Fuel Prices going up - hold onto your hats!
- Thread starter Jim L
- Start date
30
Regardless if you employ the Driver Inc model or you don’t, surely we can all agree that ensuring a level playing field for all participants in the industry is a worthwhile goal. If there is blame to be assigned anywhere, it would appear to rest squarely on the shoulders of the Federal government for their failure to consistently enforce existing labour and tax regulations. The rules of the game should be applied equally to all players, ignoring colour, race or ethnicity, eliminating any operational advantage. Success in this industry, or any industry, should be the result of efficiency , innovation and professionalism, not bending, twisting or ignoring regulations. There is an old saying in sports, “if you aren’t cheating, you aren’t trying”. I am not so sure that it should apply in business.
Last edited:
15
Uneven playing field applies, now more than ever, due to what the Feds have allowed to happen in Canada over the last 5 years. Virtually every industry.
30
10
I don’t think people here want to hear the truth….
For the millionth time, we are saying stop drive inc tonight for EVERYONE!! Drivers should not be able to manipulate the companies. Government should enforce it now, we will be the first one one to sign, we cannot do it alone.
This forum should get signatures from all the companies, put our name on the top of the list and people here know how to contact us, we will sign to stop drive inc one for all.
But companies should also make a pledge here that they will NOT give any freight to drive inc companies anyone willing to do that today?
And about DNU threats to our company? We run a great business we are not worried.
For the millionth time, we are saying stop drive inc tonight for EVERYONE!! Drivers should not be able to manipulate the companies. Government should enforce it now, we will be the first one one to sign, we cannot do it alone.
This forum should get signatures from all the companies, put our name on the top of the list and people here know how to contact us, we will sign to stop drive inc one for all.
But companies should also make a pledge here that they will NOT give any freight to drive inc companies anyone willing to do that today?
And about DNU threats to our company? We run a great business we are not worried.
20
I have signed contracts that say we do not run driver inc. there is a thread on here somewhere about it... but I don't see those anymore - maybe two my whole time in trucking..but I'm a newbie 10+ years only
30
Driver, Inc is really only the tip of the iceberg. Long before it came along good carriers everywhere faced headwinds due to upstarts and others who had no safety programs or drug testing and flew along by the seats of their pants. If you've got a robust safety program with all the trimmings such as training, evaluations, orientation for new people, etc then your costs are going to be much higher than someone who has none of that. Basic math.. Unfortunately the folks on the tender platforms see none of that.. all they see is one guy has a much lower rate than another.. they don't see that the guy with the higher rate is reinvesting in his business and taking safety and compliance seriously. It's just the way it is. And driver, inc ain't going anywhere.. in fact, that model is being used more widely everyday.. people on bikes delivering food.. in the dead of winter.. Are they insured? Are they covered by WSIB? Haha.. of course not.
I hope it doesn't happen to the eventual innocent victims, but it is going to, it's just a matter of time. There is going to be a big collision in the US with fatalities involving a dirt cheap carrier that cuts every corner with a Driver Inc. driver. They will be either under or not insured at all and when the lawsuit hits the jury that nuclear verdict is going to go against the carrier (who has nothing), the lease company for the truck, the trailer (there was just a huge award against a trailer manufacturer for no reason other than the trailer was there). And finally the broker/shipper for the load they were carrying. When asked by the plaintiff attorney why the broker/shipper chose DirtCheapTruckingInc to haul their load and did no checks into safety, processes or anything other than take the lowest price. That attorney will spin it that they chose to save $500 on a shipment of widgets over the lives of multiple people. From that one question alone the jury award against the broker/shipper for punitive damages will be huge. Then, maybe, we will see a change in the procurement processes of shippers and brokers that look solely for the cheapest price and nothing else and an end to carriers like DirtCheapTruckingInc.
30
The scenario you correctly described has already occurred. A few years ago CH Robinson was found negligent as a result of a serious motor vehicle accident involving a carrier they had selected. I am sure there have been other as well, as DirtCheap Trucking outfits have been around for years here in Canada and in the US. Unfortunately, events such as this do not have a lasting effect on the carrier/broker selection process of many large shippers. They will pay lip service to the issue and produce long winded policy statements committing themselves to health and public safety above all. In spite of all these noble gestures, the supply chain has been and will continue to be price driven. Transportation for any product or any service is cost, a significant drain on the bottom line. When presented with an opportunity to reduce this cost through lower freight rates, even the most conscientious and socially responsible shipper will find the temptation too powerful to resist.