Speed Limiter Phone Calls

[ATeam]

What if Canada suddenly says no one with a pet can enter Canada, or you have to have all red lights on your truck or you have to have blue lights in the corners of your windshield, all lettering on your truck must be black or all tires must be 20 ply.

Where does this end?

I don't think it will ever end. Multi-jurisdictional chaos is something truckers and carriers have been dealing with for a long time. Doubles are legal in some state, tripples in others, Rocky Mountain doubles in others, turnpike doubles in still others. With their axle rules, Michigan is a tire salesperson's dream but other states are not. Expidters get tickets in Louisiana for having their lift axle control in the cab but not in California. You can idle in Louisiana but will be ticketed for doing so in California. Tire chain rules vary from state to state. The list is long.

Central to this discussion is the introduction and coming enforcement of a new speed limiter law by two provinces in Canada. The law is new but multi-jurisdictional chaos is not.

For some of us at FDCC, the issue must be considered on many levels. The first is the law itself. Regardless of the carrier you are with, are these new provincial laws something you are willing to comply with or not?

Next comes your carrier's position on the issue, which at this point is murky at best. A fleet bulletin that goes out to only some contractors and uses the word "requirement" is different than a letter that goes to all contractors and uses the word "encourage."

From the reports I am getting from contractors, contractor coordinators are not of one voice on this. Granted, people sometimes hear what they want to hear and coordinators sometimes mis-speak. But clearly, they have no company-provided statement about this that they can use to read the same words to everyone who asks.

If this is a true requirement and a condition of continuing as a contractor, it would make things easier on everyone if FDCC would come out with a clear, offical statement saying exactly that.

Following that can come the effort to uniformily enforce the requirement if one in fact exists. Prior exceptions to Canada policy have been noted by others above. Clearly, many contractors dislike the speed-limiter law and would not comply without heavy pressure from their carrier. Uniformly enforcing the carrier rules across the fleet would make it easier for those who reluctantly and grudgingly live under them.

 

[layoutshooter]

Well put Phil!!

 

[TeamCaffee]

When someone gives you a choice between A, which you want to do and B which you don't want to do and uses authority, bonuses and penalties to require B, it is not a choice, not a free choice anyway.

The DOT requires truck inspections once a year. FDCC requires them every six months as a condition of being a contractor. Key words, "as a condition of." If getting your truck inspected every six months while you are with FDCC is viewed as a choice at all, it is a forced choice.

If a CDL was not required to drive a truck, only a non-commercial license, how many of us would go out and get one? None. But because it is required, we are forced to get one if we want to drive a truck.

One could argue that because you choose to drive a truck, you also choose to get a CDL. That would be a false premise. People don't get CDL's because they want to, they get CDL's because they have to.If drivers were given the free choice of having a CDL or not, and could keep driving their trucks, CDLs would drop to the ground by the millions, because their real choice would be to not have them.

Requirements are requirements. Choices are choices and the two are not the same.

We made the choice to leave our 9 to 5 job many years ago. The reason we made the choice is we no longer wanted to live under the requirements that were imposed on us by our careers. Our careers required us to have certifications to stay current and also other rules that we had to follow. When the personal enjoyment we received from that job was not there anymore we made the choice to change careers.

The requirements have changed and we have to make a choice to abide by the requirements. If the requirements are more then we can abide by then we have to choose to either change carriers or find a different profession.

One of the requirements at FCC is you cannot have a pet in WG and so we choose to keep our pet and stay in Express. If FCC was to ban pets in any division we would begin the search for a new carrier as we feel that strongly about this issue.

In my opinion we make a choice to meet the requirements that have been imposed on us or to not meet the requirements and move on.

I used to work at the local county courthouse. We were all able to smoke at our desks for many years. Then one day a new requirement was handed down in one week the courthouse will go no smoking and we will provide you with a smoking area. All of us smokers grumbled and threw fits as we trudged out in any kind of weather to have our cigarettes. We all had a choice quit smoking, smoke in our designated area, or find a new job.

 

[TeamCaffee]

I kind of get the feeling that you type the words but the words come from some one else.

All I can say to this is THANKS I must be getting better at conveying my thoughts!

 

[piper1]

Does Molly have any idea how important she is? Wow.

Good Post.

 

[layoutshooter]

Yes Molly does!!!!! Molly is a beloved family member and is treated as such!!! I sure wish Mrs. Layoutshooter treated me that nice!!! LOL!!!

 

[TeamCaffee]

Yes I think Molly does know how important she is and she gives us unconditional love and has for the past 13 years. Goofy dog thinks if we come up with a plan such as go drive a truck she is right there to help us.

Joe, I am sure Bob would agree with you on being treated as well as Molly is!!! The problem is he spoils her just as much as I do.

 

[ATeam]

Now that we have distinguished between choices and requirements, we can next distinguish between the types of choices there are (free, forced, Catch 22, Hobson's, and many more). Doing so would be a waste of time and off point.

At issue is the speed-limiter law, it's effects in the provinces in question, the FDCC rule or expectation (not sure which, yet) regarding speed-limiter compliance, and contractor response.

It is an issue that leads me to worry about FDCC losing good contractors to the competition. I'm not talking about the kind that are dumped for performance shortcomings, or behavior issues, or the kind that jump from carrier to carrier as they storm off in a huff. I am talking about those who have been with the company for a decade and have done a thousand or more loads without freight damage and virtually without service failures.

Those of us who have no issues with the new dispatch system have come to understand we are in the minority. It is a genuine surprise to me that people have not softened their views and come to accept the new system. Instead, their resentment is rekindled with every beep and persists unresolved.

If a new and unwanted speed-limiter rule is imposed on top of that, resentment will continue to grow. How resentful must a contractor become before emotion trumps logic and the decision to leave is made?

In the short term, an outflow of great contractors would not hurt FDCC. We all know there are dozens if not hundreds that would eagerly move into the WG ranks to replace them. The mood would be joyous in the orientation room filled with people who have been waiting for this opportunity for months if not years. Most would do a good job and, over time, build similarly great records.

What worries me is that the contractors who leave are not going to disappear into thin air. They are going to find other places in the business and become some of FDCC's best and brightest competitors.

Yes, Canada business is worth keeping. How much is it worth to keep contractors happy and keep competing carriers, brokers and perhaps new carrier founders from cashing in on the fact that increasing number of FDCC's best and brightest are chafing under FDCC's new rules and procedures?

Panther is FDCC's most obvious competitor and has clearly had an impact. If you doubt that, you need look no further than the Panther truck at the dock next to you where you did not see Panther trucks before. That is a seen threat. I worry more about the unseen.

If FDCC creates a critical mass of disgruntled contractors, it is not inconceviable that people with knowledge of the premium freight market and carrier operations will find people to back them and create a whole new company that targets what FDCC and others are trying to hang on to.

Where a critical mass of great but disastisfied contractors exists and a new opportunity rises with some money behind it, a game-changing situation could instantly appear. I am certain dozens of experienced carrier executives and brokers -- inside and outside of the expediting industry -- have day-dreamed about starting a WG-only company. If some of them sense that a critical mass of great contractors and the right equipment can be quickly obtained, the dreams might grow into plans and plans may lead to deeds.

I'm not making this up. Good friends of mine who are great contractors are physically coming off the road to interview other companies and explore other opportunities. So far, they are all hanging in at FDCC. But I have never before seen great contractors like these looking around like they are now.

Yes, the recession might have something to do with it but I do not think so. They are not talking to me about the recession. They are talking about the rules.

The my-way-or-the-highway approach can easily be taken when freight is slow and lots of people want into WG. The approach eliminates the need for creative thinking about how else provincial markets might be profitably served. It is a quick and easy solution.

It is not an approach that serves FDCC's long term best interests. It is not the only way that FDCC can continue meet customer needs. (This contractor's opinion).

Having seen not only a change of tone but a change of behavior among people I know, I worry.

I worry about competitors figuring out the combination of pay, policy and opportunity that will be more attractive than the present WG opportunity is now. I don't want to see my friends leave my carrier of choice. And I don't want to see my carrier of choice be beaten up so badly in the marketplace that my best choice is to also leave.

 

[layoutshooter]

Gee Linda, "I" would NEVER spoil OUR dog!!! (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE never ask Jan how I gave Susie the couch!!! )

Phil, FedEx is at a stage that many larger companies always come too. They are sorta on the top of the heap now. They realize that they need a bigger customer base and are working hard at that. Give them credit there, many companies never get to that point. Thier problem is they have sort of, not completely, forgotten the role the independant contractors played in getting them to that point. MOST companies do that. I hope they figure it out, they are ripe for the picking right now and CAN be knocked off IF they are not careful. I have no desire to leave, BUT, if pushed, who knows? My livelyhood takes precedence over FedEx's IF push comes to shove. I hope that they remember that. It is easy for a copmpany, ANY company, to forget.

 

[layoutshooter]

Hey Phil, I forgot to ask if you recognize the "Vigilant Always" crest in my signature? You should. Layoutshooter

 

[spudhead911]

All I can say to this is THANKS I must be getting better at conveying my thoughts!

More than a few of us here on EO know better.

 

[FJK1954]

All one has to do is read this weeks fleet bulletin on the extranet to see what the rule is. Surface trucks are going to have a choice. w/g are not, because the w/g customers do not want their freight transferred we will be REQUIRED to have the limiters.

i got a call from the cc the other day wanting to know if I was going to be compliant by June 1st., my reply has been ill try to be.

I do alot of t-val. If that is what it takes to keep that business , then it is a no brainer to me. just my opinion. frank

 

[ATeam]

I do alot of t-val. If that is what it takes to keep that business , then it is a no brainer to me. just my opinion. frank

TVAL is an important part of our business too and I'm not stupid (or if I am, Diane usually intervenes in time). If push comes to shove, we'll speed-limit the truck over giving up TVAL. I will also continue to worry that FDCC is hurting itself, and consequently us, in the long run by making such mandates when competitors exist or may emerge that do not mandate speed-limiters.

 

[BEARTRUCKER]

Confused here...(nothing new I guess )
CANADA requires speed limiters, right?
FedEx WG is now requiring speed limiters so they can continue running freight to Canada, right?
What happens with O/O's refuse to have limiters put on and quit FedEx WG?
They then run for Panther Elite??
Uhmmmm...Panther Elite runs to Canada also...Therefore wouldn't THEY (Panther) then require limiters to run into Canada???
So then this feared migration from WG to Elite is debunked???
Just wondering...

 

[spudhead911]

Confused here...(nothing new I guess )
CANADA requires speed limiters, right?
FedEx WG is now requiring speed limiters so they can continue running freight to Canada, right?
What happens with O/O's refuse to have limiters put on and quit FedEx WG?
They then run for Panther Elite??
Uhmmmm...Panther Elite runs to Canada also...Therefore wouldn't THEY (Panther) then require limiters to run into Canada???
So then this feared migration from WG to Elite is debunked???
Just wondering...

Panther does not "require it's Elite Services" trucks to run in Canada, or force them to have their trucks speed limited as FDCC does, as far as I know. Therefore some WG units might make the switch to Panther.

Panther could wind up a big winner if enough FDCC WG trucks decide to go to Panther. I'm sure word would flow to a lot of FDCC customers that Panther has the experienced former WG Trucks. the only reason the customer chooses FDCC over Panther is for the more experienced WG O/O's. If enough of these O/O's go to Panther the WG and T-VAL freight could go with them also.

This should be something FDCC should think about before forcing WG units, especially T-VAL units to have speed limiters put on their trucks. With FDCC it's either have the trucks speed limited or lose your WG contract.

 

[sweetbillebob]

Re Limiter Phone Calls

I talked with Kelly this morning. So far, there has been nothing from the higher up's telling our coordinators that if we do not comply, we will loose our W/G status. However, so far only 16% of Kelly's fleet has said they will comply. At that percentage, she anticipates there will be and edict of some sort soon. I also broached the subject of those complying potentially being penalized because dispatch would try to keep compliant trucks near the border to be available for Canadian loads. She said no change in the computer based dispatch process has been planned at this time.
Clearly Canadian business is very important to Fedex, if push comes to shove, expect a shove.

 

[layoutshooter]

There is ALWAYS more than one way to skin a cat. Edicts and force is normally the least productive way to get to where you are trying to get. In the real world, money talks!! With only a total of 6 Canadian offers for all of 2008 it hardly seems worth our while to castrate our truck. Now, IF FedEx can keep us busy there, then it may be worth it. Forcing me to limit my truck is not the best way to get on my good side. Show me a return on my effort first, then I would be more willing to "Do the Deed"

 

[ATeam]

Panther could wind up a big winner if enough FDCC WG trucks decide to go to Panther. I'm sure word would flow to a lot of FDCC customers that Panther has the experienced former WG Trucks. the only reason the customer chooses FDCC over Panther is for the more experienced WG O/O's. If enough of these O/O's go to Panther the WG and T-VAL freight could go with them also.

There is more to it than that. TVAL freight is highly regulated freight and there is a ton of stuff that goes on behind the scenes to ensure that shippers and consignees have all their paperwork in order and all regulations are complied with.

Shippers have told me about audits they undergo. People at our carrier have told me about outside audits they undergo. The certified equipment, proper documentation and properly picked up and delivered freight we provide are just part of a successful load. Even the reefer dealers that service must have additional equipment and complete additional documentation before they can even work on our trucks.

A carrier's quality of work on a TVAL shipment is at least as important to a shipper as the work we contractors do. It is easy to grow quickly frustrated with the TVAL hoops our carrier make us jump through. But without our TVAL department doing its thing behind the scenes, a TVAL shipment is like a truck without wheels. It simply won't go.

So, while you could theoretically have a mass exodus of contractors moving from one carrier to another, that does not mean the TVAL freight will automatically follow. If the gaining carrier's TVAL department is substandard in shipper eyes, the freight may well stay where it is.

On the other hand, a TVAL-qualified owner-operator or driver that can be relied upon to consistently provide good equipment and good service is a highly valued part of the supply chain that successfully completes a TVAL shipment.

Just as running a TVAL truck requires extra effort but is not rocket science, neither is running a TVAL department. FedEx and Panther are not the only games in town with TVAL expertise. It behooves all players to understand they are only as good as their ability to provide the total package better than the next player.

 

[spudhead911]

I have to agree with you Phil, Its the whole package, We will just have to wait and see what shakes out with the speed limiter requirement. I have heard, unconfirmed of course, that so far less than 20% of WG units have chosen as of this date to have speed limiters set on their trucks.

It might be interesting to see what happens June 1 if most of the WG fleet decide not to bend to FDCC' s speed limiter requirement.

 

[BeagleMom]

Got the word from our owner today. All of the trucks in the ES fleet will be nuetered, whether you plan to go into Canada or not. Whether you are WG or not. We are nothing but a D and will be nuetered by the 1st. Am I mad about this, heck yea. We have done good for the company, been with them over a year and have gotten this trucks mpg up to a consistent 9.3. It was at 8 when we got the truck. IMO if a driver has no intention of going into Canada then their truck should be left alone. Apparently my opinion, and possibly the opinion of a lot of other ES drivers, doesn't matter. I can't wait to see what happens when our mpg starts dropping. We have discovered that this trucks "sweet spot" is 67 mph. She gets her best mpg at that speed. That will shortly be impossible to do. It will also now be impossible for us to use that little extra that we now have to get passed the slower moving trucks. We will be stuck in those rolling road blocks and there is nothing we can do about it. I have to admit, if it wasn't for the fact that there are no jobs to be found at home I seriously doubt if I would still be in this truck after the 1st I feel like I am being punished for doing a good job