David Bradley’s long & winding in-roads

David Bradley, the 46-year old president of the Ontario Trucking Association and CEO of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, admits he ain’t no trucker. Nineteen years ago he left Bay Street to join the OTA as a financial consultant. Six years later, in the aftermath of deregulation, he became president, and helped the association evolve from its roots as a regional legal service to one of the nation’s most vocal lobbying groups. Here he talks to Today’s Trucking about his role in the OTA, and the 1,000-member association’s standing in Canadian trucking.

Today’s Trucking: You became OTA president at a critical time for this industry. How did the association change when you took over the reigns?

Bradley: The change really happened just before I became president. The OTA board made a change in the 1980s when they realized it was extremely difficult for a volunteer who had a business to run as a carrier to also oversee the affairs of the association. They made the transition to a full-time president. I think the move was a reflection of the industry redefining itself as the floodgates of deregulation opened. As trucking changed, so to did the association. We had to become something different literally overnight.

Typically, OTA’s position has not been to step in and tell members how to run their business. But lately, both OTA and CTA have officially endorsed specific programs or practices-you’re telling carriers to raise their rates, for example. Why a shift in philosophy?

It’s true that there’s been a change. It’s a reflection of what I think is a maturing of the industry. You can say trucking’s been around for a hundred years. But really, the industry as we know it today is a relatively new one. While we’re always going to be a hyper-competitive industry, the marketplace now has begun to settle. As a result, many members want us to speak out on issues where they may not have been comfortable about us getting involved before. Indeed, rate issues are one example.

While many still hold such things close to the chest, there’s a view emerging that the more information in the marketplace, the more people can see what’s really going on and have the courage to charge what’s reasonable, which is better for the entire industry.

How do you feel about carriers and owner-operators who may resent you and the OTA/CTA for being portrayed as a voice for the entire industry. Is it a fair critique?

I like to say we represent them all, they just haven’t all paid their dues. It’s all well and good to stand on the sidelines and criticize, but it’s a fact many carriers benefit when the OTA or other provincial associations accomplish things.

Perhaps when the industry was regulated, the OTA was more susceptible to being labeled an organization of big boys only. But with 1,000 members, and a board of 82 carriers of all different sizes, I can’t see how that’s the case today. Frankly, those who suggest we only speak for large fleets don’t really know what we’re doing here.

You’re a lobby group, but some say you’re too close to government.

That’s the one that always makes me laugh. Sure, you can stand up and say such-and-such a minister is an a-hole, and it might make everyone feel good for a while, but you don’t get anything accomplished that way. Our job is to keep doors open. Ironically, I get calls from government people who say we’re too hard on them.

Even more ironic is the fact some larger members aren’t happy with the fact their dues make up 75 per cent of OTA revenue–the majority of which, they say, goes to pay for initiatives that make small carriers more competitive. On one hand, you’re called a mouthpiece for big fleets, yet on the other you spend too much time and money helping the little guy. Which is it?

Sometimes you can’t win. The lion’s share of our members want us to keep our priority at lobbying. In order to do that, you have to know your industry and get involved in other issues. If we’re making a situation better, are we making our members’ competitors better, too? I don’t know. But most people say to me they’d rather have a healthy industry, and that includes smarter, more professional competition.

If anybody thinks by calling me they could get me to run their business for them, well that company would be out of business pretty quickly. I don’t run a trucking company and never have. Frankly, I think I’d make a (mess) of it. So, while I accept that criticism, it’s wrong.

How do you respond to the suggestion that the CTA, while a noble effort, has the OTA’s interests at heart? The fact that you have dual roles propels that perception.

When we reorganized the CTA, we met with the provincial organizations for over a year to hammer out the issues–the philosophy, direction, etc. I made sure everyone was comfortable with me as (CEO). They agreed and we moved forward.

One of my original concerns was that we would get bogged down with regional squabbling that had been going on for years. You’re never going to eliminate that totally because Canada is what Canada is. But I must say that has not been an issue, except in isolated cases.

Is it possible to have a true national voice in such a fragmented industry?

Well, take hours of service. Imagine how difficult it was coming up with a consensus. You got TL carriers who have different issues than LTL carriers, and then every layer above and below that across every Canadian jurisdiction. I could not accept that on an issue as singularly important as HOS that we as supposed “experts” could not come up with a consensus. It was tough sledding, but you know what? We got one. And you know what else? It didn’t kill us. It didn’t rip the organization apart. Surprise: we all could speak with one voice.

Five years ago, this magazine published a story that quoted federal politicians saying the CTA had little impact as a lobbying force, especially compared to rail. That seems to have changed, and the CTA has made strides in educating media and government, and even influencing policy. How much of that was a result of raising your voice over the railways’?

For many years, particularly in Ottawa, CTA took it in the teeth from the railways. They were treating the trucking industry with an utter lack of respect. The only way to put a bully in his place is to stand up to him. Despite all their money and clout, we started fighting back, and it worked. People started to realize that if you want to talk about the environment or safety, that we had a story to tell, too. I don’t know if we’ll ever march arm in arm, but the rhetoric has been toned down.

With David Collenette, an unabashed supporter of rail, no longer federal Transport Minister, do you see CTA making more in-roads in Ottawa?

I would hope there would be better balance. But I think there’s a lesson here for the railway association. They couldn’t have been in a more advantageous position with Collenette. But at the end of the day, they certainly didn’t prevail on us. Still, even today at Transport Canada, there seems to be some nostalgia for the railways. So I don’t think we can back off on any issue.

If trucking is in the blood, what’s your excuse? Ever want to do something else?

It’s never been a dull day, I guess. I love this industry. There’s nothing else I’d want to do on the horizon.

Do you have an ultimate goal for the OTA or the CTA?

That would be when the phone stops ringing. That would be utopia, I suppose. We’re not there yet.