Hot fuel – it’s an issue that OOIDA first brought to the public’s attention years ago. It’s an issue the association and others have fought to fix – and one the oil companies have fought to ignore.
Here’s how hot fuel works. A standard gallon of diesel at 60 degrees contains 139,000 Btu, or British Thermal Units. Run the temperature of that fuel up to 90 or 95 degrees – something that’s not unheard of – and it could contain as many as 2,000 Btu less.
That means you could spend a thousand dollars more a year for fuel, and go fewer miles on each tank of fuel.
Fuel companies compensate each other for the difference. The only people who don’t get some compensation for the difference temperature makes are you, truckers or motorists.
Some time back, we found out the very same oil companies who started this mess have found a way they think they can avoid responsibility.
The ploy involves stickers placed on the pump. I’ve seen or heard of several different versions, but they all follow a similar theme: We sell gas measured by the gallon, not measured by how much energy it provides. We’re not responsible if that energy level per gallon falls below what you expect.
We first became aware of the stickers when they appeared on pumps in California. We’ve been told recently they’ve made it all the way to the East Coast.
It’s clearly an attempt to circumvent the real issue of hot fuel, a disclaimer that in essence says, “We’re informing you officially that we intend to cheat you, so that makes it all legal and OK.”
Well, I have a message for those folks: It’s not OK.
OOIDA is continuing to pursue this issue. Another group is continuing to pursue a lawsuit. Others are still pushing in state and federal weights and measures groups to have the rules for how fuel pumps work changed.
And we’ll keep all of you updated as the issue progresses. But as you know, with our government, really changing anything takes years.
The problem we face is that slow speed of change, and the incredible resources possessed by the folks who want to keep things the way they are.
The problem our opponents face is that we have a lot of patience, and a long memory. And we will not forget.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
Back to the Future? Instead, let’s consign futures to the past
Recently, Terry Scruton reported on a Senate hearing where our elected representatives investigated what role that speculation played in this year’s oil price run-up.
Speculation, in this case, pretty much refers to activities on the futures market, which itself is not much more than a legalized, disguised and very dangerous form of gambling.
Here’s the theory: You start by finding a time where you think oil will go up in price over the next three months. You buy a load of oil that’s not scheduled to arrive here for a month to three months in the future. You make the purchase with borrowed money, using virtually none of your own. Then, as the oil is near delivery, you go back to the same market and sell it for the higher amount.
As the stock market and the rest of the economy started to tank, folks thought oil was a good investment. So they started investing in these “futures.”
Remember, over the past year, if you adjust for seasonal variations, the supply of oil and the demand for oil to burn was pretty typical. What there was more demand for was oil futures. And that drove the price of those futures – and eventually, the price of the oil they represented – up.
That’s the case with oil – the very nature of the market encourages further speculation, encourages traders to commit acts likely to drive up the price, so they can take hefty profits and never actually have to possess one ounce of oil (they never take delivery unless the price drops below what they paid for it).
But this problem isn’t limited to oil. Not by far. It’s pretty clear to me that the futures market is at the heart of many of our economic problems over the years.
Ask a farmer how much they were paid for the amount of wheat used in a loaf of bread. It’s pitiful.
Sure, some of the cost of the loaf went to the baker, to the cost of the yeast, to the retail store, and – God willing – to the trucker who brought it there.
But when some brands of bread are running well over $3 a loaf, it’s ridiculous that the person who produced the most important ingredient gets paid the least of anyone involved in the process – in some cases, as little as 5 cents for the wheat that goes into that loaf.
So where did the rest of that money go? A lot of it ends up on the futures market, where a trader who never worked a day on a farm in his life pulls in huge quantities of cash for the wheat in that bread.
That doesn’t even address the ultimate problem: The end consumers – in this case, economically struggling families who have to pay that much more for the food they need – get stuck with the bill.
Here’s a telling statistic: I’ve seen salaries listed for futures traders that run from $80,000 to $300,000 plus – a figure nearly unheard of decades ago. Farmers are often paid no more for wheat now than they were in the early 1920s. Don’t believe me? Check out Kansas History Magazine.
I really do think the same kind of thing is happening with oil. In both cases, the end consumers – truckers or grocery shoppers – are getting screwed.
The only big difference between the oil and wheat situations is that for oil, the producers – in this case, oil companies – aren’t getting paid a pittance like the farmers. They’re getting rich, too.
It’s just one more thing to discuss when you call your representative or your senators.
Only they can pass the laws needed to properly regulate futures trading and prevent this kind of crisis again.
Speculation, in this case, pretty much refers to activities on the futures market, which itself is not much more than a legalized, disguised and very dangerous form of gambling.
Here’s the theory: You start by finding a time where you think oil will go up in price over the next three months. You buy a load of oil that’s not scheduled to arrive here for a month to three months in the future. You make the purchase with borrowed money, using virtually none of your own. Then, as the oil is near delivery, you go back to the same market and sell it for the higher amount.
As the stock market and the rest of the economy started to tank, folks thought oil was a good investment. So they started investing in these “futures.”
Remember, over the past year, if you adjust for seasonal variations, the supply of oil and the demand for oil to burn was pretty typical. What there was more demand for was oil futures. And that drove the price of those futures – and eventually, the price of the oil they represented – up.
That’s the case with oil – the very nature of the market encourages further speculation, encourages traders to commit acts likely to drive up the price, so they can take hefty profits and never actually have to possess one ounce of oil (they never take delivery unless the price drops below what they paid for it).
But this problem isn’t limited to oil. Not by far. It’s pretty clear to me that the futures market is at the heart of many of our economic problems over the years.
Ask a farmer how much they were paid for the amount of wheat used in a loaf of bread. It’s pitiful.
Sure, some of the cost of the loaf went to the baker, to the cost of the yeast, to the retail store, and – God willing – to the trucker who brought it there.
But when some brands of bread are running well over $3 a loaf, it’s ridiculous that the person who produced the most important ingredient gets paid the least of anyone involved in the process – in some cases, as little as 5 cents for the wheat that goes into that loaf.
So where did the rest of that money go? A lot of it ends up on the futures market, where a trader who never worked a day on a farm in his life pulls in huge quantities of cash for the wheat in that bread.
That doesn’t even address the ultimate problem: The end consumers – in this case, economically struggling families who have to pay that much more for the food they need – get stuck with the bill.
Here’s a telling statistic: I’ve seen salaries listed for futures traders that run from $80,000 to $300,000 plus – a figure nearly unheard of decades ago. Farmers are often paid no more for wheat now than they were in the early 1920s. Don’t believe me? Check out Kansas History Magazine.
I really do think the same kind of thing is happening with oil. In both cases, the end consumers – truckers or grocery shoppers – are getting screwed.
The only big difference between the oil and wheat situations is that for oil, the producers – in this case, oil companies – aren’t getting paid a pittance like the farmers. They’re getting rich, too.
It’s just one more thing to discuss when you call your representative or your senators.
Only they can pass the laws needed to properly regulate futures trading and prevent this kind of crisis again.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
I think we should sleep on it
Sometimes, issues are real, and require real attention.
Sometimes, they’re artificial, and still get attention because someone inflates their importance in order to serve their own agenda.
Sleep apnea is a little of both.
On the one hand, we have the FMCSA’s Medical Review Board, which wants to force anywhere from a third to half of all American truck drivers to be tested for the illness every year – at an out-of-your-pocket cost of thousands of dollars. They want that test whether you’re really at risk for the disease or not.
On the other hand, you have those who have criticized opponents of that plan – including OOIDA. Some have claimed we haven’t covered it enough on Land Line Now, or that truckers don’t really understand the problems.
I think that’s a criticism I need to address.
First, I don’t think anyone wants someone who really might have apnea to avoid a test.
Also, I think many of us have a very good idea what apnea is. Many of us have it – myself included.
And finally, we actually have talked on this show with a number of medical professionals about what apnea is and what it does to people who have it. We’ve also talked quite a bit about CPAP machines and how they treat the illness.
However, that’s a whole different matter than what the Medical Review Board is talking about. They want any trucker with a BMI, or Body Mass Index, of more than 30 to have the yearly testing. The last estimate I saw indicated that could be around 42 percent of all truckers.
It’s uncalled for, and it’s unnecessary.
In talking with folks on the air and off, virtually all say the simple Body Mass Index test is inaccurate in determining whether someone is obese. And it’s a very inaccurate way to determine who’s at risk for apnea.
Again, this isn’t just some Joe off the street – this is information that comes from medical professionals.
The method used here to measure BMI is to simply compare your weight and height. A truly accurate BMI test involves placing you in a tank of water and measuring your displacement. Far fewer people would show a BMI of 30 with that test.
Second, while obesity – when correctly measured – is one indicator for apnea (not a guarantee you have it), it’s not the only indicator.
Here are just a few of the possible factors that can indicate you are a potential sleep apnea sufferer:
Whether you get tested for apnea is a decision that should be made by you and your doctor, not by some bureaucrat who is sitting at a desk a thousand and a half miles away.
So why are they doing this? Why use BMI as a method to decide who’ll get tested for apnea?
The answer lies in who is calling for this.
Charlie Morasch, who’s one of our writers down at Land Line Magazine, found some interesting facts when he looked.
For example, he discovered that one member of FMCSA’s Medical Review Board is an executive committee member and board member of the National Sleep Foundation. The National Sleep Foundation is funded largely by drug companies, and also receives funds from CPAP manufacturers.
Gee, do you think that person might have a vested interest in hundreds of thousands of truckers being required to undergo sleep testing – which would be performed by companies represented by the National Sleep Foundation – and being required to buy machines – which would be provided by the CPAP manufacturers?
So here’s the upshot. I’m with those who say we need to treat apnea seriously. But I’m not in favor of forcing people into unneeded medical tests. And I’m not into forcing hundreds of thousands of truckers who don’t have medical insurance to have to pay for those tests out of their own pocket, or give up their livelihoods.
Let’s let doctors who know their patients decide what testing is necessary. That’s the way it is now, and that’s the way it ought to be.
Sometimes, they’re artificial, and still get attention because someone inflates their importance in order to serve their own agenda.
Sleep apnea is a little of both.
On the one hand, we have the FMCSA’s Medical Review Board, which wants to force anywhere from a third to half of all American truck drivers to be tested for the illness every year – at an out-of-your-pocket cost of thousands of dollars. They want that test whether you’re really at risk for the disease or not.
On the other hand, you have those who have criticized opponents of that plan – including OOIDA. Some have claimed we haven’t covered it enough on Land Line Now, or that truckers don’t really understand the problems.
I think that’s a criticism I need to address.
First, I don’t think anyone wants someone who really might have apnea to avoid a test.
Also, I think many of us have a very good idea what apnea is. Many of us have it – myself included.
And finally, we actually have talked on this show with a number of medical professionals about what apnea is and what it does to people who have it. We’ve also talked quite a bit about CPAP machines and how they treat the illness.
However, that’s a whole different matter than what the Medical Review Board is talking about. They want any trucker with a BMI, or Body Mass Index, of more than 30 to have the yearly testing. The last estimate I saw indicated that could be around 42 percent of all truckers.
It’s uncalled for, and it’s unnecessary.
In talking with folks on the air and off, virtually all say the simple Body Mass Index test is inaccurate in determining whether someone is obese. And it’s a very inaccurate way to determine who’s at risk for apnea.
Again, this isn’t just some Joe off the street – this is information that comes from medical professionals.
The method used here to measure BMI is to simply compare your weight and height. A truly accurate BMI test involves placing you in a tank of water and measuring your displacement. Far fewer people would show a BMI of 30 with that test.
Second, while obesity – when correctly measured – is one indicator for apnea (not a guarantee you have it), it’s not the only indicator.
Here are just a few of the possible factors that can indicate you are a potential sleep apnea sufferer:
- People who are overweight;
- Men with a 17-inch neck or larger;
- Women with a 16-inch neck or larger;
- Older men and postmenopausal women;
- Adults and children with Down syndrome;
- And children with large tonsils.
Whether you get tested for apnea is a decision that should be made by you and your doctor, not by some bureaucrat who is sitting at a desk a thousand and a half miles away.
So why are they doing this? Why use BMI as a method to decide who’ll get tested for apnea?
The answer lies in who is calling for this.
Charlie Morasch, who’s one of our writers down at Land Line Magazine, found some interesting facts when he looked.
For example, he discovered that one member of FMCSA’s Medical Review Board is an executive committee member and board member of the National Sleep Foundation. The National Sleep Foundation is funded largely by drug companies, and also receives funds from CPAP manufacturers.
Gee, do you think that person might have a vested interest in hundreds of thousands of truckers being required to undergo sleep testing – which would be performed by companies represented by the National Sleep Foundation – and being required to buy machines – which would be provided by the CPAP manufacturers?
So here’s the upshot. I’m with those who say we need to treat apnea seriously. But I’m not in favor of forcing people into unneeded medical tests. And I’m not into forcing hundreds of thousands of truckers who don’t have medical insurance to have to pay for those tests out of their own pocket, or give up their livelihoods.
Let’s let doctors who know their patients decide what testing is necessary. That’s the way it is now, and that’s the way it ought to be.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Bad food, few choices, rotten results
Have you eaten at your favorite truck stop lately?
If you have, it’s very possible that the old sit-down restaurant has been replaced by a fast-food joint.
And that’s a problem. A longtime OOIDA member, Leland Jennings, told us recently that it’s no wonder truckers’ health is in trouble. Look at what they have to eat.
It’s not just truck stops. The local restaurant, or any restaurant that offers something that wasn’t pre-packaged and developed in a lab, is quickly disappearing.
So how do we address this?
There’s only one way: You’re the customer. Talk to the local managers, and let them know what you want.
But don’t stop there. Get the phone number for their corporate headquarters. If the manager won’t give it to you, just Google the company. Most of them put the headquarters number somewhere on their Web site. Call and make them aware as well.
Any company that hears from a large number of customers – well, at least any company whose officers have half a brain among them – will respond.
It’s about the only way to get some action. We can’t expect the government to step in and force truck stops or other restaurants to offer better or healthier food. And I’m pretty sure it’s not a good idea to get them involved.
It’s going to be a hard battle, something that’s especially obvious when you look over this situation. When I’m thinking about eating out, and I see what we’re offered, I start to think that the kind of food all of us like is a thing of the past.
Let’s hope not.
If you have, it’s very possible that the old sit-down restaurant has been replaced by a fast-food joint.
And that’s a problem. A longtime OOIDA member, Leland Jennings, told us recently that it’s no wonder truckers’ health is in trouble. Look at what they have to eat.
It’s not just truck stops. The local restaurant, or any restaurant that offers something that wasn’t pre-packaged and developed in a lab, is quickly disappearing.
So how do we address this?
There’s only one way: You’re the customer. Talk to the local managers, and let them know what you want.
But don’t stop there. Get the phone number for their corporate headquarters. If the manager won’t give it to you, just Google the company. Most of them put the headquarters number somewhere on their Web site. Call and make them aware as well.
Any company that hears from a large number of customers – well, at least any company whose officers have half a brain among them – will respond.
It’s about the only way to get some action. We can’t expect the government to step in and force truck stops or other restaurants to offer better or healthier food. And I’m pretty sure it’s not a good idea to get them involved.
It’s going to be a hard battle, something that’s especially obvious when you look over this situation. When I’m thinking about eating out, and I see what we’re offered, I start to think that the kind of food all of us like is a thing of the past.
Let’s hope not.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Why bad laws get piled onto good people
If you’ve been reading the pages of Land Line Magazine’s Web site, you’ve seen that officials in Dane County, WI, were pursuing an ordinance that they hope will reduce truck idling in unincorporated areas of that county.
Here are some of the basics:
- The proposal would restrict idling to five minutes an hour.
- If temperatures are below 39 or above 80, trucks could idle an additional 15 minutes an hour.
- And, like other proposals, ordinances or laws of this kind we’ve seen all around the country, this one focuses on the effect diesel emissions have on the health of the area’s population.
It doesn’t sound much different from what we’ve seen elsewhere. But it raises some questions, such as:
- Why do they keep ignoring the health of the trucker?
- What about truckers who take along their kids, or pets?
- What ultimately is the end game of this; how far are they going to carry this idea?
I had a few thoughts about that.
First – and this is the sad part – in most places that have an idling restriction, the trucker’s health is not protected. But many of those same cities will fine a car driver for leaving an animal in a vehicle that doesn’t have the heat or air conditioning operating.
In fact, when I used to eat lunch every day at a bar and grill up the street, frequently, all the K-9 officers from this county would be eating there, too.
Every single one of those vehicles was idling so the animal would be safe and comfortable.
Second, why is this happening – why are public officials going out of their way to protect some citizens, and not others? Why don’t they understand what this is doing to the trucker?
In part, this is a plain lack of understanding. Some public officials that I’ve spoken to, or that truckers have told me they’ve talked to, say they never thought about what it was like for that trucker to sit in the cab. Some didn’t realize that the regulations require them to be in there at certain times.
I’ve even had one insist to me that all the truckers stayed in hotels every night. Seriously, this person really believed that.
These laws can be set by any level of government, they can be different from town to town, and you can face a fine without ever knowing in advance, or even having a chance to know, that you’re in violation of some law.
I’m no fan of federal regulation, and I prefer a lot of things to be done locally instead. But sometimes the feds or some other nationwide force needs to be setting the rules.
That’s why we have federal trucking regulations. That’s why we have IFTA and IRP.
If only one idling law applied nationwide, at least truckers would know what they faced. And we would have the opportunity to make our case to the feds once, instead of having to deal with the governments of 50 states, as many as 3,000 counties, and tens of thousands of cities and towns.
Again, this is why it’s so important to start calling all your public officials – not just the ones in Congress, but also in your state legislatures, your county commission, your city council.
Otherwise … look at how out of control things can get.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
What, is there no crime in Jersey?
This past week, Land Line Magazine reported about a bill in New Jersey that could put local law-enforcement officers into the truck inspection business.
State Sen. Shirley Turner of Mercer, NJ, introduced a bill earlier this year that would authorize “appropriately trained” local law-enforcement officers to inspect trucks.
Apparently, New Jersey police are brimming with free time – going about their days lacking any actual crime to combat. How else would they get the time needed to conduct Level I inspections?
Plus, don’t we have a state agency doing this now? Why the duplication of effort? Do large convoys of problem trucks clog the highways there, requiring hundreds, if not thousands, of additional inspectors?
The simple answer is no – on all counts. Those officers have some other things to take care of, real crimes, that should take precedence over this.
So why is the state training local cops to fulfill a state function?
The fact is, training local officers to inspect trucks is not about safety. It is – and has always been – a local government fundraiser.
The DOT doesn’t even train those local officers the same way state inspectors are trained. In most cases, one local officer is trained by the state, and then that officer trains the other local police to do the inspections – usually in a much-abbreviated fashion.
Local police should not be involved in this. Period.
If New Jersey needs more money, perhaps they should ask their citizens.
And maybe if they had spent those citizens’ money wisely, they wouldn’t need so much more.
State Sen. Shirley Turner of Mercer, NJ, introduced a bill earlier this year that would authorize “appropriately trained” local law-enforcement officers to inspect trucks.
Apparently, New Jersey police are brimming with free time – going about their days lacking any actual crime to combat. How else would they get the time needed to conduct Level I inspections?
Plus, don’t we have a state agency doing this now? Why the duplication of effort? Do large convoys of problem trucks clog the highways there, requiring hundreds, if not thousands, of additional inspectors?
The simple answer is no – on all counts. Those officers have some other things to take care of, real crimes, that should take precedence over this.
So why is the state training local cops to fulfill a state function?
The fact is, training local officers to inspect trucks is not about safety. It is – and has always been – a local government fundraiser.
The DOT doesn’t even train those local officers the same way state inspectors are trained. In most cases, one local officer is trained by the state, and then that officer trains the other local police to do the inspections – usually in a much-abbreviated fashion.
Local police should not be involved in this. Period.
If New Jersey needs more money, perhaps they should ask their citizens.
And maybe if they had spent those citizens’ money wisely, they wouldn’t need so much more.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Pirates of the Subprimean
Friday was “Talk Like a Pirate” day – and that raises the question, are there still pirates out there?
My sources tell me yes – only they wear suits and work on the 40th floor of big investment banking companies.
Their latest caper was a little raid on the subprime housing market. That could end up costing the rest of us $1 trillion or more.
But instead of walking the plank, I’m betting these pirates sail off happily into the sunset with the treasures they amassed just before the subprime ship went down to Davey Jones’ locker.
My sources tell me yes – only they wear suits and work on the 40th floor of big investment banking companies.
Their latest caper was a little raid on the subprime housing market. That could end up costing the rest of us $1 trillion or more.
But instead of walking the plank, I’m betting these pirates sail off happily into the sunset with the treasures they amassed just before the subprime ship went down to Davey Jones’ locker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)