Then why change your truck Phil? Plead your case to Fedex...go higher...fight city hall....your logic is logical. Were only talking 2 provinces out of 10 here or 20% of Canada...
If you don't do it....force their hand....do they really want to lose a truck like yours over this? Call their bluff.
All in good time. Nothing has to happen today, and even if our truck is speed-limited, we are under no obligation to take Canadian freight of any kind.
This is a developing situation on several fronts. FDCC has already backed off a bit by announcing that the speed-limiters can be turned off when trucks re-enter the U.S. Since FDCC started talking about this, speed-limiters on WG trucks have been "expected," "required," and can now be "set back."
For the six years we have been with FDCC, we have stayed because, for the kind of expediting we want to do (straight truck, big sleeper, no-forced dispatch, freedom to go out of service at will), FDCC has provided the most lucrative opportunity and a highly professional and safety-committed organization to work with.
That is not something to quickly say no to when an unacceptable requirement is imposed. Nor is it something to put at risk by "forcing their hand" when factors well out of our control continue to play out and may resolve the situation for us.
- At the carrier level, speed-limiters were first "expected" on WG trucks, then "required" and now able to be set back. Clearly, the issue is not settled.
- Widespread and intense negative feedback and non-compliance from contractors may prompt FDCC to modify the requirement in ways not previously considered.
- In the provinces, we don't even know what the rules are because they have not been completed yet. When the rules are written, we do not know if they will be enforced, and if they are not, FDCC may decide to lift ther speed-limiter rule or allow exceptions.
- FedEx recently laid off 1,000 people, some of them middle management people in the FDCC offices. FDCC office people get promoted, demoted and transferred within the company, and sometimes leave to work elsewhere. As the people mix changes, so does the weight given to or taken from different company policies.
There are several other areas where change may occur that could prompt FDCC to drop the speed-limiter requirement and find better ways to serve the provincial markets. Juat a few examples are listed above.
Changing the subject just a bit, let me point out that from FDCC's point of view, this issue is not just about Ontario and Quebec loads. Many of the FDCC customers that ship these loads are major international corporations. It is not as simple as saying FDCC won't go to Canada. Doing so would give these important customers who ship tons and tons of U.S. freight a reason to look elsewhere.
On the other hand, these same customers are already served by some very important carriers that compete directly with FDCC and do not require their contractors to speed-limit their trucks or even go to Canada at all.
As Diane and I chafe under a requirement that we hate, we do not know what will happen next but expect changes to occur. One of those changes may be in our minds and we may decide to accept and be happy with the new rule.
This dissatisfaction is a new situation for us. It is the first time in six years with FDCC that they have done something that kept us mad for more than a day.
Not knowing what will happen next, in our minds, or out in the world, but knowing that this is a developing situation that will take time to play out, we are keeping our powder dry.
If you have read
my bio, you know that Diane and I are highly skilled and well equipped to "fight city call" as you call it. Part of fighting city hall is knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. There are many ways to fight a battle and win. Fully committing yourself in a yet-undeveloped situation is not one of them.
At present, we don't even know if a battle will be needed. The whole situation might be solved with affordable devices or viable services at the border that allow us to switch the speed limiter on and off at will.
It may be solved in Canada as it is in New York City, where FDCC routinely dispatches trucks but does not require them to comply with the 35-foot length limit. They can do it because NYC rarely enforces the law.
It may be solved by contractors leaving in large numbers for carriers that do not have the objectionable speed-limiter requirement, prompting FDCC to drop the requirement. FDCC has the upper hand in a slow economy but when trucks are again in demand the game will change.
It may be solved if shippers decide to seal not the trucks but shipping cases and envirotainers inside the trucks, thereby making them transferable at the border while maintaining driver protection and seal integrity.
The situation is nowhere near as simple as TeamCaffee suggests above. Diane and I have a broader and more nuanced perspective. Our view is developed and conditioned by educations in philosophy and law, decades of self-employment and great success in not only fighting city hall but being city hall too.
I could write pages and pages about possible developments, strategies and outcomes. Doing so would be a waste of time. Right now, the worst case for us is to live under the rule, at least for a while. Our truck is now speed-limiter flagged. We hate it, but the truck is flagged. We are living with it for now because we believe time is on our side and the speed-limiter requirement will not prevail.
That view may be mistaken but we will not know until time has passed. If at a later date that we find ourselves still chafing under the speed limiter "requirement" (such as it is at the moment), we will then re-assess the situation and our options. For now, we are unhappily complying with the requirement and watching the developing situation with interest.
All this for less than three loads a year to Ontario and Quebec that we would gladly let others have. Uff dah!
