EORB Concerns fromthe FedEx forum

[greg334]

I didn't see where the EOBR is stated that it has to be installed?

49 CFR 395.12


...


(c) Exclusive possession and responsibilities. (1) The lease shall provide that the authorized carrier lessee shall have exclusive possession, control, and use of the equipment for the duration of the lease. The lease shall further provide that the authorized carrier lessee shall assume complete responsibility for the operation of the equipment for the duration of the lease.


(2) Provision may be made in the lease for considering the authorized carrier lessee as the owner of the equipment for the purpose of subleasing it under these regulations to other authorized carriers during the lease.


(3) When an authorized carrier of household goods leases equipment for the transportation of household goods, as defined by the Secretary, the parties may provide in the lease that the provisions required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section apply only during the time the equipment is operated by or for the authorized carrier lessee.


(4) Nothing in the provisions required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section is intended to affect whether the lessor or driver provided by the lessor is an independent contractor or an employee of the authorized carrier lessee. An independent contractor relationship may exist when a carrier lessee complies with 49 U.S.C. 14102 and attendant administrative requirements.

The purpose of this clause as explained to me by a lawyer is to to have the burden on the owner of the equipment but to have the company be responsible for any issues that happen under their control.

This pretty much ensures that a company can't say "the logs are the driver's problems" or when there is an overweight load, that the company can say "your stuck with it, drive".

As I said before, the company can tell you where to go and how to operate within a specific manner to maintain safety or produce revenue (sticking to freight lanes) but the operation of the vehicle is your problem.

I think many miss something with FedEx, CC is a small part of the overall company and these changes are not about CC or the contractors there - these things are about business.

I understand the issues that everyone is up in arms about, especially one person but because they have had a track record of poor communications and interface with the contractors is actually very poor, it is an issue the contractors need to address directly to Virginia (or who ever is at the top of that little division).

I don't know who agreed to having EOBR's. I imagine, that they tossed it to the phantom Driver Council, which, for all intensive purposes, is not a true council but merely a group of FedEx hand-picked un-named persons that attend unpublished council meetings at which no minutes are taken....and no input from "others" is welcome.

Thank you - I thought I was the only one.

 

[MYGIA]

I understand that part....WHO made the decision to go with EOBR and WHY...

WHY did O/O's agree to this so easily?

I think the great concern that is being expressed by so many, even being interpreted or labeled as panic by some, is that there is no choice. It seems to be clearly presented as my way or the highway/sign the new lease, have the new equipment installed or leave and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

The fact that EORB’s are coming for all is only a matter of time. I believe electronic logging will be mandatory some time in the future for all CMVs; but it is not as of yet. So why the big hurry? Why the push to mandate something when so many issues still need to be worked through and resolved?

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I think the great concern that is being expressed by so many, even being interpreted or labeled as panic by some, is that there is no choice. It seems to be clearly presented as my way or the highway/sign the new lease, have the new equipment installed or leave and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

The fact that EORB’s are coming for all is only a matter of time. I believe electronic logging will be mandatory some time in the future for all CMVs; but it is not as of yet. So why the big hurry? Why the push to mandate something when so many issues still need to be worked through and resolved?

I think EOBR would be near impossible to enact...unless the goal is to eliminate the single owner operators totally.

Remember the old tach cards?

 

[davekc]

If they charge a additional $70.00 a month for TVAL trucks, it is likely the direct up link for the probes in the box. That way they can monitor temps continuously through a load. 840 a year plus qc charges sounds a little steep if that is a accurate number.
2660 off each TVAL unit per year is a nice profit center for the carrier.
As for smashing the kitties and stomping on the purple pompoms, I think there are more than one carrier looking at these as well.

 

[mcbride]

I didn't see where the EOBR is stated that it has to be installed?



The purpose of this clause as explained to me by a lawyer is to to have the burden on the owner of the equipment but to have the company be responsible for any issues that happen under their control.

This pretty much ensures that a company can't say "the logs are the driver's problems" or when there is an overweight load, that the company can say "your stuck with it, drive".

As I said before, the company can tell you where to go and how to operate within a specific manner to maintain safety or produce revenue (sticking to freight lanes) but the operation of the vehicle is your problem.

I think many miss something with FedEx, CC is a small part of the overall company and these changes are not about CC or the contractors there - these things are about business.

I understand the issues that everyone is up in arms about, especially one person but because they have had a track record of poor communications and interface with the contractors is actually very poor, it is an issue the contractors need to address directly to Virginia (or who ever is at the top of that little division).



Thank you - I thought I was the only one.

You are absolutely correct Greg.

49 CFR 376.12(c)(1) requires a motor carrier using leased equipment to assume "exclusive possession, control, and use of the equipment" for the duration of the lease. If a motor carrier is issued an EOBR remedial directive, then it must install (or have installed) EOBRs in all vehicles it uses. Owner- operator vehicles leased to such a remediated carrier would be required to have EOBRs installed even if the owner-operator holds separate operating authority.

Remedial directive:

Under the proposal, motor carriers that have demonstrated a history of serious noncompliance with the hours of service (HOS) rules would be subject to mandatory installation of EOBRs meeting the new performance standards. If FMCSA determined, based on HOS records reviewed during each of two compliance reviews conducted within a 2 year period, that a motor carrier had a 10 percent or greater violation rate (``pattern violation'') for any regulation in proposed Appendix C to Part 385, FMCSA would issue the carrier an EOBR remedial directive. The motor carrier would be required to install EOBRs in all of its CMVs regardless of their date of manufacture and to use the devices for HOS recordkeeping for a period of 2 years, unless the carrier already had equipped its vehicles with automatic onboard recording devices (AOBRDs) meeting the Agency's current requirements under 49 CFR 395.15 and could demonstrate to FMCSA that its drivers understand how to use the devices. We also propose changes to the safety fitness standard that would require this group of carriers to install, use, and maintain EOBRs in order to meet the new standard. Finally, FMCSA would encourage industry wide use of EOBRs by providing the following incentives for motor carriers to voluntarily use EOBRs in their CMVs: Revising the Agency's compliance review procedures to permit examination of a random sample of drivers' records of duty status; providing partial relief from HOS supporting documents requirements, if certain conditions are satisfied; and other potential incentives made possible by the inherent safety and driver health benefits of EOBR technology.

http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2007-01-18-07-56

So, it appears that there is no lease rule application here.
Thanks for pointing this out! Not that it changes a **** thing.....as we still have no choice in the matter....LOL

 

[mcbride]

If they charge a additional $70.00 a month for TVAL trucks, it is likely the direct up link for the probes in the box. That way they can monitor temps continuously through a load. 840 a year plus qc charges sounds a little steep if that is a accurate number.
2660 off each TVAL unit per year is a nice profit center for the carrier.
As for smashing the kitties and stomping on the purple pompoms, I think there are more than one carrier looking at these as well.

Yes, I guess this is what it is. $68.00 a month and we toss our data cold out I guess if we want to continue to be TVAL.

 

[jaminjim]

I don't know who agreed to having EOBR's. I imagine, that they tossed it to the phantom Driver Council, which, for all intensive purposes, is not a true council but merely a group of FedEx hand-picked un-named persons that attend unpublished council meetings at which no minutes are taken....and no input from "others" is welcome.

I have heard...some of these council members have been using EOBR's in their trucks for months. Perhaps, these people are the people that agreed to having them installed....thereby making it the law of the land.

I don't know when the whole thing occured as we have not been home since December to read any mail from FedEx. I also was informed today by a friend that as a TVAL unit we are going to have to lease another piece of equipment too for like $70.00 a month. I am just trying to find out about that now....

I doubt that any input one way or the other from the "council" would have made any difference to The Fedex leadership. Just the same as when PII instituted EORB's. They don't really care what the O/O thinks. They know that they may lose a few people, but they will have them replaced within the month.

The thirty minutes is just an arbitrary time limit they put in force. I think they don't want to try and explain how a truck ended up 150 miles away without a driver being on duty driving. Also it would be to hard to monitor drivers who would just start heading to the house five hundred miles away.

 

[Rhodes101]

So how many here are willing to make a stand and say NO to these? I for one will never drive with a qualcom, prepass or a paperless log. Not because I cheat but because I am a free man. I was born free (no movie jokes-well ok as long as they are good ones) and I will die free.

 

[mcbride]

They don't really care what the O/O thinks. They know that they may lose a few people, but they will have them replaced within the month.

I don’t know how indispensable truck owner operators/drivers are going to be in the near future. The pool of drivers is shrinking daily as well as people buying trucks…especially expediter trucks. The fact that many expedite truck and sleeper manufacturers went out of business in the past year or two is evidence of this.

Granted, the industry may always have the huge fleet owners that inundate FedEx and Panther with trucks but I believe they too will eventually have a hard time finding drivers as well. But then I think…. on the other hand, just maybe this is the way of the future for expediting…just a couple of carrier companies left with the bulk of their fleets comprised of other little companies with 100 or 200 trucks each… As it is, the sole truck owner operator has little to no say with regard to policy making but I suspect the huge fleet owner is not over looked with regard to policy concerns. It used to be that people could not own these huge fleets. The assumption was that the carriers did not want a handful of people having disproportionate influence over them by pressuring to take their trucks elsewhere. Now even that rule/regulation has gone by the way side. Perhaps this is because there are not enough single owner operators coming into the business? I don’t know.

 

[moose]

I for one will never drive with a qualcom, prepass or a paperless log. .

Pre-Pass dose not store data .

 

[bubblehead]

The pool of drivers is shrinking daily as well as people buying trucks…especially expediter trucks.

Actually the pool seems to be growing as one T-VAL Team noted during a transfer "...baggy pants worn below their azz, stunk to high heaven (never understood that one) gangsta style mentality...and as far as the truck was concerned, nothing like good ole duck tape...."
Granted, the industry may always have the huge fleet owners that inundate FedEx and Panther with trucks but I believe they too will eventually have a hard time finding drivers as well. .

Not at all! As one fleet owner advertises on their website (and they are a small fleet) ""Our trucks are always clean and in top mechanical
condition. As we continue to add trucks to our fleet we feel confident that
FedEx will continue to give us [ "us" as opposed to who? The other hard working OOs?] the high priced loads [as opposed to the cheap freight the rest of us are offered all the time] which will keep our
company's revenues high.

We have been ashamed of the garbage we have recently seen out there representing not only the company in general but the "White Glove" division.... Didn't intend to get off--track, but this is a pet peave of mine...ok back to EORBs

 

[iceroadtrucker]

Here is my two cents if this new system will make the balance of work more fare and the wealth spread then I support it 100%.

Just like I support the new rules for Dot Medical Cards.

Soon the unfit will be on the Porch. Hence this will Open up more work. I wont have to here all the Bragging that goes on. That's it I support it as long as it real and fare and it works for everyone equal.

Just might be a very good tool. We shall see.

 

[moose]

Just like I support the new rules for Dot Medical Cards.

.

you meant taking off the road the most safe / experience drivers , just because you don't like standing behind them in the fuel desk...
and paying for them and their family to sit home...

 

[iceroadtrucker]

you meant taking off the road the most safe / experience drivers , just because you don't like standing behind them in the fuel desk...
and paying for them and their family to sit home...

No moose not so, Im saying getting rid of the unfit that dont belong out here. That cant drive their hours if they are teaming. Get rid of the ones that are physicaly unsafe a heart attack waiten to happen. For that matter.

Moose It works up and down the scale there are young bucks out here that dont need to be driving as well and they too are so outa shape its not funney. Go out to CA and look in the truck stops alot of the MOM and Pop teaming duets are hitting the bottle hard on the weekends just as much as the Young bucks are. Works both ways.

Just as there are outashape old ones here their are outa shape young ones here. so over weight when they step on the steps of the cat walk they break the step.
Statement said and done. I need not say more on this.

Plain and Simple Moose I dont drink I dont smoke I dont dip or chew tobacco I dont do Drugs and I dont cheat on my wife.

Now Moose if your any of the above, then you and anyone else for that matter that is. Well as they say if you cant run with the big dogs then you better get on the porch.
Because when the tail gate drops the BULL CRAP Stops.

Yupper Im for the Dot Physicals and other things if they real work to make things farer and Safer.

You take care and dont go blowen no horn around any real moose ya just may get Chased.

 

[jujubeans]

No moose not so, Im saying getting rid of the unfit that dont belong out here. That cant drive their hours if they are teaming. Get rid of the ones that are physicaly unsafe a heart attack waiten to happen. For that matter.

Moose It works up and down the scale there are young bucks out here that dont need to be driving as well and they too are so outa shape its not funney. Go out to CA and look in the truck stops alot of the MOM and Pop teaming duets are hitting the bottle hard on the weekends just as much as the Young bucks are. Works both ways.

Just as there are outashape old ones here their are outa shape young ones here. so over weight when they step on the steps of the cat walk they break the step.
Statement said and done. I need not say more on this.

Plain and Simple Moose I dont drink I dont smoke I dont dip or chew tobacco I dont do Drugs and I dont cheat on my wife.

Now Moose if your any of the above, then you and anyone else for that matter that is. Well as they say if you cant run with the big dogs then you better get on the porch.
Because when the tail gate drops the BULL CRAP Stops.

Yupper Im for the Dot Physicals and other things if they real work to make things farer and Safer.

You take care and dont go blowen no horn around any real moose ya just may get Chased.

Hmmm..let me see if I really got this post. Did you mean if
you're not perfect like me that you don't deserve to live? I think Hitler tried that.

 

[Poorboy]

Hmmm..let me see if I really got this post. Did you mean if
you're not perfect like me that you don't deserve to live? I think Hitler tried that.

That's what It's Starting to Sound Like! Must be Lonely being "That" Perfect! Don't get me wrong, I am all for The D.O.T. Physicals and All that, BUT, If you Pass the Physical then it Seems that you are Fit to Drive No Matter if you Smoke, Have a Belly or Whatever!

 

[OntarioVanMan]

That's what It's Starting to Sound Like! Must be Lonely being "That" Perfect! Don't get me wrong, I am all for The D.O.T. Physicals and All that, BUT, If you Pass the Physical then it Seems that you are Fit to Drive No Matter if you Smoke, Have a Belly or Whatever!

Poorboy..let me tell ya..It is very lonely being this perfect!

Who are your friends if you are better then everyone?

 

[greg334]

I too am for the proposed DOT mental exams, with unstable people in the trucks, we never know what could happen.

Let's start with van drivers, yea van drivers because if they are crazy enough to live in a van for weeks at a time, all hunched over and smelling like ... well a van driver, we don't want them on the road - do we??

How about them people with all that chrome on their trucks?

There has to be something wrong with them, right?

Oh the guys who after driving 400 miles, get out and polish their wheels, isn't that a bit too extreme?

Maybe a compulsive disorder, especially if it is a van owner and he is polishing his sprinter wheels?

Seriously the problem with the DOT physical is simply that it has worked well in the past. The problem now is they are trying to control more than our access to drive a truck for something like .003% of accidents on the road.