5 ms·

https://mobile.twitter.com/typesfast/status/1450904060253540355 https://mobile.twitter.com/typesfast/status/1450904060253540... Would love to know more about t

https://mobile.twitter.com/typesfast/status/1450904060253540355 https://mobile.twitter.com/typesfast/status/1450904060253540... Would love to know more about that. Appointments are full but no one is showing up for them? Companies just can't get drivers?

Arrath 5y ago
I can offer one anecdote, having only yesterday finally received a shipment that had been mired at long beach for over a month. My truck driver went to 3 appointments a week for the last 4 weeks, only to be told every time that there were no trailer frames to load the container onto for him to haul away.
dmitrygr 5y ago
i posted a sister comment with a possible explanation
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I'm not on the scene. I don't work in that business. So take this with some salt. But I have heard that two things are causing issues. 1. California passed a law that all trucks older than 10 years old had to have expensive modifications (I believe for pollution control). Well, the average age of trucks is 14 years. Surprisingly (not), trucks became in short supply in California. 2. They passed this law that Uber drivers were employees, not contractors. Surprisingly (until you think about it), this same law hit owner-operators of trucks. That confuses the legalities of hiring owner-operators, which is a fair number of trucks. From what I heard, for both of these reasons, trucks and drivers are less available than they used to be in California.
- computermagic 5y ago
  I don't think those have as much affect. Because point 1 went into affect in 2008 and point 2 truckers are exempt. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/19/facebook-posts/californias-trucking-regulations-may-have-had-impa/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/19/facebook-p...
  - bzbarsky 5y ago
    The very fact-check you link to says: > industry experts said that some owner-operators sought work elsewhere. Some fleets, too, chose to stop doing business with owner-operators in California. where "stop doing business" is a link to an article about people doing just that. And the "exemption" you mention is a temporary injunction that may be lifted at any time, which is not conducive to a stable business relationship.
- unnamed76ri 5y ago
  Only anecdotal of course but my aunt is a cross country truck driver that stopped delivering/picking up in CA because of those regulations.
  - jamiek88 5y ago
    Well that’s weird because one came about in 2008 and the other specifically exempts truckers.
    - harambae 5y ago
      >and the other specifically exempts truckers Are you talking about AB 5? Because if so, it's nowhere near that simple. "The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, after hearing the case, issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing AB5 .....The court noted that carriers likely would have to reclassify all independent-contractor drivers as employees for all purposes to comply with the California labor law.... California officials and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit. The appeals court reversed the district court's order...." I'm not a lawyer, but to a layman it looks like a legal fustercluck. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/ruling-threatens-independent-trucker-business-model-in-calif.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/...
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      From the summaries I’ve seen, AB5 provides a new temporary exemption (through 2022) for construction truckers from the ABC test that did not exist under the Dynamex ruling, but not for truckers generally.
- gotoeleven 5y ago
  It helps to think of the CA government as a natural disaster. It's the natural product of affluent, well-intentioned know-nothings without the humility to stop and think that maybe, just maybe, they don't know what they're doing when it comes to meddling with the economy.
  - FridayoLeary 5y ago
    Should CA be split up?
    - rsuelzer 5y ago
      I'd appreciate the net gain of a few left leaning Senators.
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      It should but it is too big to fail, so it won’t happen.
  - leet_thow 5y ago
    Plus they'd like to think they are the bellwether state for progressive policy, but really the whole Left Coast is just a petri dish for experiments that usually don't work and serve more as a warning than an example to be emulated.
    - majormajor 5y ago
      Without experimentation you'll have failure, because you have to adapt with the times. California would do well to discard more failed experiments, and get more creative. The rest of the country would do well to stop thinking doing nothing ever is a good long-term plan.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Successful experiments: Removing tipped wages Allowing employees to sit while working Paid sick leave and parental leave Overtime after 8 hours in a day Non compete ban Legal cannabis Assisted suicide
- bombcar 5y ago
  It seems that if Congress et al wanted to overstep the Interstate Commerce Clause here would be a perfect place to do it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- thaumaturgy 5y ago
  Both of these assertions have already been fact-checked and found to be not true: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/10/18/fact-check-california-cargo-backlog-not-due-trucking-regulations/8456582002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/10/18/fac... https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/19/facebook-posts/californias-trucking-regulations-may-have-had-impa/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/19/facebook-p...
  - WillPostForFood 5y ago
    This is a classic fact check where they admit the basis of the claim is true, but then deny the impact and call it mostly false. They might be right about the impact, they might not, it is a complicated system that is fudged up. I doubt there is a single cause. But, if you believe the OP, that lack of trucks is big part of the problem today, then the fact checkers are most likely wrong and should update.
  - chrismcb 5y ago
    This is wonderful.. USA today claims 96% of the trucks are in compliance... But doesn't say how many that is. Is it fewer than before?
  - fooker 5y ago
    Ah, maybe click on these links and read?
  - barbacoa 5y ago
    I wish people would stop citing politifacts articles as if there were something other than partisan editorials. From their own "fact check": "Industry experts said the rules certainly impact the availability of drivers and trucks, but acknowledged that many other issues are impacting the movement of goods through U.S. ports." Their paragraph contradicts their own conclusion.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    From politfacts >Industry experts said the rules certainly impact the availability of drivers and trucks, but acknowledged that many other issues are impacting the movement of goods through U.S. ports.
- delfinom 5y ago
  You want to know why trucks are less available? https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/news/rigged-forced-into-debt-worked-past-exhaustion-left-with-nothing/ https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/news/rigged-forc... All the immigrants that were abused for the job are gone due to covid.

Arrath 5y ago

I can offer one anecdote, having only yesterday finally received a shipment that had been mired at long beach for over a month. My truck driver went to 3 appointments a week for the last 4 weeks, only to be told every time that there were no trailer frames to load the container onto for him to haul away.

dmitrygr 5y ago

i posted a sister comment with a possible explanation

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

I'm not on the scene. I don't work in that business. So take this with some salt. But I have heard that two things are causing issues. 1. California passed a law that all trucks older than 10 years old had to have expensive modifications (I believe for pollution control). Well, the average age of trucks is 14 years. Surprisingly (not), trucks became in short supply in California. 2. They passed this law that Uber drivers were employees, not contractors. Surprisingly (until you think about it), this same law hit owner-operators of trucks. That confuses the legalities of hiring owner-operators, which is a fair number of trucks. From what I heard, for both of these reasons, trucks and drivers are less available than they used to be in California.

computermagic 5y ago
I don't think those have as much affect. Because point 1 went into affect in 2008 and point 2 truckers are exempt. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/19/facebook-posts/californias-trucking-regulations-may-have-had-impa/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/19/facebook-p...
- bzbarsky 5y ago
  The very fact-check you link to says: > industry experts said that some owner-operators sought work elsewhere. Some fleets, too, chose to stop doing business with owner-operators in California. where "stop doing business" is a link to an article about people doing just that. And the "exemption" you mention is a temporary injunction that may be lifted at any time, which is not conducive to a stable business relationship.
unnamed76ri 5y ago
Only anecdotal of course but my aunt is a cross country truck driver that stopped delivering/picking up in CA because of those regulations.
- jamiek88 5y ago
  Well that’s weird because one came about in 2008 and the other specifically exempts truckers.
  - harambae 5y ago
    >and the other specifically exempts truckers Are you talking about AB 5? Because if so, it's nowhere near that simple. "The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, after hearing the case, issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing AB5 .....The court noted that carriers likely would have to reclassify all independent-contractor drivers as employees for all purposes to comply with the California labor law.... California officials and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit. The appeals court reversed the district court's order...." I'm not a lawyer, but to a layman it looks like a legal fustercluck. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/ruling-threatens-independent-trucker-business-model-in-calif.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/...
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    From the summaries I’ve seen, AB5 provides a new temporary exemption (through 2022) for construction truckers from the ABC test that did not exist under the Dynamex ruling, but not for truckers generally.
gotoeleven 5y ago
It helps to think of the CA government as a natural disaster. It's the natural product of affluent, well-intentioned know-nothings without the humility to stop and think that maybe, just maybe, they don't know what they're doing when it comes to meddling with the economy.
- FridayoLeary 5y ago
  Should CA be split up?
  - rsuelzer 5y ago
    I'd appreciate the net gain of a few left leaning Senators.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    It should but it is too big to fail, so it won’t happen.
- leet_thow 5y ago
  Plus they'd like to think they are the bellwether state for progressive policy, but really the whole Left Coast is just a petri dish for experiments that usually don't work and serve more as a warning than an example to be emulated.
  - majormajor 5y ago
    Without experimentation you'll have failure, because you have to adapt with the times. California would do well to discard more failed experiments, and get more creative. The rest of the country would do well to stop thinking doing nothing ever is a good long-term plan.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Successful experiments: Removing tipped wages Allowing employees to sit while working Paid sick leave and parental leave Overtime after 8 hours in a day Non compete ban Legal cannabis Assisted suicide
bombcar 5y ago
It seems that if Congress et al wanted to overstep the Interstate Commerce Clause here would be a perfect place to do it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
thaumaturgy 5y ago
Both of these assertions have already been fact-checked and found to be not true: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/10/18/fact-check-california-cargo-backlog-not-due-trucking-regulations/8456582002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/10/18/fac... https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/19/facebook-posts/californias-trucking-regulations-may-have-had-impa/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/19/facebook-p...
- WillPostForFood 5y ago
  This is a classic fact check where they admit the basis of the claim is true, but then deny the impact and call it mostly false. They might be right about the impact, they might not, it is a complicated system that is fudged up. I doubt there is a single cause. But, if you believe the OP, that lack of trucks is big part of the problem today, then the fact checkers are most likely wrong and should update.
- chrismcb 5y ago
  This is wonderful.. USA today claims 96% of the trucks are in compliance... But doesn't say how many that is. Is it fewer than before?
- fooker 5y ago
  Ah, maybe click on these links and read?
- barbacoa 5y ago
  I wish people would stop citing politifacts articles as if there were something other than partisan editorials. From their own "fact check": "Industry experts said the rules certainly impact the availability of drivers and trucks, but acknowledged that many other issues are impacting the movement of goods through U.S. ports." Their paragraph contradicts their own conclusion.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  From politfacts >Industry experts said the rules certainly impact the availability of drivers and trucks, but acknowledged that many other issues are impacting the movement of goods through U.S. ports.
delfinom 5y ago
You want to know why trucks are less available? https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/news/rigged-forced-into-debt-worked-past-exhaustion-left-with-nothing/ https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/news/rigged-forc... All the immigrants that were abused for the job are gone due to covid.