Jim Park Nails It!

I don't know if many of you have had a chance to check out Jim Park's Truck Talk yet. It's an online radio show with Jim talking to different people about industry issues each week. 

Last week's episode featured an interview with a guy who's fed up and quitting the industry. Very interesting stuff. This guy is basically quitting the industry because he's sick of being treated badly by people that he deals with when doing his job. He had good things to say about his carrier, but had lots of issues with the customers he dealt with through that carrier. I found this part very interesting.

Jim's point was that we have to find ways to keep people like this in the industry if we're going to survive. It's not enough to bring people into the industry - we also have to make it attractive for them to stick around. 

Excellent point. 

Of course, that's not news to any of you. However, there's something in here that we don't often consider. The driver in the interview had gripes with shippers, et al. and was so fed up he was planning to quit the industry. But I don't think it's as simple as "evil shippers force promising young driver out of industry".

Did this driver's carrier stick up for him with those shippers? Did the carrier make it clear to the customer that their drivers are experienced professionals who should be treated with respect?

It doesn't appear that they did, and that's the problem. We can talk all we like about how valuable our drivers are, but if we don't stick up for them when they need us to, it doesn't matter. If that carrier had stuck up for our young driver and managed their client more effectively, that driver would feel a whole lot better about the industry and might not be leaving.

We spend a lot of time trying to create positive environments for drivers in the terminal and on the road, but the 'work environment' at customer sites is just as important.

Yes, this is a tough situation. After all, these are paying customers and we want their business. Rocking the boat could mean losing a client. But if we're serious about taking care of the people who drive the business, sometimes we need to take that risk. 

How do you ensure your drivers are treated well out on the road? What does your company do when customers don't treat your drivers properly?

Career Paths - A Great Example

The Godiva Chocolates website (see link above) offers a great example of how to incorporate career paths into the recruiting section of a corporate website. 

What I like about this site is that it includes career paths for employees at all levels of the organization, and various different locations. Not every path ends up with a head office job - many of their employees remain in the field and still have rewarding and progressive careers.

They also include pictures and a Q&A with the different people they're profiling so you can get a really good sense of what it's like to work there and what opportunities there might be down the road.

As most of you know, I'm a big advocate of career paths in the trucking industry, particularly career paths that don't require drivers to stop driving. I encourage every fleet to document the career paths that their existing drivers have taken, and this site offers a great template for adding that information to the website. 

And, with Valentine's Day just around the corner, it doesn't hurt to spend some time thinking about chocolate and goodies. Enjoy!

The 10 Best Recruiting Websites

KnowHR - a great HR website - recently compiled a list of the best recruiting websites. These aren't dedicated job seeker sites like Monster or Workopolis, but rather the recruiting section of corporate websites. Since most readers of this blog are the ones responsible for maintaining the recruiting sections of their company websites, I thought it might be handy to post a link to the list here.

Enjoy!

Fun With HOS

I've noticed that readers of this blog seem to be particularly interested in articles with the "Stupidity" label. Of all the keyword labels listed down the right side of the page, Stupidity is by far the most popular. Okay, I'd probably click that one, too, if I was reading someone's blog.

Since Stupidity postings are so much fun to read, I thought I'd write another one. And the perfect topic presented itself last week - HOS.

I know, you've heard enough HOS stupidity to last you a lifetime. But I think this one is worth discussing. This particular issue came up as a result of a customer discussion. The issue concerns the Canadian HOS regs and the "24 hours off" requirement. Specifically:

"...no driver shall drive unless the driver has taken at least 24 consecutive hours of off-duty time in the preceding 14 days."

On its own, this is pretty confusing. I'm not sure the feds could have found a clunkier, less intuitive way of describing a requirement. But that's not the real problem. The real problem is that different provinces seem to have interpreted it differently.

Ontario interprets that to mean that you can drive for 14 days and take the 15th day off. If you look at their PowerPoint presentation covering the regs, you can see their calendar demonstrating this (slide 24).

However, BC disagrees. In their guidebook on the subject, they also have a calendar showing the time on/time off cycle (page 41). Their calendar is distinctly different from Ontario's. In fact, the BC guidebook seems to contradict itself - their calendar shows 1 day off every 14 (every second Friday off in the example), but their text says 1 day off in the preceding 14 days. Not the same thing.

So, which is it?

Can drivers drive for 14 days, then take the 15th day off? Or can they only drive 13 days before requiring a day off?

We expect our drivers to go out there and adhere to all the current regulations, operate their vehicles safely, and keep the freight moving at the same time. If we're not even clear what regulations we want them to follow, that's not very fair to ask.

I know there are clarifications coming later this year that will hopefully resolve this. And I know that there are lots of other gray areas that cause grief for drivers every day, but this one came up and I think it's a good example of stupidity. What do you think? How does your fleet interpret this reg?