Guest Column Regarding EOBRs!

Posted on April 3, 2012 
Filed Under HOURS OF SERVICE, POLITICS

This comes to us from E.F. McHenry. I don’t know who that is, but he posted this below on one of my posts. I have decided repost it in its entirety, just so you don’t think I’m the only one who hates EOBRs, and also because it’s an easy way to generate content for the blog. For you drivers who like EOBRs, if you wish to post why, in the interest of fairness, I will re-post your comments in their entirety, provided you don’t call me nasty names. And now, E. F. McHenry:

Are EOBRs about safety? No! Are EOBRs necessary for compliance? No! Are EOBRs a invasion of privacy? Yes! Do EOBRs enable the harassment of drivers? Yes! EOBRs are not about safety or compliance! EOBRs are about productivity control. Just look at who’s pushing em. Beside the FMCSA, large motor carriers are. The American Trucking Association(ATA), the lobby arm of large trucking companies is colluding with the FMCSA to get EOBRs and sleep apnea testing mandated across the trucking spectrum.

The ATA is literally sponsoring studies hoping to find a magic bullet that will legitimize the EOBRs proposal. Large trucking companies see EOBRs as a means of exerting a kind of control on the productive capacity of all industry players. Growth and acquisition of market share(ie customers) through production control is their method of choice. Remember, a market controlled by rule, regs, codes, standards,..etc, is not a “free market.”

Corporate trucking companies see a primary three fold benefit among many others with EOBRs. First they think EOBRs will level the playing field; control the competition. Second EOBRs align drivers of big companies to fit the logistical operational model of their JIT freight. JIT(just in time)freight, is freight that results from alliances formed by corporate trucking companies and their customers that require expedited service. Third and most importantly, big trucking companies want to control their own company drivers with EOBRs. They see EOBRs as a tool and means to micro manage a drivers log and maximize their drivers productive capacity by force.

Why force? Because once a system of rule is codified in law there will exist a sense of necessity or mandate to follow it. OOIDA has already indicated that a EOBR can readily; easily be used to push drivers when a driver stops to rest and hours are available to continue to drive. This should be quite obvious to any casual observer.

But as one company driver Jiles indicated, the situation is much worse than that. Here is the exchange he had with his dispatcher by ph: Disp, “why are you out of hrs,” “you’ve only run 2,000 miles for the week?” Jiles, “I had a lot of pickups and stops on a couple of loads.” Disp, “I see you’re logging line 4 when you’re delivering.” Jiles, I logged it like I did it.” Disp, “stay out of line 4.” “When the truck stops log off-duty.” “I don’t care what you’re doing.” Jiles, “I gotta show something.” Disp, “if you continue to use line 4 on your log we’ll route you to a terminal for a log class.” “If that doesn’t work you could be terminated for lack of performance.” “You need to treat this like it’s your business.” “If you don’t understand that then maybe you’re in the wrong line of work and trucking is not for you!!”

As you can see from the exchange, the EOBR did exactly what it was intended to do. It allowed the dispatcher to see Jiles’ log in real time and enabled him to coerce him to cheat!! WOW, and they were suppose to be about safety; compliance??? That is truely laughable! EOBRs also create a sense that only driving counts as work and the problem with non-compliant drivers is a problem with accounting for truck movement.

In truth nothing could be further from that notion. Consider the following: 1.) Loading 2.) Unloading 3.) Insp trk;trl 4.) Scaling loads 5.) Fueling 6.) In-cab administrative support work like filling out trip sheets and scanning them at trk/stops or in-cab 7.) In-cab safety courses using Driver Tech, Qualcomm, or other devices 8.) Sweeping trls; or washing out reefers or tanker trls 9.) Chaining when weather demands 10.) Waiting in detention; readiness of equipment during repairs or PM srvcs. This is not exhaustive and the list could go on. Yet this flys under the radar of a EOBR but is so relevant to HOS that it is literally the area in which non compliance occurs.

To make matters worse and continue to avert this problem with non-driving work the FMCSA at the behest of the ATA is trying to no longer require retention of supporting documents by companies on EOBRs. This is the worst possible policy. It’s clear what they are attempting to accomplish. They are trying to structure a system in which companies will have legal cover for a drivers HOS RODS. If I’m correct in where I think they are going then we can safely say this is the “hang the driver out to dry policy.” Another words create a regulatory blind spot for company audits and mitigate legal culpability for a company for a drivers HOS. Another words line 3 of a EOBR is all a company need worry about as far as compliance goes. But for the driver, heaven help him if he or she is involved in a fatality accident. The company with have legal cover with the EOBR and new retention of supporting documents policy. But all those supporting documents will become very relevant should the driver be involved in such a accident. Like CSA shift responsibility of equipment onto the driver this is WORSE!!

I’m gonna end but a quick word on the compliant level of a EOBR. I’m afraid it ain’t no better than a paper log. So long as line 4 can be falsified line 3 can never be compliant as it’s being peddled to be. Recall HOS is not just about driving. There is a 11hr 14hr and 70hr involved. Take the 70hr rule, well line 3 & line 4 both draw from the 70 hrs avail. If a driver logs off-duty when he or she should be on-duty they are basically helping themselves to more hrs than they would otherwise be entitled to have for line 3 or driving. Another words by not spending hours as you should for all non-driving work, paid or not, you are wrongly saving hrs to enabled more drive time. Sorry a false log is a false log. Partial accuracy doesn’t count. If you think so try it with a officer and see what happens. You will get cited. EOBRs accomplish nothing compliant! I’ll save privacy and sleep apnea for another day.

Comments

Leave a Reply