Speaking Up for the Little Guys

by Billy Woolsey, President
Midwest Compliance Inc.

There is a considerable divide between large and small carriers on the issue of electronic logging. Many large carriers support a proposed government mandate, while a majority of smaller carriers do not ( unless required to do so as a result of a compliance review).

Many of the industry associations have come out in support of electronic logging. The American Trucking Associations, Truckload Carriers Association, and some of the state associations are among those who have official policies of backing this proposed mandate. While these groups have provided the Department of Transportation with a list of issues they want considered in conjunction with the mandate, their support is not contingent on any of these being acted upon.

Some might find it a bit disingenuous of our politically and fiscally conservative industry to invite more cost and regulation into business for any reason. To “level the playing field” , “drive the bad actors out” or “ensure compliance” are all stated as the driving forces behind this acquiescence . What about all the safe, reputable carriers who are doing things right today? Despite having no history of violations indicating a need for this measure, they’ll be forced to incur additional, unnecessary cost in a fragile economy. As one of my friends (small carrier owner) says “whatever happened to being innocent until proven guilty”? This particular carrier is not unlike many thousands out there – they see their drivers regularly, operate safely, maintain their equipment and log legally. They don’t need this added burden as they try to grow their businesses and add jobs to our economy.

When a large carrier is notified of a full compliance review, invariably the concern within the company is to make sure the logs are in order. Competent staff on hand generally ensures that driver qualification files, maintenance records and drug and alcohol testing are taken care of in accordance with regulations. But the complex array of freight operations, myriad of shippers and the fact that fleet managers may have no personal contact with their drivers makes the record of duty status the one area that large carriers most fear in an audit. Having e-logs will eliminate many of the potential violations and may make perfect sense for the carrier. The on board equipment can also provide many additional bits of information for management – engine data, fuel tax reporting, geo fencing, etc. but it comes with a price. That price is a potential difficulty in competing for drivers in a market that will soon experience a tremendous shortage of safe, experienced and qualified drivers.

We have a useful, evolving tool in the new Safety Management System – Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) . It is supposed to focus the limited resources of enforcement agencies onto those carriers and individual drivers whose roadside inspection history and/or crash history indicates the need for an intervention at some level. We should use CSA for the purpose it was intended for. Target those carriers who need intervention and if the results indicate a need for e-logging – mandate it for those deficient carriers.

Data provided by the USDOT for 2010 shows a 5.3% out of service rate for drivers and 20.0 % out of service for vehicles during roadside inspections. Using their own statistics, one could argue there is a four times more urgent need to mandate all carriers be enrolled in some form of mandatory, government run, vehicle maintenance consortium.


To add further insult to the injury is the announcement that FMCSA will be paying for the e-log equipment provided to the Mexican carriers operating on our roads. Could an administration be more blind to how it is viewed by the public it serves? The last election cycle clearly sent the message that Americans want smaller, more efficient government that does not impose unnecessary barriers to success on private business. Truckers realize there are NAFTA provisions and tariff considerations on the table but these should never trump common sense and good business practices. The DOT is most assuredly missing the mark on this issue and fuels a widely held belief that they’re trying to put smaller carriers out of business.

Make no mistake about it, this is a political issue and not one of safety. There are good things this DOT is doing – following though with CSA is one of them. The initiative to battle distracted driving is crucial and a great example of something all of us can get behind in an effort to make our shared roads safer. This industry recognizes that safety is good business and does it’s part to improve every day. We don’t need to roll over on something that does not return a benefit for the cost and intrusion incurred.

If you are against this proposed mandate, do not accept the inevitability of it becoming law. Let your elected officials know why it is bad for small business.