New trucking group vows to ‘disrupt the status quo,’ demands seat at decision making table

[adminadmin is verified member.]

A newly formed trucking organization has been created over the last two months, and on Saturday brought together at its inaugural gala more than 1,000 people representing about 200 carriers. The Canada Truck Operators Association (CTOA), comprised largely of trucking companies run by people with South Asian backgrounds, promised inclusivity as it demands a seat […]

Continue reading...

 

[JN1981]

A newly formed trucking organization has been created over the last two months, and on Saturday brought together at its inaugural gala more than 1,000 people representing about 200 carriers. The Canada Truck Operators Association (CTOA), comprised largely of trucking companies run by people with South Asian backgrounds, promised inclusivity as it demands a seat […]

Continue reading...

So this is not so much the CTOA but the DITA(Driver Inc Trucking Association). I’m sure lobbying the government as “pro tax evasion” will be well received.

 

[DanielB]

If you guys think this "Driver Inc" this is go away I think you are going to be disappointed as long as the Liberals are in power.

This companies pour a lot of money to the Liberal and in return they continue to push out any Driver Inc enforcements.

I was talking to a large fleet owner last year (80 - 100 Truck) and he told me that he is struggling to get good driver (just like everybody), He told me that if the government don't crack down, then he will offer "Driver Inc" to new driver as an option.

So... now even the good guy will flip.

 

[loaders]

The responsibility for enforcing tax regulations rests solely with the CRA and its enforcement abilities. Until they take this matter seriously, or more seriously, or the tax code is revised, the status quo will unfortunately continue. Other industries and different trades have been using/abusing this “sub contractor” model, in some form or another, for years, in spite of CRA’s ”whack-a-mole” approach to enforcement. If the potential financial rewards are greater than the threat of being caught, tax fraud in all of its forms will continue.

 

[JayTee]

I'm on the fence with regard to the Driver Inc. model. I did a similar deal 30 odd years ago at the request of my drivers (all 4 of them) along with my accountant. We set up a corporation, each driver was issued a preferred share and made a small salary with source deductions, etc. Their mileage rate was paid out as a dividend with a per diem when on the road (at a reduced tax rate) with the proviso that my accountant handled all their filings. It worked well for a small outfit. I know the issue comes when drivers are paid HST and don't remit to CRA, or when unscrupulous carriers cheat the driver out of their wages and bennies, and that needs to stop. What I find hilarious is when the bigs like Transforce whine that it puts them at a disadvantage, when all the while they can source equipment for prices that little guys salivate over, buy fuel at rack prices we haven't seen in years, and have no qualms about entering a lane and slashing rates beyond starvation to force out their competition. All on the basis of a "level playing field".

 

[loaders]

I'm on the fence with regard to the Driver Inc. model. I did a similar deal 30 odd years ago at the request of my drivers (all 4 of them) along with my accountant. We set up a corporation, each driver was issued a preferred share and made a small salary with source deductions, etc. Their mileage rate was paid out as a dividend with a per diem when on the road (at a reduced tax rate) with the proviso that my accountant handled all their filings. It worked well for a small outfit. I know the issue comes when drivers are paid HST and don't remit to CRA, or when unscrupulous carriers cheat the driver out of their wages and bennies, and that needs to stop. What I find hilarious is when the bigs like Transforce whine that it puts them at a disadvantage, when all the while they can source equipment for prices that little guys salivate over, buy fuel at rack prices we haven't seen in years, and have no qualms about entering a lane and slashing rates beyond starvation to force out their competition. All on the basis of a "level playing field".

Excellent points. However, the “level playing field “ argument I think applies more appropriately to those small to medium size carriers who don’t receive the perks and
economies of scale that the big carriers are afforded. In their case the Driver Inc competition has a definite advantage. Carriers are free to negotiate their best prices for equipment, parts, insurance and a host of other expenses. Government mandated source deductions however should be a consistently and equally applied expense, like vehicle licensing costs for example.

 

[JayTee]

Excellent points. However, the “level playing field “ argument I think applies more appropriately to those small to medium size carriers who don’t receive the perks and
economies of scale that the big carriers are afforded. In their case the Driver Inc competition has a definite advantage. Carriers are free to negotiate their best prices for equipment, parts, insurance and a host of other expenses. Government mandated source deductions however should be a consistently and equally applied expense, like vehicle licensing costs for example.

I agree 100% on that. When we done it in the late 80's, the advantage for the most part went to my drivers, our source deductions were a tad smaller but any savings went to the accountant for the most part.

 

[BPOVFB]

“The folks in this room have, not to their fault, been missing from the table,” said Sandhu.

Weird, I didn't think that OTA was that hard to join... I didn't recall "cultural heritage" as a question when signing up... y'know so they could keep people out from South Asia...

 

[Michael Ludwig]

MODERATOR: can you move this conversation to Coffee Shop? It will get lost here in the News.

TBH, I hate to be that guy (not really ... LOL), but recently we started the conversation around here about paying our drivers via Driver Inc., and what has to be done to do it legally. This article, and CTOA's professed mandate, is simply going to push that conversation into reality.
Carriers have to seriously ask themselves why they would not participate. Get the proper documentation from the incorporated driver, do your due diligence, and pay the driver accordingly. It is not the carrier's responsibility to ensure that the corporations they do business with pay their taxes. This is no different.
There will be long term fallout though. Ostensibly California's AB5 was created to deal with Driver Inc., but unfortunately it catches the Owner-Operator as well, but does leave the two-check loophole for the O/O.
With CTOA pushing the Driver Inc. agenda it is almost guaranteed that AB5 will become the law of the land all across North America.
Anyone can pretty much get away with almost any crime in this country as long as they have enough money for lawyers. However, don't f*ck with the government's money because they will almost certainly come after you and there are not enough lawyers in the world to protect you from that.