20
I just calculated the other day that I've been doing this for a little over 35 years (one would think I would have gotten smarter over that period of time ... LOL) and as I did that calculation I came to realize there have been very, very few customer/carrier conflicts that I could not resolve over that period of time. As a matter of fact, I would still be able to count them on one hand if I were missing a finger.
Today, after trying for over 24 months to resolve outstanding issues, I have had to take the hard line with a customer by issuing the attached Notice to Receivers. Although this is better for the company in the long run, I personally view these measures as a failure on my part to be able to negotiate an amicable resolution. Taking the hard line sometimes sucks.
Anyways, long story short ... shipper sends goods to various receivers in the U.S. These are multi-stop loads. Of these receivers, 70% of them will find fault with some of the product for some reason or another and return it to the trailer. In 95% of all cases, the receiver has damaged the goods upon delivery, but there is no photographic or eyewitness evidence as drivers are not allowed on the docks to witness unloading. The result is that the coordinator of the freight move (broker) and the shipper spend so much time in dealing with these problems that they screw the truck and driver out of at least one turn a week. Typically, disposition on returned goods requested at 9:00 AM on any given morning will not be given much before 2:00 PM that afternoon. Calculated financially, in the majority of cases, I would actually lose less money leaving my truck parked in the yard and paying my driver a standard week's wages than I would in accepting these loads with these problems.
I not looking for an opinion or advice on what I should, or should not, do about the situation as that decision has already been made and executed.
What I would like from my peers here is an opinion on the content of the notice, which, in this case, applies to a very narrow and specific situation, although it could be argued that it could be applied across the board. Legally, it is correct, but legal and right aren't always the same thing.
Today, after trying for over 24 months to resolve outstanding issues, I have had to take the hard line with a customer by issuing the attached Notice to Receivers. Although this is better for the company in the long run, I personally view these measures as a failure on my part to be able to negotiate an amicable resolution. Taking the hard line sometimes sucks.
Anyways, long story short ... shipper sends goods to various receivers in the U.S. These are multi-stop loads. Of these receivers, 70% of them will find fault with some of the product for some reason or another and return it to the trailer. In 95% of all cases, the receiver has damaged the goods upon delivery, but there is no photographic or eyewitness evidence as drivers are not allowed on the docks to witness unloading. The result is that the coordinator of the freight move (broker) and the shipper spend so much time in dealing with these problems that they screw the truck and driver out of at least one turn a week. Typically, disposition on returned goods requested at 9:00 AM on any given morning will not be given much before 2:00 PM that afternoon. Calculated financially, in the majority of cases, I would actually lose less money leaving my truck parked in the yard and paying my driver a standard week's wages than I would in accepting these loads with these problems.
I not looking for an opinion or advice on what I should, or should not, do about the situation as that decision has already been made and executed.
What I would like from my peers here is an opinion on the content of the notice, which, in this case, applies to a very narrow and specific situation, although it could be argued that it could be applied across the board. Legally, it is correct, but legal and right aren't always the same thing.
