A knock at the window

Other than my short stint in a big daily newsroom, this industry has the highest collection of cynics per capita I’ve ever witnessed.

Believe me, I can roll my eyes with the best of them, but one bandwagon I’ve never jumped on is the knee-jerk dismissal of regional and national carrier associations by non- member fleets and independent truckers. While I’m quite aware not every Canadian Trucking Alliance project benefits all the industry all the time, you can’t deny that some things could be a lot worse–especially U.S. border policy–if not for CTA’s lobbing efforts.

That said, the CTA really gave the cynics fodder this winter when in a two-month span they first developed, and then dropped their pursuit of a proposal which would have increased a driver’s daily workday from 16 to 18 hours under the new upcoming hours-of-service rules.

The story goes that the last-minute proposal was supposedly in the bag–alleged to have had the full support of the transport minister after being reassured of industry-wide demand. The truth is, it was tough to tell what industry really wanted. CTA looked to avoid, as CTA CEO David Bradley later described in an interview, a public debate within the industry.
Then two things happened: The mainstream media picked up on the story, misrepresenting the issue somewhat by describing it as something that would force drivers to be behind the wheel for 18 hours. The public, not fully understanding the plan, was to say the least, not happy about sharing the road with “overworked” truck drivers. Then opposing feedback started to roll in from drivers and owner-op associations through focus groups conducted by CCMTA–which, it’s rumoured, was not keen about implementing this new amendment at the 11th hour anyway.

Now, were those sessions an accurate barometer for where drivers are on this issue? I can’t say. But with only a few months left until the inking of the final HOS plan, this small, but surprisingly loud, opposition is what we got.

I personally think CTA and most of its upper brass had the proper intentions. But this proposal was a fools’ game from the start. While the CTA was correct to point out that the plan would not force additional driving, the main argument from driver groups like OBAC should be well taken: that 18 hours on duty– made up of driving, waiting, or cat-napping–is still a long and taxing day.

Moreover, the extra hours, the truckers argued, may act as a disincentive for shippers to turn trucks around faster, knowing drivers have an extra two hours of “flexibility.” The problems at shipping yards need to be tackled head-on, they say, not covered with this 18-hour Band Aid.
Some industry pundits have categorically dismissed this theory, saying that carriers should be compensating drivers for that time through surcharges, and if they aren’t, maybe drivers should move on. Great idea. How come drivers haven’t thought of that?
Look, Today’s Trucking has documented the evolution of profit, driver pay and lifestyle taking place in this industry more than anyone (see this month’s feature on page 30), but we’re still not where we need to be.

While the carrier-shipper relationship is maturing, the shippers and consignees that haven’t “gotten it” by now, are more likely to see the 18-hour window as a get-out-of-jail-free card rather than what it was designed for. Anyone who thinks those guys and the kinds of carriers that cradle them no longer have a significant grip on our largely uninformed driver pool, needs to shelve the rose-coloured glasses for a while.
Now back to the cynics for a second. Some say that after going straight to the Minister for support on this issue, the CTA may have burned some political capital when the bottom dropped out from the proposal.

Bradley scoffed at the suggestion. “I don’t think that CTA can ever be faulted for doing what it believes is right for the industry,” he said. “Going about it in the proper way, subjecting it to a rigor and peer review, and then knowing when to gracefully back away, is what wins you political capital.”

Time will tell. But there are other ripples from this pond that should be addressed. First, while no one would say so publicly, there’s talk the
18-hour issue pushed the final HOS proposal back several months.

Also, in the days after the media began reporting on this issue, I was doing some headline scanning and noticed that for the first time in years a release by the anti-truck, railway-funded lobby group CRASH made it into a huge chunk of Canadian newspapers.

Capitalizing on the media’s pack mentality for any big story, CRASH–which has been largely marginalized by a media education campaign by CTA–was made relevant again almost overnight. Let’s hope it was a one-time thing and the media has had its fill of sensational sources. s