1
We had G and B Transport move 5 loads for us after they were paid they went to our customer and started hauling their freight.
Last edited by a moderator:
back dooring
- Thread starter lakefront16
- Start date
More Info
Here you go:
G & B Transportation Ltd
321 Royal Applan Cres., Concord, ON. L4K 5K9
Tel: 905-494-0254 Fax: 905-494- 1037
Contact: Tammy
They did only 1 load for us back in Sept. 2008 - no problems.
If they do solicit broker's accounts, and if they did try to back door this former customer, I hope they were successful!
Here you go:
G & B Transportation Ltd
321 Royal Applan Cres., Concord, ON. L4K 5K9
Tel: 905-494-0254 Fax: 905-494- 1037
Contact: Tammy
They did only 1 load for us back in Sept. 2008 - no problems.
If they do solicit broker's accounts, and if they did try to back door this former customer, I hope they were successful!
2
Don't be to quick to blame the carrier, are you sure your customer didn't call them or even ask their driver for a card? As a carrier, we are seeing this happen more and more over the last year or so. I would estimate that we receive at least 5 calls per week from various shippers and receivers regarding our services this way.
2
The customer "called us" always seems to be the carrier's fall back position. A lot of times this is not true. This shows how important a good relationship between carrier and broker is. We all are looking to add to our customer base, but need to respect each other.
1
30
Usually, the "customer called us" scenario, results in a decrease of the rate. From what I continually read on this site, aren't we trying to stop this? If the rate you agreed to wasn't adequate, why did you take it? There is only one winner in the constant downward pressure on rates, and it isn't carriers or brokers.
1
30
The driver's shouldn't be passing along the card ... and the carrier shouldn't be acting on it. If the customer actually makes the call, then there's nothing you can do ... obviously the customer is unhappy with their current source for some reason. But generally, with all the calls they get from us salespeople, if they have to call out there is something seriously wrong.
I would bet that the majority of the time the customer is just trying to cut costs. They know their rates are being marked up and are trying to cut out the middleman. It is surprising how many will say "it's just business" even though they are cutting out the entity that introduced them in the first place....not very ethical, but with today's economy....more prevalent for certain.
15
Who has business ethics these days, other truckers back solicit us by cutting rates $50 to $100 dollars every week. We have the service that keeps customers coming back. If your service, and communication with the client is weak you 'aint going to survive in this economy.
Parisite
Site Supporter
10
There doesn't have to be anything wrong with service. Don't claim people are shopping for service, they aren't. Price is the only factor on the street today. Driver handing out cards and carriers encouraging it should get what they got coming. The shipper looks at this as a way to lower his costs and that's how the conversation comes up.
I've had carriers call me before and tell me so-and-so asked them to haul direct. THAT'S the right way to deal with it. Then I can respond to the client, ensure there's no service problem, and remind the client of the importance of loyalty, and usually keep the business and the rates where they are.
This has happened many times and the carriers who have taken that step are paid back many times. And the rate doesn't go down and everyone is happy. Anything anyone does to make rates go south is hurting the industry. Period.
Everybody has to remember that we are all brokering deals one way or another, whether they are a carrier, or a shipper selling something. And no matter who we are we could be cut out of a deal.
It all goes back to the loyalty thing, carrier, broker and client. Everybody needs tio be respectful.
I've had carriers call me before and tell me so-and-so asked them to haul direct. THAT'S the right way to deal with it. Then I can respond to the client, ensure there's no service problem, and remind the client of the importance of loyalty, and usually keep the business and the rates where they are.
This has happened many times and the carriers who have taken that step are paid back many times. And the rate doesn't go down and everyone is happy. Anything anyone does to make rates go south is hurting the industry. Period.
Everybody has to remember that we are all brokering deals one way or another, whether they are a carrier, or a shipper selling something. And no matter who we are we could be cut out of a deal.
It all goes back to the loyalty thing, carrier, broker and client. Everybody needs tio be respectful.
Parisite: I agree with you. Service is nothing now a days. I even have had shippers state to me that they are bringing in another carrier and for a small fee each and every month I can keep the loads. This I have not done and will never do. I even have asked a number of my customers what does a shipper get paid these days. 60% of the answers I received were stated as follows:
We know that our shippers are getting "kickbacks" and because of that we are paying anywhere from $14.00 to $16.00 per hour.
This is why shippers have no loyality in my books. The carriers that undercut the rates and then pay off shippers need to go. Once, if it will ever happen again, all is back on a level playing field then rates, service, loyality and finally respect will all again be back. On another note the customer must start paying the shippers what they are worth to help stop this you pay me and I will give you the loads.
Just my rant of the day
We know that our shippers are getting "kickbacks" and because of that we are paying anywhere from $14.00 to $16.00 per hour.
This is why shippers have no loyality in my books. The carriers that undercut the rates and then pay off shippers need to go. Once, if it will ever happen again, all is back on a level playing field then rates, service, loyality and finally respect will all again be back. On another note the customer must start paying the shippers what they are worth to help stop this you pay me and I will give you the loads.
Just my rant of the day
Last edited by a moderator:
30
If you are dealing higher up, the kickbacks aren't a problem. Used to be a much bigger problem though.
These days I have a hard time getting a customer to take tickets to a game from me, or even go with me, the policies are so tight.
These days I have a hard time getting a customer to take tickets to a game from me, or even go with me, the policies are so tight.
10
Parasite
I can agree with most of what you have said, although you are wrong regarding the service issue.
Any well informed traffic manager will definitly shop for the best price , but not at all costs. He/she will always use the most resposible bidder, a marriage between price and service.
Many service failures by the cheapest carrier may evntually jeopardize the shippers relationship with his client at the other end , resulting in his customer finding an alternate supplier.
The comment by the man is right on. The more reputable shippers frown upon their traffic staff accepting any form of gratuity from suppliers.
In the cases mentionned above, upper management would like to know about their staff requesting kick backs. The problem here is that when management changes , these kickback schemes are often discovered. The end result often being that the carrier that was engaged in the kick back scheme will lose the contract and never evre work for that company again.
I can agree with most of what you have said, although you are wrong regarding the service issue.
Any well informed traffic manager will definitly shop for the best price , but not at all costs. He/she will always use the most resposible bidder, a marriage between price and service.
Many service failures by the cheapest carrier may evntually jeopardize the shippers relationship with his client at the other end , resulting in his customer finding an alternate supplier.
The comment by the man is right on. The more reputable shippers frown upon their traffic staff accepting any form of gratuity from suppliers.
In the cases mentionned above, upper management would like to know about their staff requesting kick backs. The problem here is that when management changes , these kickback schemes are often discovered. The end result often being that the carrier that was engaged in the kick back scheme will lose the contract and never evre work for that company again.
2
In smaller markets, it can be as innocous as a shipper asking for a ball cap or t-shirt with a carrier's logo and name on it and even a pad of bills of lading and it happens to have the carrier's name on it. Hockey tickets and box seats are still a staple of trying to curry favours from shippers who either haven't given enough freight or actually are being rewarded for being loyal to a carrier. Goodwill is important if mistakes have been made, which is usually the real reason why carriers and brokers alike end up bribing I think. The distinction has to be made between a carrier's right to market itself as a business entity and develop a brand versus the grey area of a shipper/consignee who is also looking out for themselves by directly asking a carrier (who is acting on behalf of another broker/carrier) to help entertain competitive quotes at their request, which may conflict with a current contract. It also depends on any previous contact or relationship that existed with the customer or party involved prior to doing work for someone else. Does one load or contract constitute ownership of an account? I'd have to probably doubt it if the paying party believes it's in their best interest to have a stable of carriers (it's competitively healthy) and to do otherwise is anti-competitive. However, if someone has deliberately gone in, with no pre-existing relationship and after they agreed this was a condition of moving the goods, then it is clearly unethical but also clearly a risk to be assumed in an industry that is starved and competitive. Is it right? No. Is there a legal basis? I'm not so sure that you can keep others from making a living or selling their services in a marketplace and if I'm not mistaken, I think many sales people view non-competition agreements this way. It then becomes a question of how good of a sales person you are by whether you are saavy enough to sway an account away from a competitor versus the incumbent carrier/broker. Do you need hockey tickets to be a better sales person? I don't know but I've seen enough companies do it to know that the practice is well entrenched, along with so-called rebates and other tools that I've seen used. I'm not a sales person and it seems to me that the ethics question extends equally to the prospective client just as much as the person trying to get that client.
The situation becomes very different when a non-asset based company, like Traffic Tech or CH Robinson, goes in to a client that belongs to an asset-based carrier and take your client then try to give you your own freight. The broker then believes it's their account. So in being competitive, what happens to the ethics of being backdoored and defend yourself against predators in your own market? Does anyone really own an account by virtue of one or a few tranactions? Does a carrier or broker and client covenant in writing to have an exclusive relationship? These are the questions that pop up in my mind because ultimately, the client is free to use who they want. It's how well you are able to keep their business either by appealing to some shallow aspect of personality like booze or steak (ok maybe not steak) or the conservative aspect of saving their company money...or demonstrating you can have hockey tickets and forget about the muck ups.
In the end, I say that if you don't trust a carrier to respect limits or if you feel they are going to be a predator in amongst a list of potential competitors rather than an ally, then it is up to you to use that judgement. I had this discussion at work today re: Bison and how some look at Bison as a predator/threat if you contract work to them. Some companies use a certain marketing tack with follow-up, asking shippers or consignees how they liked the service and can we please bring you some ball caps if you throw some freight to us? It's a question of trust and how well you have made it clear that a condition of doing business depends on respecting the contract. I believe that contract law becomes almost non-existent when drivers or owner-ops gain knowledge of lanes and accounts then leave a company to go start their own and service your clients. It blurs even further when you introduce cross-cultural things, like those who start a new carrier but are ignorant to contract law and do what they want to survive because that's how their culture operates...even though it's not how we do things in Canada. You know, like needing hockey tickets.
The situation becomes very different when a non-asset based company, like Traffic Tech or CH Robinson, goes in to a client that belongs to an asset-based carrier and take your client then try to give you your own freight. The broker then believes it's their account. So in being competitive, what happens to the ethics of being backdoored and defend yourself against predators in your own market? Does anyone really own an account by virtue of one or a few tranactions? Does a carrier or broker and client covenant in writing to have an exclusive relationship? These are the questions that pop up in my mind because ultimately, the client is free to use who they want. It's how well you are able to keep their business either by appealing to some shallow aspect of personality like booze or steak (ok maybe not steak) or the conservative aspect of saving their company money...or demonstrating you can have hockey tickets and forget about the muck ups.
In the end, I say that if you don't trust a carrier to respect limits or if you feel they are going to be a predator in amongst a list of potential competitors rather than an ally, then it is up to you to use that judgement. I had this discussion at work today re: Bison and how some look at Bison as a predator/threat if you contract work to them. Some companies use a certain marketing tack with follow-up, asking shippers or consignees how they liked the service and can we please bring you some ball caps if you throw some freight to us? It's a question of trust and how well you have made it clear that a condition of doing business depends on respecting the contract. I believe that contract law becomes almost non-existent when drivers or owner-ops gain knowledge of lanes and accounts then leave a company to go start their own and service your clients. It blurs even further when you introduce cross-cultural things, like those who start a new carrier but are ignorant to contract law and do what they want to survive because that's how their culture operates...even though it's not how we do things in Canada. You know, like needing hockey tickets.