the fight, I surrendered, flipped on the cruise control, relaxed and gave the song my attention.
I never was what anyone could call a hippie. I didn't have time to be: I was married at 18, a father at 19, and a grandfather at 35. While all the hippies I knew were running around naked and/or stoned at the corner of Haight and Ashbury, or rolling in the mud of drugs, sex and rock and roll at the original Woodstock, I was trying to put in a little overtime to buy my kids a new pair of shoes.
I tried marijuana a couple of times, inhaled and got sick (guess I wasn't presidential material). As a young 20-something, while members of my generation were spending money on Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd, I was falling asleep at the supper table to an old Johnny Cash record -- a 45 at that.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining. I made choices in my life and most I don't regret. I was made to be a family man, I knew that by the time I was eight years old. I don't regret not having been a hippie. I was happy with what I was and am happy with what I am. But, why was that darned old song bouncing around in my cranium like a possessed ping-pong ball?
Well, the miles went by, the days piled up and I forgot that old song and the specter. Then, Thanksgiving rolled around.
Thanksgiving was a joyous day. My oldest daughter and her husband arrived with their youngest daughter, my granddaughter (I have six grandchildren), for a visit. We laughed together, gave thanks together and over-ate together. Later, at the video store, the specter returned.
I opened the doors to that old hippie when I asked my granddaughter what she wanted to see. She gave me a quick litany of 50 or so current films complete with their stars and co-stars. I quickly realized that I had never heard of any of the movies, to say nothing of their shining stars. To make matters worse, whenever I questioned her about them she just smiled as though I were kidding and said something like, "Oh grandpa, you're so funny."
No, not funny, just an old hippie, emphasis on old. I began thinking about other things, about pop music and young fashions. These days I'm still listening to Buddy Holly, downloading Gordon Bok and think I'm cool in tweed (I always had a secret admiration for Henry Higgins' style in My Fair Lady).
Ask me to name two top singers on the pop chart and I'll give you a blank stare. Ask me to name a popular movie and I go mute. I still think baseball caps should be worn with the bill facing forward, rolled into a slight curve; baggy pants went out with the zoot suit; knee socks look good on young girls; sneakers should be made of canvas; and hip-hop only sounds good around a flaming barrel in the Bronx, and then only if there are no do-whoppers around.
Well that settles that. No, I cannot grab onto to the new, for besides computers I don't have a clue what the new is. Further, I'm not sure I want to know and if I do, I don't want to make the effort to find out.
Just an old hippie who was never a hippie -- that's me. So, if I can't grab onto the new I had better hold onto the old. I rather like that idea. I'll hold onto family, and love, children and puppies, snuggling and holding hands. I'll hold onto working hard and resting as if it were a blessing. I'll download some more Gordon Bok, throw in some good jazz and folk and then not have the time to sit and listen to it. I'll continue to despise insurance companies (health insurance most of all) question the godly stature of physicians, and completely distrust anything corporate including most politicians.
I will continue to hold sacred such things as Bing Crosby's "White Christmas," Gene Autry's "Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer," and Roy and Dale Rogers' "Happy Trails to You," while considering remakes of these by new artists anathema and new arrangements heresy.
I still like John Wayne movies, anything written by Mark Twain, and RoadRunner cartoons. I do not consider the Three Stooges violent (I'm so sick) nor do I necessarily view men who cry as being weak or women who stay at home as being unfulfilled. I have trouble tolerating intolerance and have been known to spend an hour looking for the eyeglasses that are on my face.
I'm just an older man getting to like getting older, getting to appreciate the increased perspective. No, I won't grab onto the new -- I'll pick and choose, thank you. I will hold on to the old for it has sustained me well for more than half a century.
By-the-way, some of that old stuff is becoming new. Go figure.
[summary][/summary]
Category: General
Posted on Sun, Feb 12 2006 @ 9:42 AM [EST]
[Permalink] [Comments - 1] [Send Article] [Improper]Billy Goat Gruff Redux
To quote the old comic-strip character, Pogo: "I have met the enemy and he is us." One such confrontation occurred recently at the Canadian border crossing located at Rock Island, Quebec, and Derby Line, Vt.
On the northbound leg of my journey into Quebec, I was full of trepidation. Would I have trouble with the Canadian customs officers? Would I find my way around relying only on direction signs written in French? Would the restaurant owners accept my American currency that I foolishly forgot to exchange before entering Canada? Would I be able to converse with them at all?
I arrived in no man's land -- that area between American and Canadian customs offices -- after dark, a fact that only heightened my nervousness. I ran into the American building and handed the officer the export papers for the load of paper I had on my truck. He nodded, said thanks, and that was that.
Then it was over to the Canadian parking lot to check-in with customs.
Our giant northern neighbor greeted me with courtesy. The two women who staffed the trucking portion of the office were relaxed, friendly and bilingual. One handed me a sheaf of papers and gave me quiet instructions on how they should be filled out. While I filled out the papers, the officers bantered back and forth with other drivers in the waiting area, shifting seamlessly from French to English.
When I finished filling in the blanks, one of the officers accompanied me out to my truck, placed a customs seal on the back doors and bid me "bonjour," with a wave and a smile.
That was not so bad.
It was late and I was tired. After turning west onto AutoRoute 10, I began looking for a rest area. After many miles I began to question whether they existed in Quebec -- I never did see one in this province. At mile marker 55, I exited the highway and found a series of restaurants complete with ample truck parking and signs in English instructing drivers who wished to sleep to please park in the back row. I did so.
The next morning (3 a.m.), I walked into the nearest restaurant for coffee. As might be expected the menus and banter were all in French. When I was approached I simply said "coffee" and closed my mouth. The server smiled and replied, "Will that be all?"
It amazed me that the server was bilingual; in fact, all of the servers I dealt with in Quebec spoke fluent English as well as French.
I soon felt comfortable enough to try some of my very limited French. When I stumbled, I was cheerfully and helpfully corrected. It seemed they preferred my hesitant, accented French to my English.
When I finally paid my check, not only was my American money accepted, but also the current exchange rate was used.
I delivered my load without incident and retraced my steps to the border. Having an empty trailer, I was not required to stop at Canadian customs, but I did need to pull up to an oversized American tollbooth.
I informed the officer in the kiosk that my trailer was empty. He frowned and told me that it would still cost me five dollars. I opened my wallet only to find that all I had now was about $15 in Canadian currency. I told the officer this.
"This is the USA," he snarled. "We don't take Canadian."
I calmly tried to explain that that was all I had.
His demeanor became tyrannical, his expression one of disgust. "Next time, remember, American! Now get the *@%# out of here," he said.
I was dismissed. I did not argue. Without another word I put my truck in gear and moved quickly through the raised barrier, my $5 still in my pocket. A children's story about three goats crossing a bridge crossed my mind.
"Brother Gruff, where are you?"
As calm returned to my nervous system, I wondered why the American officer had been in such ill humor. Then I remembered another crossing I made at Calais a few years earlier.
Upon returning to the American side on that occasion, I witnessed two burly American customs officials haranguing a family of three who were attempting to return home.
It seemed that the young boy (nine or 10 years old) had picked up a very old and worn set of moose antlers somewhere in the Canadian woods. The father had strapped these to the roof of the family car with their luggage.
The customs officers had the mother and child in tears and the father stammering and apologizing for being so thoughtless as to attempt to smuggle animal parts into the United States. They told the father he could go to jail. They forcefully intimidated the entire family and seemed to actually enjoy the misery they were causing.
What is with these American customs agents, I thought. Why must they act like Wyatt Earp with hemorrhoids?
Then it occurred to me. The Canadian officers were courteous, helpful and unarmed. The Americans were threatening, demanding and armed.
It must be the guns. Somehow, when these good people strap on that "big iron" they become surly law officers. I hope this is the reason, for if it is not, I am ashamed.
Why did these U.S. representatives feel a need to wear pistols? When was the last time a running gun battle erupted on the Canadian border at Calais? When was the last time these representatives of America received any sensitivity training? Perhaps they are too busy at the shooting range. If so, then it is time to remove the hardware and let them learn the humility such nakedness imparts.
America's history is filled with violence: from the first shot fired at Bunker Hill, through the smoking powder of six guns, to the LA fires and riots. We have learned from all this, haven't we? A gentle giant is respected far more than a tyrannical troll, even if the troll has a gun.
Billy Goat Gruff, where are you?
Category: General
Posted on Sun, Jan 01 2006 @ 9:21 AM [EST]
[Permalink] [Comments - 1] [Send Article] [Improper]Beans
Beans
As I guided my 18 wheels onto the interstate, I could feel fatigue begin to invade my body. It had been a long day in a string of long days, but I expected to be home in two hours if the weather cooperated.
It didn't. The winter rain, which had been making driving arduous, now threatened to make it downright dangerous. The soft splatter of drops on my windshield became the soft tapping of bouncing pellets as the water from heaven crystallized on its way to earth. I decreased speed and kept an eye on the telltale spray coming from passing cars. When the spray stopped -- a sign that liquid was becoming solid -- trouble would start. Loaded only with empty cans bound for B&M in Portland, my trailer was light and a light load was not an asset on slippery surfaces.
Arriving in Portland, I exited I-295 at Washington Avenue and crept into the B&M parking lot. Although the ever-present steam was rising into the night sky, the employee lot was completely empty. I tried to make a hard left between two buildings, but the truck refused to cooperate and continued sliding straight ahead. Luckily, the absence of parked cars made things easier. I spun the steering wheel in the opposite direction and made a long, swooping 270-degree right turn that lined me up with the alley. I stopped, set the brakes and climbed down to check in with receiving.
When my feet met the pavement, I realized the gravity of my situation. I grabbed on to the truck to keep from falling. The pavement was covered with ice; a thin film of water flowing over the top.
I shuffle-stepped my way to the office door, my shoes absorbing the cold water like a sponge. The door was locked. Returning to my truck, I drove around the building, dropped the loaded trailer, backed under an empty, hooked up the air lines and electrical connection, retracted the landing gear, released the brakes and put the truck in gear.
The drive tires rotated over the water-covered ice, but the truck did not move. I tried reverse and again got no traction. I was wet, cold and tired. After spending five days on the road, I wanted to get home. My empty stomach began filling with acid.
I climbed out of the truck and fell to the ground, icy water soaking my pants before I could rise. I found a large box of sand and began spreading the stuff over, around and on my rear tires, but I should have saved my energy. The tires continued to spin and melt their way deeper into the ice.
As desperation began to creep in, I picked up my cell-phone and called for the cavalry. A disinterested sounding voice informed me that a wrecker would arrive in about an hour. I turned the truck's heater up a notch.
Two cold and miserable hours later a set of headlights turned into the lot. I flashed my lights. The wrecker came a bit closer and stopped. The driver got out and, holding onto his truck for support began surveying the situation. He finally decided that because he would have to drive down a very slippery incline to get to me, I would have to wait until morning. As much as I hated to, I had to agree with him. There was no sense in both of us becoming disabled. After telling me he would return first thing in the morning, he drove off into the night.
I returned to my truck and tried to look on the bright side: I had shelter, a bed, heat and television. I probably would not make it home even if I could extricate myself. Better to wait for the sun and a new day.
As my tense muscles began to relax my stomach piped in to remind me that I had not had anything to eat for more than 10 hours. Since it was the end of the week, my larder was empty. There was no diner or store within walking or skating distance. Then it occurred to me: there had to be thousands of cans of baked beans in this place. I set out to liberate a can or two.
Walking to a side entrance, I glanced at my reflection in the dark windows. I was a sight; a black wool watch-cap pulled down to my eyebrows, a three day growth of beard stubble made my face appear dirty, my shoes squished with each step I took. However forlorn I might appear, I was feeling more so. I opened the door and began meandering down half-lit corridors.
The sonorous hum of fluorescent lighting gave testimony to my solitude in the place. I wandered one way and then another. I passed stacks of bright, shining, empty cans, looked in on an empty employee break-room and then headed down a flight of stairs, my footfalls filling the emptiness with hollow echoes.
Where were the beans?
At the foot of the stairs, I found myself in a semi dark hallway, which I hesitated to enter until noticing a brightly-lit opening at the other end. I stood still and listened. The sound of escaping pressurized steam came from the lighted area. I went forth toward the light.
I was still in semi darkness when a large shape rounded the corner in front of me. I had become so lulled by the hum of fluorescent lighting and the certainty of being alone that the moving figure startled me.
"Who are you?" I said, my voice attempting to disguise my shock, but failing miserably
"I was just about to ask you the same thing," the figure said. He did not sound angry or hostile -- thank heaven -- just curious.
For a couple of seconds, we stood five feet apart studying each another. The stranger was dressed in jeans, a red wool shirt and work boots. He was dry, recently groomed, wide-awake and obviously belonged here. I, on the other hand...
I had better make my reasons for being here sound convincing and innocent, and I had better do it fast. I began a stammering explanation of how I was stuck outside.
He interrupted and asked if I was the truck driver.
"That's me," I said, nodding like a fool.
He smiled and said that he had been listening to me spin my wheels and was just now coming to see if I had made it out all right.
I explained my situation to him and hoped he would understand why I felt such a strong need for beans.
"If it's beans you're wanting, you're in the right church but the wrong pew," he said. "This is the power plant. All the beans are in another building."
He must have seen the disappointment sweep over my face.
"Well, almost all," he said, a smile breaking across his face
He led me into the boiler room where he had a small desk in the corner. It seems that the ice storm had closed the plant for the night shift and he, in his capacity as the stationary engineer (furnace/boiler operator), was the only person in the entire place. He opened an old metal locker and there, stacked in neat rows, was cans and jars of every variety of bean B&M produced.
"What's your preference?" he asked, smiling broadly as I gaped.
I chose two cans of B&M original.
We made small talk for a few minutes and then he led me back to the outside door via a more direct route.
I thanked him profusely and sloshed my way back to the relative comfort of my truck.
After pulling my privacy curtains tight and locking the doors, I stripped out of my wet clothing and donned a dry set. I sat down on my bunk, gave a silent prayer of thanks and enjoyed eating every single bean. Never had so simple a meal tasted so good.
As I guided my 18 wheels onto the interstate, I could feel fatigue begin to invade my body. It had been a long day in a string of long days, but I expected to be home in two hours if the weather cooperated.
It didn't. The winter rain, which had been making driving arduous, now threatened to make it downright dangerous. The soft splatter of drops on my windshield became the soft tapping of bouncing pellets as the water from heaven crystallized on its way to earth. I decreased speed and kept an eye on the telltale spray coming from passing cars. When the spray stopped -- a sign that liquid was becoming solid -- trouble would start. Loaded only with empty cans bound for B&M in Portland, my trailer was light and a light load was not an asset on slippery surfaces.
Arriving in Portland, I exited I-295 at Washington Avenue and crept into the B&M parking lot. Although the ever-present steam was rising into the night sky, the employee lot was completely empty. I tried to make a hard left between two buildings, but the truck refused to cooperate and continued sliding straight ahead. Luckily, the absence of parked cars made things easier. I spun the steering wheel in the opposite direction and made a long, swooping 270-degree right turn that lined me up with the alley. I stopped, set the brakes and climbed down to check in with receiving.
When my feet met the pavement, I realized the gravity of my situation. I grabbed on to the truck to keep from falling. The pavement was covered with ice; a thin film of water flowing over the top.
I shuffle-stepped my way to the office door, my shoes absorbing the cold water like a sponge. The door was locked. Returning to my truck, I drove around the building, dropped the loaded trailer, backed under an empty, hooked up the air lines and electrical connection, retracted the landing gear, released the brakes and put the truck in gear.
The drive tires rotated over the water-covered ice, but the truck did not move. I tried reverse and again got no traction. I was wet, cold and tired. After spending five days on the road, I wanted to get home. My empty stomach began filling with acid.
I climbed out of the truck and fell to the ground, icy water soaking my pants before I could rise. I found a large box of sand and began spreading the stuff over, around and on my rear tires, but I should have saved my energy. The tires continued to spin and melt their way deeper into the ice.
As desperation began to creep in, I picked up my cell-phone and called for the cavalry. A disinterested sounding voice informed me that a wrecker would arrive in about an hour. I turned the truck's heater up a notch.
Two cold and miserable hours later a set of headlights turned into the lot. I flashed my lights. The wrecker came a bit closer and stopped. The driver got out and, holding onto his truck for support began surveying the situation. He finally decided that because he would have to drive down a very slippery incline to get to me, I would have to wait until morning. As much as I hated to, I had to agree with him. There was no sense in both of us becoming disabled. After telling me he would return first thing in the morning, he drove off into the night.
I returned to my truck and tried to look on the bright side: I had shelter, a bed, heat and television. I probably would not make it home even if I could extricate myself. Better to wait for the sun and a new day.
As my tense muscles began to relax my stomach piped in to remind me that I had not had anything to eat for more than 10 hours. Since it was the end of the week, my larder was empty. There was no diner or store within walking or skating distance. Then it occurred to me: there had to be thousands of cans of baked beans in this place. I set out to liberate a can or two.
Walking to a side entrance, I glanced at my reflection in the dark windows. I was a sight; a black wool watch-cap pulled down to my eyebrows, a three day growth of beard stubble made my face appear dirty, my shoes squished with each step I took. However forlorn I might appear, I was feeling more so. I opened the door and began meandering down half-lit corridors.
The sonorous hum of fluorescent lighting gave testimony to my solitude in the place. I wandered one way and then another. I passed stacks of bright, shining, empty cans, looked in on an empty employee break-room and then headed down a flight of stairs, my footfalls filling the emptiness with hollow echoes.
Where were the beans?
At the foot of the stairs, I found myself in a semi dark hallway, which I hesitated to enter until noticing a brightly-lit opening at the other end. I stood still and listened. The sound of escaping pressurized steam came from the lighted area. I went forth toward the light.
I was still in semi darkness when a large shape rounded the corner in front of me. I had become so lulled by the hum of fluorescent lighting and the certainty of being alone that the moving figure startled me.
"Who are you?" I said, my voice attempting to disguise my shock, but failing miserably
"I was just about to ask you the same thing," the figure said. He did not sound angry or hostile -- thank heaven -- just curious.
For a couple of seconds, we stood five feet apart studying each another. The stranger was dressed in jeans, a red wool shirt and work boots. He was dry, recently groomed, wide-awake and obviously belonged here. I, on the other hand...
I had better make my reasons for being here sound convincing and innocent, and I had better do it fast. I began a stammering explanation of how I was stuck outside.
He interrupted and asked if I was the truck driver.
"That's me," I said, nodding like a fool.
He smiled and said that he had been listening to me spin my wheels and was just now coming to see if I had made it out all right.
I explained my situation to him and hoped he would understand why I felt such a strong need for beans.
"If it's beans you're wanting, you're in the right church but the wrong pew," he said. "This is the power plant. All the beans are in another building."
He must have seen the disappointment sweep over my face.
"Well, almost all," he said, a smile breaking across his face
He led me into the boiler room where he had a small desk in the corner. It seems that the ice storm had closed the plant for the night shift and he, in his capacity as the stationary engineer (furnace/boiler operator), was the only person in the entire place. He opened an old metal locker and there, stacked in neat rows, was cans and jars of every variety of bean B&M produced.
"What's your preference?" he asked, smiling broadly as I gaped.
I chose two cans of B&M original.
We made small talk for a few minutes and then he led me back to the outside door via a more direct route.
I thanked him profusely and sloshed my way back to the relative comfort of my truck.
After pulling my privacy curtains tight and locking the doors, I stripped out of my wet clothing and donned a dry set. I sat down on my bunk, gave a silent prayer of thanks and enjoyed eating every single bean. Never had so simple a meal tasted so good.
Category: General
Posted on Sun, Dec 25 2005 @ 7:08 PM [EST]
[Permalink] [Comments - 1] [Send Article] [Improper]Keeping the big trucks on the big roads where they belong
In the five-year period 1998 thru 2002, 26,065 persons died in large-truck-involved crashes. A study of the situation, conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT HS 809 569 June 2003), concluded: “Clearly, the large truck fatal crash problem is neither on interstates, nor on major roadways; it is on non-divided 2-lane roads.”
A few years ago, New Jersey passed a law forcing all through large trucks (those not making a local pickup or delivery) to use national routes. Although the U.S. District Court in Trenton later overturned the law, the ruling’s effect was stayed, effectively keeping the trucks off the state’s non-interstate roads until an appeal by New Jersey is completed.
Responding to Trenton’s action, NJ Governor, James McGreevey said in a released statement: “The safety of our citizens must come first…Our truck restrictions are reasonable and effective. We have provided a safe and efficient way to channel truck traffic through our State. As I’ve said before, we will take this fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.”
The state of Ohio, in an attempt to get truckers back onto the Ohio turnpike and off increasingly congested and dangerous secondary roads (which they fled to after the state dramatically raised tolls in 1999) plans to lower tolls for trucks an average of 25 percent. Under a plan announced by Gov. Bob Taft, which will begin early next year, the most common class of trucks, weighing 65,000 to 80,000 pounds, will pay $31 to cross Ohio instead of the current $42.25.
In addition to the decrease in tolls, the Ohio turnpike increased the speed limit for trucks from 55 mph to 65 mph and the price of diesel fuel sold on the turnpike has been lowered about 5 cents a gallon below what stations charge off the turnpike.
In a phone interview to the Cleveland Plain Dealer Governor Taft said, "The major benefit to all the car drivers is that the secondary roads will be safer. Seven of the 10 most dangerous two-lane roads in Ohio are these northern Ohio roads that trucks have been diverting to from the turnpike."
That big trucks should use the big roads of the interstate system whenever possible seems so obvious as to be a “no brainer”. Why then are so many big rigs still found on every imaginable secondary route?
Until recently, trucking companies maintained transparency in their billing practices by using a multi-volume publication called the Household Mover’s Guide (HHG), which set the mileage between geographic points. The HHG provided the industry with a norm: The shipper could see at a glance that trucking company A charged $X per HHG mile, while company B charged $Y per HHG mile. The miles were identical—no room for fudging. Competition dictated the rate per HHG mile.
With the advent of the computer, things changed.
Software companies developed computer programs such as Alk Technology’s PC*MILER. On its web site, Alk states: “PC*MILER 18 incorporates new and enhanced features to generate accurate mileages and routes vehicles to their final destination with ease and safety.”
PC*MILER and similar software, while winning a spot on the trucking industry’s hard drives, give at least two sets of mileages from point A to point B. One is the Shortest mileage, while another is the Practical mileage.
Shortest represents distances and routes that a driver would take to minimize total distance traveled while still following a truck-navigable route (sometimes barely navigable). Shortest is used, in most cases, to calculate freight and HHG distances. Customers are billed using the Shortest route mileages.
Practical represent distances and routes that a driver would normally take to minimize time and increase safety. Practical routes model the trade-off between taking the most direct path versus staying on major, high quality highways. In addition, Practical routings consider distance, road quality, terrain, urban/rural classifications, and designated principal and secondary through routes. Practical is used to calculate travel distances.
Some companies pay their drivers Practical miles, while others (a vanishing breed) pay Shortest. If you understand that the driver who is paid Practical miles is better off than the driver paid Shortest, give yourself a star…and take a deep breath. There’s more.
Although the Practical route is usually the fastest and safest for large trucks, it may not be the cheapest. For example: The Practical route from Bangor, ME to Chicago, IL requires the driver to use the MA turnpike, the NY thruway, the OH toll road and the IN toll road—a very expensive proposition. It is understandable that most trucking companies ask their drivers to find other routes—usually longer and always less safe—when expensive toll-ways are encountered.
This driver, who is paid Practical miles, understands the company’s situation. In turn, they need to understand the driver’s. By going off the Practical route to save tolls, the drivers usually increase their driving miles (for which they are not paid), increase their driving time (for which they are not paid) and increase their risk of a serious accident (for which you cannot pay them enough).
However, there is a simple solution to this dilemma. The trucking industry should forget this “Shortest” nonsense and set all rates according to Practical mileage, including a charge for actual tolls encountered on these routes.
Keeping large trucks on the fastest and safest routes benefits the trucking industry, the truck driver, the family motorist, state governments, insurance companies and shippers and receivers. Since mileage factors so heavily in trucking rates and driver pay, and since safety is indeed a growing concern, it is time that a simple, consistent and fair method of rate and driver pay computation is implemented.
Category: General
Posted on Sat, Nov 12 2005 @ 10:11 AM [EST]
[Permalink] [Comments - 1] [Send Article] [Improper]
