13 Comments Bookmark and Share

ATA tells feds to butt out of driver detention issue

WASHINGTON -- The American Trucking Associations doesn't want the federal government interfering in the relationships between truckers and shippers.

ATA's Board of Directors voted to oppose efforts at regulating driver detention time at loading docks.

Earlier this year, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. introduced legislation to establish a maximum number of hours drivers may be detained without being paid and study the problem of industry detention.

The effort is supported by the FMCSA's Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee as well as the Owner-Operators Independent Driver Association.

The ATA says instead that detention time is an issue to be negotiated between carriers and shippers, and Washington should stay out of it.

"ATA and its members value the time of our drivers," ATA President and CEO Bill Graves said following the board's decision. "However, federal intervention into this area would have significant impacts on the contractual agreements between carriers and shippers."

In a letter to FMCSA administrator Anne Ferro, the MCSAC said the agency should seek legal authority over issues that contribute to safety violations. Undue detainment, it argues, can cause drivers to violate hours of service rules and affect safety on the road.

"The ability of carriers to negotiate rates, routes and service with our shippers is very important to us," said ATA Chairman Barbara Windsor, president and CEO of Hahn Transportation. "Federal regulation in this area would directly affect shipping rates and would significantly change the playing field for carriers and shippers."

Added ATA first vice chairman Dan England, chairman and president of C.R. England: "No carrier wants to see our drivers' time wasted," said. "However, this is not an issue that can be handled with a 'one-size, fits all' regulation and as a result is best addressed in contractual agreements between carriers and shippers."

Email Editor    Comment Below

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
If you already have an account, you can login or register to add your comments.

Or log in with...

Another fine example of the ATA NOT looking at the interests of drivers, only of carriers and their flow of money. can't speak for anyone else but i think it's a good idea as carriers tend to deem molre and more customers with sh!t rates "too valuable" to charge detention to. i mite agree with the ATA if they EVER had the best interests of drivers in mind instead of who's tiet to suckle at this week.

Of course large fleet carriers that have primarily lower experienced drivers who don't realize that most company's get up to $100.00/hr for detention. So large companies like C.R. England wont want publically published/regulated detention rates. Mr. England doesn't want his drivers to know how much money goes into his company's pocket regarding detention. This way he can continue giving the driver the same amount, so long as they don't know how much the company is really getting.

The ATA does'nt want this because the ATA was made up by the shipers, and the larger carriers! They don't care about the drivers, They only care about them the money!

One of the major errors in transportation regulation is the fact that transportation, as part of the supply chain, doesn't act in a vacuum. In order to have safety properly promotted then Carriers, Shippers and Consignees mst be held accountable. Drivers, especially company drivers, have little to no control over this issue. It is a pity that the ATA takes such a short sighted point of veiw on this issue. I guess drivers are nothing more than a commodity...I wonder how CSA will change their minds...hmmmm

Well if the ATA wants the Fed's to butt out of holding shipper's and consignee's accountable for our waiting time, then the ATA needs to make sure that all driver's get paid for detention time. Of course I know that the ATA will do nothing about it, so I WELCOME the Fed's to have these people pay the driver's for their time instead of working for free...

Seems to me that a lot of the big carriers do not pay the people that work FOR THEM. If I get held up or have to do extra I get paid for it. I unload and load everything that is on my truck and I get paid for it.

All company's should do this no matter the waiting time. It should be in their contracts with who they are hauling for and or the broker, (who makes great money).

Drivers should be paid by the hour when they are at the dock and based on what their company average is per hour driving down the road. That way it is fair to all and not just the shipper who makes the driver wait. The shipper and receiver need to be held accountable for these hours that make the people delivering the product them or receiving pay for the extra hours that take place when they are doing their job.

There is no reason why someone should work for FREE when so many other people are getting paid. Like the CEO'S at the places that they deliver to.

CEO'S averaged 9.3 mill last year Average driver wage??? They were up how about US?

I am in the trucking industry and I disagree with fed's butting in. If a driver is stuck at a shipper longer than expected it should be business etiquitte to pay the driver although this isn't always the case.

Sounds to me like the ATA is not representing the needs of truckers in this matter. Electronic logs are becoming more common, and detention regulation is needed to make it practical to follow HOS rules. Yes, shippers will be upset and contracts will be renegotiated, but the only people in the trucking industry to lose money will be the trucking companies that line their pockets at the expense of the drivers they leave sitting at shipping docks without compensation. Those companies will have to pay their drivers for their time, and they may lose some contracts as a result. ATA has no business arguing that companies should be allowed to continue taking advantage of their employees in this way. Detention regulation is NEEDED if electronic logging is to be a practical and cost effective process, as it is in Europe. Electronic logs have been used in Europe for quite some time, and with great success. But Europe manages Detention time.

ATA - quit lining your pockets and start representing the DRIVERS!

The government is trying to help us truckers get paid for our wasted time and once again the various associations ATA. Is screwing it up! Drivers need to speak up! The trucking associations are self serving and not serving the drivers period!

test comment

Of course ATA does not want anyone else to get involved the shippers and carriers do not lose a dime the owner operators lose all the time and money by sitting and waiting for companys to unload or load at their discretion we are not compensated for waiting enough they want us there early and take there sweet time unloading because they know that they do not have to pay how is that fair to us when we are already working for basicly peanuts this needs to be stopped

Also guess who give the ATA the most donations the shippers and carries so of course they do not want the gov to step in and help owner operators the brokers,agents and carriers have been stealing and ripping off OO's for years they are taking more than there fair share of the revenue. ATA is a joke they are not for OO's they are for carriers and brokers who contribute large sums of cash to help them get there way.. Wake up

Perhaps it's the ATA who should stay out of our business. One thing I learned when I started driving in 1970 was if you get into the shipper's or receiver's wallet once or twice for detention, they seem to make sure it doesn't happen again. Along came deregulation and detention became a private issue between the trucking company and the customer which created a lot of cut throat deals. Maybe what the government should do is make the carrier responsible for paying the driver and if they want to take a loss in the bottom line then it's still between them and the customer. I'd be willing to bet that under those circumstances, they'd have no problem charging the customer.