Trucker's Strike Oct. 31st... Rumor?

[OT]

talked with one of the Honchos at the railway today BNSF they said they hope the truckers do on strike! As it satands now they have had a 35% increase in shipping cargo since the gas prices went up,

Well, he'll do pretty good until the shipping docks back up at the rail.
Last time I checked, the trains didn't have rails to Wal-Mart.

 

[Captain Ron]

Just imagine the price of gas without the $31,000,000 annual salary for Exxon's CEO...

Do the math. It would make a less than .0015 cent a gallon difference.

HTH

--ron

 

[DrMoab]

With the way these companies bicker and argue over contracts/freight and haulage it will never happen. You can't get everyone to shutdown at once.

You don't need them to all shut down. If 30% of the trucking companies shut down for a month there is no way the rest could handle the freight.
Trucking companies struggle now as it is to find enough drivers to haul the freight that is out there. There isn't a trucking company in this country that isn't always short on drivers.

Plus, you add to the fact the remaining railroads would love to drain the roads of trans-con truck traffic.

Like someone said earlier...That's all good for the railroads but trains to back up to docks at the stores.


Another thing that is already starting to happen is independent truckers are shutting their trucks off because they can't afford the fuel. I think you are going to start seeing this happen more and more and its not a good thing.

 

[rockwerks]

Well, he'll do pretty good until the shipping docks back up at the rail.
Last time I checked, the trains didn't have rails to Wal-Mart.

no but they do own their own tractors to move the trailers around....not a big leap for them to deliver to shipping hubs

 

[FitchVA]

no but they do own their own tractors to move the trailers around....not a big leap for them to deliver to shipping hubs

agreed. plus it would give the railroads total control of the shipments...from pick up to drop off.

(btw, i am a railroader )

 

[OT]

agreed. plus it would give the railroads total control of the shipments...from pick up to drop off.

(btw, i am a railroader )

Seems to me, the railroads could stand to join the bandwagon.
I'm pretty sure the trains don't run on propane or are nuclear.

 

[DrMoab]

no but they do own their own tractors to move the trailers around....not a big leap for them to deliver to shipping hubs

Unless Walmart joins in....remember they pay for fuel too. Personally I think the whole transportation industry needs to shut down. Railroads,truckers,school buses.

Yeah yeah I know it isn't going to happen but I think its really time that the buyer steps in and tells the seller what he is going to pay...not the other way around.

 

[OT]

Unless Walmart joins in....remember they pay for fuel too. Personally I think the whole transportation industry needs to shut down. Railroads,truckers,school buses.

Yeah yeah I know it isn't going to happen but I think its really time that the buyer steps in and tells the seller what he is going to pay...not the other way around.

That, plus we need to 'untrain' ourselves from thinking $2.00 is a good price.

 

[DrMoab]

That, plus we need to 'untrain' ourselves from thinking $2.00 is a good price.

what would be good? I'm thinking .15C a gallon. Anyone else?

 

[OT]

$1.999 sounds good to me.

 

[jrsxj98]

I am a Loco engineer for BNSF as well as the vice local chairman for United Transportation Union for my local. Havent heard a word about it. Might be a good thing shut down all the coal trains and the nation would be with out power really quick like.

 

[5-90]

What, exactly, would be the point of this? From what I've usually seen, if Congress adds a surcharge to things, it never seems to go where it needs to go (viz. the government usually gets it.) Would the freight lines actually get this money?

Besides, it's another case of Congress taking the wrong approach to the right problem - we need to do something about fuel prices, but charging people more isn't it. I've addressed this a couple times already, so I shan't repeat myself (if you're really interested, prove it by finding my posts on the subject over the last fortnight or so.)

Simply put, petrochemistry has become the nucleus of the world economy - and that needs to be corrected. There is nothing inherently wrong or evil about petrochemistry - just the fact that it has become the understood and accepted basis for world monetary systems is wrong, and needs correction.

5-90

I've heard a lot of independent truckers talk about this. They want to shut down for all of November.

Although in theory I think its a great idea....its going to hurt a lot of people too.

Sometimes though you have to suffer a little pain in order to get what is justly yours.

I don't think most people realize how bad it hurts trucking companies.

Sure when you go fill your 20 gal tank in your car and it costs 60 bucks....that hurts.

go try filling a 300 gal tank and have it run you over 900 bucks...and that's two days of driving.

Everybody is going to feel the sting though..Right now a bill is going through congress that is going to make it mandatory that all freight is charged a non-taxed fuel surcharge.

This means that everything you buy...and I mean EVERYTHING from TP to new cars will have a direct charge...that moves with the price of fuel.

It's not cheap either. For example....right now most companies are charging anywhere from $.20 a mile to .25 a mile surcharge. Well if the bill passes it will most likely go up to .40 or .50 cents a mile. That means that load of potatoes you ship from Idaho to New York is now going to cost you close to 800 bucks more to ship then it did before.

No matter whether you raise shipping costs or shut the country down for a month....you are going to suffer.

Really makes you love the Oil guys who are making all the profits doesn't it?

 

[MudslinginXJ]

You also have to throw into this equation the non-renewable resources that we are using up faster then ever. If we would never run out of Gas, then the prices wouldn't be nearly as high

 

[DrMoab]

What, exactly, would be the point of this? From what I've usually seen, if Congress adds a surcharge to things, it never seems to go where it needs to go (viz. the government usually gets it.) Would the freight lines actually get this money?

Besides, it's another case of Congress taking the wrong approach to the right problem - we need to do something about fuel prices, but charging people more isn't it. I've addressed this a couple times already, so I shan't repeat myself (if you're really interested, prove it by finding my posts on the subject over the last fortnight or so.)

Simply put, petrochemistry has become the nucleus of the world economy - and that needs to be corrected. There is nothing inherently wrong or evil about petrochemistry - just the fact that it has become the understood and accepted basis for world monetary systems is wrong, and needs correction.

5-90

They way I understand it...This bill is not to give the government anything...It's just to standardize the fuel surcharges that are already in affect. Right now you have companies charging stupid high fuel surcharges and others that aren't at all.
This bill is basically just making it standard so all companies get the same.

I think its a good idea. It's not a matter of the government charging people more for stuff...its a matter of trucking companies making their fair share...Right now a lot of owner operators are shutting their trucks off because they cannot afford to keep working. IF they start a standardized system where everybody gets a fair surcharge based on what the price per gallon is.

Right now we are charging based on what the price of fuel is...I'm not sure what formula they are using but basically if the price goes up 10% our fuel surcharge goes up 10%

It's hard for the little guys...the owner operators and such to demand this.
This bill should fix that.

 

[5-90]

Sounds workable in theory - but I'm amazed that Congress didn't find a way to get a cut out of it. I'm all for levelling the playing field (but it's still the wrong solution to the problem. Fuel costs need to be brought to sane levels - surcharges don't help that. All it's going to do is make everything cost more.)

I'll be only slightly surprised if it works. I'm not particularly impressed with the ability of our "elected" representatives to solve problems of late.

On the flipside, I'm not against the idea of a company trying to make a few bucks - but I do have a problem with it when someone is doing so at the expense of the rest of the economy (fuel costs are an excellent example of this - every segment of industry depends on fuel costs at some stage - often more than one.)

I also have a problem with the idea of some company CEO making - what was the example given, $38M? - some exhorbitant salary for doing what appears to be nothing, and getting all sorts of perquisites and benefits besides. I'd like to see the wealth and compensation of these people tied more into the success or failure of the company as related to the people who are actually doing the work - or just rolling up their sleeves and getting dirty alongside everyone else. It's just as bad in pharmaceuticals - what are these people being paid so much for? (Don't get me started on hired, elected, or appointed goverment officials - I'd be pleased to hear that many of them had to go start working for a living. Most of the senior people are independently wealthy, and many of the lower echelons don't produce anything worth being paid for.)

At most, this "fuel surcharge equalisation act" - or whatever they're calling it - is going to be a band-aid fix that doesn't solve the long-range problem of spiralling fuel costs and no sort of control over the valuation of monetary units. It doesn't take a bloody economist to see that this is, and will remain, a critical issue in the world economy (if we're going to prevent implosion...)

5-90

 

[w_howey]

You don't need them to all shut down. If 30% of the trucking companies shut down for a month there is no way the rest could handle the freight.
Trucking companies struggle now as it is to find enough drivers to haul the freight that is out there. There isn't a trucking company in this country that isn't always short on drivers.




Like someone said earlier...That's all good for the railroads but trains to back up to docks at the stores.


Another thing that is already starting to happen is independent truckers are shutting their trucks off because they can't afford the fuel. I think you are going to start seeing this happen more and more and its not a good thing.

Don't remember 1994 do ya?

The companies still running will do what the non-union carriers did when the Teamsters walked out. They will handle freight for their current customers, plus whatever excess they think they can rape the new customers on.


I realize more and more indys are shutting off their trucks. They would be better suited to drain a few of the freight brokers out there. Those guys are the true nightmares of the industry. They steal 10 - 20% of a load price, and experience zero of the hazards.

 

[DrMoab]

You are right...everything is going to cost more but....If you were a trucker and were hauling freight for say....a buck a mile. When fuel is at 1.50 a gallon you can afford to make a living but when it goes from that to 3.00 bucks a gallon then everything...and I mean everything you were making goes right into your fuel tank....You have to raise prices to survive. Fuel surcharges are actually the fairest way to do this because it changes with the price of fuel...and it only affects the freight costs in a direct link to fuel prices.

A company could do this one of two ways...Lets say you are hauling something for a buck a mile but now need a buck twenty to operate. You could just raise your rates. But then they would never go down.
With a fuel surcharge it varys with the cost of fuel. Its a dynamic deal that is the only fair way to do things.

Sounds workable in theory - but I'm amazed that Congress didn't find a way to get a cut out of it. I'm all for levelling the playing field (but it's still the wrong solution to the problem. Fuel costs need to be brought to sane levels - surcharges don't help that. All it's going to do is make everything cost more.)



5-90

 

[5-90]

Oh, I understand that much - by making the fuel surcharge a dynamically-determined fee tied directly with the cost of fuel at the time, you prevent price gouging (since it's regulated by CFR) due to the costs of fuel, and it will (theoretically) go down when (if?) the cost of fuel starts to drop.

I don't have a lot of trouble with that - save the fact that it can cause daily price changes in nearly everything...

What I have a problem with is the fact that the world economy is still tied into and based upon (in essence) a resource which is depletable, expendable, and non-renewable, while lacking in a universally-agreed-upon value.

When monetary units were based upon specie (typically gold and silver - but there's no reason not to include other precious metals - preferably non-industrial metals,) the major world currencies were stable. Ever since money has gone from having an intrinsic value to being based upon the "full faith and credit" (and how good is the credit of a nation with a multi-trillion dollar standing deficit and a multi-billion dollar annual trade deficit?) we've been saddled with fiat money with a constantly fluctuating value.

This value has since settled down only slightly - having been de facto tied into petroleum pricing and production - the nonrenewable, depletable resource. World industry is largely based upon petrochemistry, and it touches every segment of industry and the economy at some point.

The single best fix for this would be a return to the gold standard (and a concurrent dissolution of the Federal Reserve Bank - which exists in violation of Federal law anyhow,) and the wholesale destruction of the "Federal Reserve Note" in favour of cartwheels, eagles, and double eagles, or the issuance of gold and silver certificates in lieu of, and redeemable for, the same. I see no reason why platinum could not be added, as it is a metal that was not in wide monetary use as of two hundred-odd years ago (when it was said that "The Congress shall have sole power to coin money, and no thing but gold or silver may be used therefor" - I'm probably misquoting, but the gist is there.) Those old boys weren't so dumb.

Of course, this fix for our economy would absolutely require things to get a little goofy for a while (one to four years, I'd guess,) and we'd have to get used to the changes, but the long-range benfits would be well worth it. The dollar could be effectively revalued by bringing the minimum wage down (thus increasing the value of the dollar and reducing the costs of production,) rather than the constant devaluation we're saddled with every few months when they increase it again. Of course, California raises the MW even faster, so we're the bellwether for the national economy (even though I think of CA as more of a Judas goat than anything else...)

This is merely a single facet of the problems we're facing economically - and that we will continue to face if we don't take a long-range view and work to actually cure the disease, rather than keep trying to mask the symptoms.

5-90

 

[FitchVA]

Seems to me, the railroads could stand to join the bandwagon.
I'm pretty sure the trains don't run on propane or are nuclear.

i agree. but trains can haul cargo much more efficiently than trucks can. but as stated before, we'll always need trucks to get them from the railyards to the loading docks. but getting away from long hauls would ease road congestion and cost less to transport.

 

[DrMoab]

i agree. but trains can haul cargo much more efficiently than trucks can. but as stated before, we'll always need trucks to get them from the railyards to the loading docks. but getting away from long hauls would ease road congestion and cost less to transport.

The route I run everyday runs right next to a major set of tracks...I see the congestion on the rails and wonder though if the railroads could pick up the slack...seems they are almost at capacity as it is.