Are we seeing a pattern here?

Once again, large carriers and their representatives in our nation’s capital are planning a push to increase the maximum size and weight of the trucks on our nation’s roads.

Rod Nofziger revealed the effort during a conversation with Land Line Magazine Senior Editor Jami Jones on our show last week.

Todd Spencer, the executive vice president here at OOIDA, has said many times, the current rules on length and weight are fine just how they are. We’ve gone far enough, and we really don’t need to go bigger.

But something else about the situation stuck a chord with me. Does it seem to all of you that many of the issues we’ve seen raised in recent years are nothing more than a plan to save shippers money?

Truckers cost too much for your taste? No problem! Just let in some truckers from Mexico who’ll work for one-third the pay.

Shipping costs too high for you to pay it and build your new mansion? No problem! Just increase the size and weight of the truck. You can cut the number of truckers by half and make two shipments for the price of one.

Are we seeing a pattern here?

Some might say that kind of thinking is the sign of a conspiracy theorist. I’d say it’s a possible sign of political savvy.

The nanny government and Big Brother mind control

Why does everything these days have to be about punishment? Why do we always see stick, but never any carrot?

Speed limiters are a particularly rotten example of this trend.

I know that for the most part, the speed limiter debate has centered on safety. But the fuel-saving and environmental arguments – that using limiters will decrease consumption and emissions – are part of the push for requiring these devices as well.

So once again, instead of encouraging people to do the right thing, we simply force them, control them, coerce them … with the rules all emanating from the ivory tower of the nanny government.

But at least one truck owner is doing things different. He called in recently, identifying himself only as “Mark.” (With a name like that, I already like the guy.)

He said he was offering a little carrot – for every ½ mile per gallon increase in fuel economy, he gives his truckers an extra 2 cents per mile that month.

I like this for a number of reasons.

First, I think it’s always better to encourage people to do the right thing rather than forcing them into a behavior.

Second, just moving slower isn’t likely to do the job. The truckers who really know how to do this are aware of that, and they’ve called us in droves to say so.

I remember a conversation I had with Frank Kennedy, a Life Member of OOIDA. He said a lot of his fuel mileage was derived from feathering up when he started, and feathering down when he came to a stop.

If you jackrabbit start and jam on the brakes to stop, and you do it frequently, I’m not sure it matters what you do in between … and that’s just one instance.

Another example: If you idle when you don’t really need to, you can use 10 gallons every night.

A system that encourages truckers to learn how they can increase mileage, and offers a reward if they do so, is far more likely to yield the results we want. I’d rather see that than all of these Big Brother mind-control-inspired attempts to control, coerce and punish truckers – a system that’s become all too frequent these days.

Nothing is perfect, but this is the best we have

The price of fuel has brought many other topics to the forefront, not the least of which is the fuel surcharge.

Right now, Congress is considering the TRUCC Act – a bill that would require any fuel surcharge paid by a shipper to be passed on to the person paying for the fuel.

Some truckers have claimed that this act won’t work. The typical concern I hear is that the broker will ask the shipper to not list the surcharge separately, and instead just include it in the rate.

At one time, I was concerned about this. But is the broker going to do this?

First, what is the broker going to tell the shipper? Hey, I know I was billing you for a fuel surcharge, but I was really pocketing that money, so could you roll it into the rate now so I don’t have to pay it to the trucker? I just need you to help me violate this federal law, so I can keep ripping off you and the trucker.

Does that sound like something the shipper is going to go for?

Let’s try this on for size.

We’re assuming that the shipper and broker have the same interests. But they don’t.

Shippers prefer a surcharge. If the rate goes up, it stays up … even if fuel prices drop.

But if the shippers pay a base rate plus a surcharge, then if the price of fuel drops, their cost drops.

The shipper gains nothing, no advantage whatsoever, by going along with some broker’s scheme to line their own pockets.

People in this kind of situation tend to act in a way that benefits their own economic interests. The surcharge is the best situation for the shippers’ economic interest. And the broker can’t make the situation you describe work without the shipper’s cooperation.

The TRUCC Act isn’t perfect. But it’s a good bill, and it’s the best shot we’ve had in many years to fix this situation. If we don’t act on this, we can count on truckers being ripped off for years to come.

And that is something that no one wants.

Some well-deserved Roses

Here’s one from our latest edition of Roses and Razzberries, heard on the air July 7. This was a particularly good story and some positive news about truckers for a change.

A pair of ROSES goes out to two truckers who are credited with saving the lives of two injured people trapped in a burning car.

The accident happened in Blendon Township, Michigan last week. The Associated Press reported that the victims were in a Lexus that collided with a Jeep and caught fire.

The two truckers – William Rozema of Holland and Derek Bockheim of Grand Rapids – came to the rescue.

Two of the people in the Lexus got out, but two others were still trapped.

The truckers used their fire extinguishers and a crowbar to pry the doors open and get the people to safety just as the car was engulfed in fire.

There’s a real crisis, and then there’s this …

Several politicians and candidates have been calling for more off-shore drilling as a way to alleviate the fuel price crisis.

But will that really help? I think that’s what some of the folks promoting the idea would say.

But scientists will tell you the best indicator of future behavior is how people behaved in the past. So let’s take a look at recent cases where the amount of oil available on the market increased, but the price didn’t go down.

First, when the government stopped putting oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, that freed up 50,000 barrels a day and put that oil on the market.

The price did not go down.

In May, Saudi Arabia increased oil production by 300,000 barrels a day.

Guess what? The price didn’t go down.

In the past couple of weeks, the Saudis announced that in July – this month – they would increase oil production by an additional 200,000 barrels a day.

Again, the price didn’t go down.

Just this week, many media outlets reported that after a huge down period due to the war and sabotage, that Iraq was preparing to re-enter the world oil market. The country is looking at deals with Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and others. Up to 500,000 barrels a day – a half million barrels every single day – could become available on the world market after that deal goes through. And that’s just the initial flow. With security improvements in Iraq, it’s more likely than ever to happen.

Surely, that brought down the price.

Nope. The price didn’t go down.

The idea that increased production will lower the price depends on the idea that the futures market is based on reality. Even the Saudis themselves say that if the price were based on real demand, oil should be about $70 a barrel. Yet it hovers around twice that level.

I do think we need to increase production. I also think we need more domestic supplies of energy of all kinds, including oil. I think we need to increase alternative energy production to take some of the pressure off oil.

But I don’t think that the amount of oil on the market has anything to do with the current price crisis.

In 1973, we had a real shortage. People couldn’t buy enough fuel to get a truck more than a few miles down the road.

Have you had any trouble buying fuel? No. That’s because there is no shortage.

The oil market has been manipulated. And it needs to stop.

What is a professional?

A trucker recently called in and said the dangdest thing.

He objected to folks referring to truckers as professionals. His reason? He said he was taught that a professional knows everything, and since he and other truckers don’t know everything, then they aren’t “professional” drivers.

First off, I’ve never heard the word “professional” defined as someone who knows everything.

In fact, if you use that definition, there’s no such thing as a professional. As that trucker pointed out himself, no one knows everything.

Here are a few definitions I found looking at various dictionaries.

One says a professional is someone who “follows an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain, as in a professional builder.”

Well, truckers definitely use trucking as a livelihood, and hopefully, they’re gaining a living out of it.

Another says a professional is “a person who belongs to one of the professions.” It then goes on to define profession as “an occupation that requires considerable training.” And, of course, they mean require not in the legal sense, but in the sense of skills you need to have in order to be able to perform the job.

I think trucking qualifies. And I would add that there’s a difference between a professional trucker and steering wheel holder.

As to what that difference is … well, that’s a separate discussion. But suffice it to say, I would bet that the trucker who called that thought in to us meets the definition of professional, as would most truckers I’ve met.

The Blame Game

Terry Scruton has been keeping a close eye on Congress and how they’re handling the fuel price crisis.

One recent hearing dealt with the folks who trade in oil futures, and the government agency that regulates them. During that hearing, members of Congress questioned officials from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission pretty hard.

A trucker who listened in to that segment said it sounded like more of the same – just a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians blaming each other.

I know it may look like the blame game, but the fact is, if trading isn’t being properly regulated, and it’s the job of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to perform that regulation, then they are to blame.

I don’t like the blame game any more than anyone else. But when someone has a job and they fail to do it, either because they can’t or they won’t, then they should face the consequences.

What would happen to a trucker if he or she simply chose not to deliver a load? You’d face some pretty nasty consequences.

That being said, I don’t just want to see talk and finger pointing. If Congress is going to investigate this, I want them to do something – really do something – to fix the problem.

Otherwise, it really is just a blame game. And that is pretty much a useless exercise.