Surprise, Surprise

A couple of things to talk about here, one of them mighty surprising, one of them anything but. And a lesson in both.

Let me start with a follow-up to something I wrote in April’s Rear View. I was talking then about the “spectacular idiocy” of a group of owner-operators at a smallish Toronto-area LTL fleet. They were offered all sorts of perks and bonuses-like free cab heaters-on top of an already good deal, to help get them through the mounting fuel-price crisis. The fleet’s 19 owner-ops cheered and said thanks.

But the day after the contract was sweetened, 12 of those happy owner-ops walked out, turning their backs on the owner’s generosity. Why? To show solidarity with their brethren during the slowdowns and protests a few months back. They didn’t answer repeated phone calls and finally the fleet’s owner pulled their plates, five days later. He had little choice, you’ll agree.

That much you know, but what happened next? The next Monday morning, exactly a week after the walkout, Mr. Fleet Owner picked up the phone and bought 12 new tractors. When I visited a few weeks back, the last of them was being prepped for the last of the 12 new company drivers he’d hired.

Note: I said company driver, not owner-operator.

Not surprisingly, several of those owner-ops have since come back begging for their old contracts to be reinstated. The answer has been “no.” Can’t blame an idiot for trying, I guess, but what the heck did they expect?

The lesson here is obvious, though I’ve heard at least one person suggest that there are two brands of idiocy at play here. First the owner-ops for turning down a good deal, but also the owner for offering too good a deal in the first place.

I don’t buy the latter at all. There was no problem in hiring 12 drivers more or less right away. Why? Because this fleet pays well-top rate is 46 cents a mile, and it’s not too tough to get that high. I have to presume that the company still manages to make a buck (it’s very solvent), so I must also wonder why the industry average is probably 15 cents below that level. Granted, the job takes drivers into the mighty undesirable New York City/New Jersey area, so a better rate is called for. In any case, the real lesson is that the owner-operator in general exists only because he offers some financial and operational advantage to the fleet. Take away either or both of those, and you end up with company employees at the wheel. Owner-ops would do well to remember that.

OK, now for the surprising bit. Did you have any idea that both the police and the press may actually be on your side in the aftermath of a highway accident? It’s true, sorta kinda, according to a fairly lengthy CBC television news report by Wendy Mesley.

It seems she’d become intrigued by the notion that trucking company names are rarely mentioned in news reports of accidents involving trucks. Sure enough, interviews with somewhat sheepish staff at The Toronto Sun revealed that they’ll avoid publishing the fleet’s name if it’s not germane to the story. In fact, Mesley found that the company name is included in the reportage only 15% of the time. That’s amazing, considering how often that newspaper slams our industry, often with front-page punch. Then again, the publisher may be worried about lawsuits.

Mesley also interviewed Sgt. Cam Woolley of the Ontario Provincial Police, who’s a media favorite and arguably the cop who understands trucks and trucking best in southern Ontario. True to form, he was controversial, admitting that he sometimes opens the door of a truck so the news cameras can’t catch the company name-in cases, he said, where it’s clear that the truck driver wasn’t at fault. Thanks, Cam.

Mesley also reported on the common practice-but misguided, in my opinion-of fleet folks who rush to an accident scene and paint or tape over their company name. Sometimes before, she discovered, they even ask how their driver’s doing! At one accident scene, hastily applied black spray paint obscured the name and logo on the door of a truck emblazoned with otherwise very recognizable company colors.

Is this practice wise? If I were a reporter who had less than affection for trucks, there’s nothing that would rouse my interest more than a company trying so obviously-and so amateurishly-to hide. Doesn’t it come close to implying guilt?