quote:

New limits on the number of hours truck drivers can work per week enacted by the Department of Transportation will put the brakes on commerce, the lobbying group for retail companies said Thursday.


The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Association (FMCSA) announced last month that its new rules for trucker scheduling will limit the number of hours a driver can work to 70 per week. Under the old rules, truckers could drive 82 hours per week.

The Washington-based National Retail Federation (NRF) said those lost hours will increase the cost of doing business for its members.

“The new rule is a bit complicated but the ramifications are severe and will surely be felt on America’s roadways and throughout the retail industry supply chain,” NRF Vice President of Supply Chain Jon Gold wrote in a post on the organization’s blog Thursday.

“NRF believes that these changes will drive up retailer transportation costs and make trucking less safe due to the fact that more trucks will have to be added onto our already congested roadways to make up for those drivers on mandatory breaks,” Gold said.

He added that the new FMCSA rules “failed to truly recognize the importance of nighttime driving and early morning deliveries.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/trans...ker-scheduling-rules

quote:

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Association (FMCSA) announced last month that its new rules for trucker scheduling will limit the number of hours a driver can work to 70 per week. Under the old rules, truckers could drive 82 hours per week....“NRF believes that these changes will drive up retailer transportation costs and make trucking less safe due to the fact that more trucks will have to be added onto our already congested roadways to make up for those drivers on mandatory breaks,”

If it's less safe for drivers to go 70 hrs/wk than to drive 82 hours, then perhaps we should allow truckers to drive 168 hours a week so that they never have a mandatory break. Damn guvmint interference is putting us all at risk.

How alert can a trucker be after driving 82 hours a week every week year after year?

quote:

we should allow truckers to drive 168 hours a week

Hey you with monkeyface avatar, sometimes its almost like you are dumb enough to piss on a hotwire fence or somethin'.

I'm sure that is something that you will never do again zorro...

quote:

Originally posted by Zorro:

quote:

we should allow truckers to drive 168 hours a week

Hey you with monkeyface avatar, sometimes its almost like you are dumb enough to piss on a hotwire fence or somethin'.

quote:

Hey you with monkeyface

From you, zorro, I take that as a compliment, but you're probably just confusing my avatar with W. I'd rather just keep it cordial though, and not get as intimate as your face was with his ass.

If the economy is slowed by more regulations, then the idiot in chief will have to live with the consequences.

And what if the economy is slowed by corporations that do not want to spend the money to hire people to fill needed positions?

quote:

If the economy is slowed by more regulations

Exactly what I was saying, vic. If we just get that damn guvmint off the truckers' back, like Charlie's link suggests, and let them drive 168 hours a week we'll all be safer and get the economy zipping along like a trucker on meth.

And while we're at it, why not get after those darn government bureaucrats at the FAA who just implemented these rules for pilots:

quote:

Under the new rules:

•Flight-duty times would range from nine to 14 hours. For the first time, rather than just counting flight time and rest time, flight-duty time would count the time spent flying to the job, which is sometimes called dead-heading, as if the pilot were working.

•Flight-time limits will be eight or nine hours, depending on the time of day and number of flights flown.

•Minimum rest periods will be 10 hours between shifts. The pilot must have an opportunity for eight hours of uninterrupted sleep during that rest period.

• Pilots must have 30 consecutive hours of rest each week, a 25% increase over current standards.

Airlines have two years to meet the standards.

Source:
http://travel.usatoday.com/fli...rest-more/52139264/1

If our nation's truck drivers can stay on the road for endless hours high on meth, why not our airline pilots too? The airlines say the new rules will cost them plenty of money.

I know I want to be on a plane with exhausted, sleep-deprived pilots, just as I want to be on the road with a truck driver who hasn't slept in days coming at me at high speed, sound asleep.

To hell with safety and worker's rights. Can't slow the economy down by forcing those job providers to actually provide some more jobs by hiring more truckers and giving all truckers a few more hours sleep!

Jeff

quote:

Exactly what I was saying, vic. If we just get that damn guvmint off the truckers' back, like Charlie's link suggests, and let them drive 168 hours a week we'll all be safer and get the economy zipping along like a trucker on meth.

My point is that this idiot in chief is the regulation president. It's costing business more money to do business cause if his regulations on top of regulations. The only jobs this idiot in chief is creating are those for regulators. That's a fact!

quote:

Originally posted by Zorro:

quote:

we should allow truckers to drive 168 hours a week

Hey you with monkeyface avatar, sometimes its almost like you are dumb enough to piss on a hotwire fence or somethin'.

Republicans are a particularly ugly nasty group.

quote:

Originally posted by Victor Laszlo:

quote:

Exactly what I was saying, vic. If we just get that damn guvmint off the truckers' back, like Charlie's link suggests, and let them drive 168 hours a week we'll all be safer and get the economy zipping along like a trucker on meth.

My point is that this idiot in chief is the regulation president. It's costing business more money to do business cause if his regulations on top of regulations. The only jobs this idiot in chief is creating are those for regulators. That's a fact!

How did your Libertarian type "Free Market Self Regulation" of the investment banking industry work out for us? Almost collapsed the economy?

There is little more dangerous than unfettered capitalism. It is predatory.

Ever think that in order to have a safe working place, not just for truckers and Pilots but for the Public as well. That corporations have to spend money asnd even hire more qualified people?

quote:

quote:

Exactly what I was saying, vic. If we just get that damn guvmint off the truckers' back, like Charlie's link suggests, and let them drive 168 hours a week we'll all be safer and get the economy zipping along like a trucker on meth.

My point is that this idiot in chief is the regulation president. It's costing business more money to do business cause if his regulations on top of regulations. The only jobs this idiot in chief is creating are those for regulators. That's a fact!

I got ten forward gears
And a Georgia overdrive
I'm taking little white pills
And my eyes are open wide
I just passed a Jimmy and a White
I've been passin' everything in sight
Six days on the road and I'm gonna make it home tonight

Dave Dudley

quote:

Retailers warn economy will be slowed by new trucker scheduling rules

Yada, yada, yada... same headline, different industries.

• Coal companies warn economy will be slowed by new mining safety rules
  
  
• Factory employers warn economy will be slowed by new child labor laws
  
  
• Car manufacturers warn economy will be slowed by new regulations requiring head- and tail lights
  
  
• Butchers warn economy will be slowed by new 'clean hands' rule
  
  
• Paint manufacturers warn economy will be slowed by new lead paint rules
  
  
• Microwave oven manufacturers warn economy will be slowed by new 'leakage' rules
  
  
• Crib manufacturers warn economy will be slowed by new crib safety rules
  
  
• Fast food restaurants warn economy will be slowed by new rules disallowing cadmium on child-attractive merchandise
  
  
• Window treatment designers warn economy will be slowed by new shade and blind window cord regulations
  
  
• XYZ people warn economy will be slowed by new ABC rules...

So mebbe we should allow tractor trailers to go 95 mph to help truck drivers make-up for the decrease in work hours...?

I'm quite tired of those who raise the "it's all fair in love & capitalism" banner doing so with flammable plastic over my child's head and securing said banner with scotch tape and spit, and then lighting their (stuffed with a multitude of safety gear) grill under the frickin' banner.

Why don't all you capitalism-at-all-costs folks just stay home and watch your grandkids play with some dry cleaning bags, eh?



*CJ

When some new regulation is proposed or tightened; whether it be for safety, energy efficiency, or the environment; the reaction of BigBiz is totally predictable, and it happens in stages:
1. The fight it tooth and nail, sloshing money around to stop it or at least water it down.
2. They scream that they'll go out of business, that it'll ruin the economy, that they'll have to move to Bangladesh--while their minions in the corporatist media echo the hysteria.
3. They adapt to the new regulations, and often exceed them.
4. Then they brag about how safe/efficient/clean their product is, and how their deep concern for our wellbeing was the impetus for designing it.

I for one am happy they have put restrictions on the amount of hours those drivers can drive. Living near the I-5, in the Central Valley of California, I can't tell you how many big rig accidents are causing fatalities on our highways here. Usually, if not almost always, the culprit is the driver fell asleep at the wheel.

I've talked with men and women who are long distance drivers and they all say the same thing. It's the almighty dollar that provides incentives for these long night hauls. The companies don't care about safety, they care about the delivery of the product to beat our the competition.

Big business doesn't care about the number of fatalities their drivers cause. They care about how much money they get for delivering on time or early. They don't worry about safety. Safety doesn't offer a monetary reward.

quote:

Originally posted by Victor Laszlo:

quote:

Exactly what I was saying, vic. If we just get that damn guvmint off the truckers' back, like Charlie's link suggests, and let them drive 168 hours a week we'll all be safer and get the economy zipping along like a trucker on meth.

My point is that this idiot in chief is the regulation president. It's costing business more money to do business cause if his regulations on top of regulations. The only jobs this idiot in chief is creating are those for regulators. That's a fact!

This is flatulence

quote:

Originally posted by Zorro:

quote:

we should allow truckers to drive 168 hours a week

Hey you with monkeyface avatar, sometimes its almost like you are dumb enough to piss on a hotwire fence or somethin'.

Completely non-productive comments Zippy....delete

quote:

Originally posted by Victor Laszlo:
My point is that this idiot in chief is the regulation president. It's costing business more money to do business cause if his regulations on top of regulations. The only jobs this idiot in chief is creating are those for regulators. That's a fact!

Here's a REAL fact or two for ya' Victor...

Businesses/manufacturers/industries have proven time and again that they are incapable or unwilling to regulate themselves, evidenced by the FACT that corporations continuously perform risk/benefit analyses to determine the 'acceptable' limit of injuries and/or fatalities versus their profit on the flawed item.

... the "acceptable limit" on preventable injuries/deaths??? Good gawd, they're all animals.

Let's remember -why- these sorts of regulations are written, shall we? In just our lifetime, we can revisit Iacocca's (Ford VP) mandate that "the Pinto was not to weigh an ounce over 2,000 pounds and not cost a cent over $2,000" even if said modifications would make the Pinto less of an -known- (KNOWN... for eight years Ford knew the gas tank in the Pinto wasn't right) firetrap that caused 27 deaths.

quote:

THE VALUATION OF LIFE AS IT APPLIES
TO THE NEGLIGENCE-EFFICIENCY ARGUMENT

...Although Ford had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding, the company chose not to implement the design, which would have cost $11 per car, even though it had done an analysis showing that the new design would result in 180 less deaths. The company defended itself on the grounds that it used the accepted risk/benefit analysis to determine if the monetary costs of making the change ($11/vehicle) were greater than the societal benefit (of saving 180 lives @ $200k/life, eliminating 180 serious burn injuries @ $67k/injury and not burning up 2,100 vehicles @ $700/vehicle). Based on the numbers Ford used, the cost would have been $137 million versus the $49.5 million price tag put on the deaths, injuries, and car damages, and thus Ford felt justified not implementing the design change. This risk/benefit analysis was created out of the development of product liability, culminating at Judge Learned Hand's BPL formula, where if the expected harm exceeded the cost to take the precaution, then the company must take the precaution, whereas if the cost was liable, then it did not have to. However, the BPL formula focuses on a specific accident, while the risk/benefit analysis requires an examination of the costs, risks, and benefits through use of the product as a whole. Based on this analysis, Ford legally chose not to make the design changes which would have made the Pinto safer. However, just because it was legal doesn't necessarily mean that it was ethical. It is difficult to understand how a price can be put on saving a human life.

When those corporate "people" actually become human --as evidenced by their possessing something that LOOKS like ethics that don't value profit over MANY human lives-- we'll talk about easing up on the regulations applied to those poor picked on & over-regulated capitalists.

*CJ

.

quote:

This is flatulence

You can keep telling how flatulent I am but you really need to direct yours at the corporations and business that actually hire people.

quote:

you really need to direct yours at the corporations and business that actually hire people.

Why is that?

Businesses don't want to hire people. They do everything they can to try to avoid hiring people or to get rid of people.

That is one reason they need truckers to drive more hours these days with the just-in-time ordering, shipping direct, and not carrying much inventory.