Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Thoughts While Stuck Behind a Truck

Tooling up Interstate 5 yesterday, I found myself marvelling at how much stuff California (or should that be "Mexico"?) still ships by truck to Oregon.  I'd read somewhere that the volume of truck transport is actually slipping a bit compared to rail--partly, if I remember right, because of the difficulty of getting competent drivers.   Sounds right to me: say what you like about the incivility of truckers (cf. link), the job looks pretty grueling and if it is true--I didn't say it is true, only if--they are all a bunch of pill-popping hop-heads, why maybe that is the only way they can keep up with the competition.  I've heard anecdotes about the increase of truckers losing their jobs for DUI convictions, only I bet it's more often pills than booze.

And here's a total riff: I wonder if we are seeing here another artifact of deregulation.  No, wait--I know that the deregulation of the trucking biz (back in the Carter years) was one of the first and greatest successes of the deregulation revolution.  And it's true, I really can't think of any good reason why you should have to have a "certificate of public convenience and necessity" just to load a few crates on the back of a flatbed and hit the road.

Still, my impression is that deregulation  did play a prominent, perhaps a decisive, role in changing the character of the industry.    When I was a kid in New Hampshire in the 40s, a trucker could make $35 a load round-tripping from Manchester to New York.  That was $105 a week if you pressed yourself--not an easy job, but enough to keep the wife and kiddies at home.  Over the years, the Teamsters came to play a bigger and bigger role in the drama.  And when they weren't looting employee pension funds, my guess is they probably did a good bit to improve wages and working conditions to the point where, by the late 70s, it was actually an almost-comfortable job.

I think what you saw after deregulation  was (a) an increase in competition (d'oh!); (b) a decline in union power; and (c) an increase in the owner-operator model.  You get the point of owner-operators:  the trucker, formerly an employee, now stumps up a couple of hundred thou to buy the cab; he hooks up to the trailer on contract and drives like the devil is chasing him to stay ahead of the bank.    Now, that does sound like a tough way to make a living.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if they're having trouble finding people who are even capable, forget about willing, to bear the strain.

So the next time some guy hurls an amber-colored plastic bottle at your windshield, have a bit of compassion--he's got troubles, too.


1 comment:

The New York Crank said...

Further evidence to this point:

" the Teamsters came to play a bigger and bigger role in the drama. And when they weren't looting employee pension funds, my guess is they probably did a good bit to improve wages and working conditions to the point where, by the late 70s, it was actually an almost-comfortable job."

Back in college, one of my classmates was the son of a high union official in some other union. My classmate quoted his father as saying he wished he could get a quarter as much for his own people as Jimmy Hoffa got for the Teamsters.

Yeah, Hoffa may have also stolen some dough. But he got for his people tons more than he took. Consider his sticky fingers a commission mechanism.

I mean, even Robin Hood had to eat.

Yours crankily,
The New York Crank