http://tcsdaily.com/Article.aspx?id=021108A

That meant a company or individual trucker lacking authority, or the authority to haul the freight available in the area in which they found themselves, and having just completed an exempt commodity move, would be forced into a trip-lease situation or defy the law; which many did. The term “back-haul” was quite common and often spoken in conjunction with trip-lease or exempt commodity rate quotes.

If you explore previous regulation, as well as the history of truck transportation, you’ll find that the concept of a back-haul (and their reduced rates) grew out of the combination of regulation, increased operating expenses and increased taxes (of all kinds) creating a situation in which the inefficiency of trucks moving loaded in only one direction, a relatively common occurrence, became a nearly universally economic infeasibility.

Going backward, in my opinion, isn’t the answer. Additionally, current conditions, I believe, will lead those paying the freight bills to seek increased efficiency, a state unlikely to result from increased government regulation; especially if you explore the inefficiencies built into previous regulation.

I’m almost certain that trucking is going to undergo drastic changes. Companies that can increase their efficiency will likely flourish while those seeking status quo will likely flounder. I think innovation rather than regulation is going to provide any new directions for the industry.

The trucking industry is not only complex but is broken to say the least. De-regulation brought about a dog-eat-dog mentality and created a haven for scam brokers. I work for a mid-size van carrier company contracting 85% Owner Operators in it’s fleet as a credit and contracts specialist. My husband and I own a Kenworth that he drives and has been leased on with this company for the past 10 years. The battle for freight rates to engage the high cost of diesel most recently has been a failing issue in 2007 and continues to plummet now in 2008. For those of you interested in the math, here is a personal view of the difference as a sole proprietorship in the state of Texas of which is not subject to a state tax obligation:

January 2007

Freight Haul: $9856.00
Fuel Expense: $3557.61
All Other Expenses: $1984.00
Taxable Income $4315.00
Tax Liability: $1467.00
Total Net: $2848.00

January 2008

Freight Haul: $11061.00
Fuel Expense: $6107.00

All Other Expenses: $2121.00
Taxable Income $2833.00
Tax Liability: $934.00
Total Net: $1869.00

This is disgusting. A 50% drop in the profit margin due to fuel price and rate cut back is unacceptable by any means. The fact that anyone self-employed in the USA is subject to a rough 34% net profit tax rate is an abomination alone. Granted, there are variables in expenses but the bottom line is a glaring exposure of how disproportionate our tax designations fall upon those subjugated by fuel prices.

Scam brokers (please note that an MC# is very easy to retain) and massive Brokerage Houses are killing the industry – independent O/O’s do not have the tools to research who will pay and who will not and take whatever will move them. The other misnomer of this industry is the “back haul” rate. These situations are the backlash of De-regulation. Where I work, we hang up on anyone who references “back haul” and deny credit to any brokerage that does not pay their carriers. Call us crazy but yes, there are some who still retain ethics in the business…

Regulation back in trucking – yes, some needs to be established. Where the O/O is involved – Tax Reform would be way more beneficial… Just my 2 cents and BTW, you can find more support and information at http://www.atruckerswife.com

MJ Willis
Director Of Finance
A Truckers Wife Convention, Inc.
mj@atruckerswife.com
http://www.atruckerswife.org

The small companies resort to their old bailout scheme of run faster and harder. We know what that produces.

Ask any broker what customers want and he’ll tell you, “the cheapest”. Only a few specialty companies need real service and they’re learning how to change that, the rest just want it there cheap.

I’ve always had reservations about OOIDA every since I went by their building and noticed only a bobtail could get in there. That sent me a message about them.

Re-regulation would help, but drivers are the only benefactors as far as I can tell. You’d never get the support for something that would make the price of all the imports folks like so much to rise.

We need politicians that believe in American sovereignty and not pandering to global corporations that only see America as a marketplace. There’s talk now that the rest of the world no longer needs the American consumer thanks to India and China populations are able to buy more stuff.

Soon we’re not going to have the best economy or even the best military. Then what?

There were about three pages of comments basically saying how bad trucking companies treat drivers, there is no shortage, etc… USA Today doesn’t care and probably doesn’t even read the comments.

Those at the top count on keeping us divided and it’s not hard to do. No group is successful at pulling enough support to make a real difference. Look at those battling for hours of service changes now, virtually useless efforts.

Look at our politicians selling us out for the business that depends on our services. They obviously have plans to replace us with foreign drivers and it couldn’t be any clearer to me.

When every trucking publication you pick up caters to the idea of a “driver shortage” and every newspaper continues to slant against us, do you think we could get public support even if we were united. The public has no idea what trucking entails because people are so far removed from it.

Look at the laws we follow. Every driver is an outlaw for something because there is no way you could possibly follow them all. The public sees no problem with this.

It’s nice to dream of a group of truly united drivers, and it’s possible with the technology we have, but I could never see anything with teeth to it. As soon as one driver would refuse to work under a condition, another would be there to pick up the slack. A work stoppage would be an excellent example for a politician to add to his list of “jobs Americans won’t do” list.

I would say the first line of defense would be to stop the illegal labor. If they are there, we never stand a chance for any action to mean much.