12 ms·

The Trucking Industry Needs More Drivers. Maybe It Needs to Pay More

123 points by cadlin 12y ago

rmason 12y ago
I've got a good friend with his Masters degree who quit teaching school to drive a truck because it paid so much more. He makes a great deal more than $41 K a year. It must depend on the particular company and the alternatives where you live.
- tapp 12y ago
  I researched this a bunch at one point. Some of the primary variables are: * Licensure (e.g. if you have a Hazmat endorsement) * Route type (Long haul pays a lot more) * Driver's safety record * Employment status - Independent contractors who own their own rig vs captive employees Etc.
  - rmason 12y ago
    My friend picks up high end foreign cars at the port and takes them to the different dealerships. They're very high priced vehicles and the company is extremely fussy about every step of the process. Most of his fellow drivers are college graduates by the way.
hughes 12y ago
Maybe transport & trucking needs to be automated. If there's a lack of labourers, why not fill in the gaps with self-driving semis?
- idlewords 12y ago
  Long-distance trucking seems like a huge and obvious market for autonomous vehicles. Trucks mostly travel along Interstate highways and drivers have mandatory rest periods. Usually that means the truck sits somewhere, sometimes with the engine on.
  - kazagistar 12y ago
    As far as I understand, many places use trains for these purposes. It means that less drivers are needed and the cargo spends more time in transit. Alas, the united states has a fairly poor cargo rail system, which in fairness is due to its spread out geography in many places.
    - skybrian 12y ago
      I don't know that much about the railroads but that doesn't sound right: "America's freight railways are one of the unsung transport successes of the past 30 years. They are universally recognised in the industry as the best in the world." http://www.economist.com/node/16636101 http://www.economist.com/node/16636101
    - idlewords 12y ago
      No, in the US the two systems are used for different things. Trucks allow point-to-point delivery. Trains are more useful for carrying bulk commodities. John McPhee has written some wonderful articles about modes of transport, and the people who work in them: http://www.amazon.com/Uncommon-Carriers-John-McPhee/dp/0865477396 http://www.amazon.com/Uncommon-Carriers-John-McPhee/dp/08654...
      - mjhoy 12y ago
        I was about to post about John McPhee, too, when I saw your comment. Excellent book, recommended. Somewhat related, also great: Looking for a Ship.
        afarrell 12y ago
        The Box, but Mark Levinson is also a great read. http://www.amazon.com/The-Box-Shipping-Container-Smaller/dp/0691136408 http://www.amazon.com/The-Box-Shipping-Container-Smaller/dp/...
      - gsnedders 12y ago
        What's stopping intermodal containers being used to displace the long-distance trucking? Trains should on the face of it be cheaper, even when you're not transporting bulk commodities (you're talking in the US case a train 1500m long, potentially with the containers double-stacked depending on the route).
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  Not surprisingly this is the first step in that process. Automating the driving of trucks is expensive, there was at one time an ample supply of truck drivers keeping wages low, so no automation. As the cost of human drivers goes up, it changes the math with respect to automation, once it hits the tipping point the change over is inevitable. We saw an exact corollary of this with automation in Chinese factories. As long as the cost of labor was lower than the cost of automation factories remained manual only shops, but the cost of labor has gone up, and with it have come robots. What I find particularly fascinating is that in the labor case the manufacturing went off shore first (it was cheaper to hire Chinese workers) and now it is being automated, in China. Since you cannot easily off shore truck driving that option doesn't exist. I do however keep my eye out for 'teleoperated' trucks. Something which is a mix of robotic driving with supervision and command and control with a human. This is also possible today and would allow a trucking company to operate more trucks with fewer drivers, but it also requires some automation on refueling. The system has resisted this form for a while. So what I took away from the NYT article was that the economics of trucking are entering the point where the system can support more dramatic changes than it has in the past. That means there are opportunities there.
- nickthemagicman 12y ago
  Theoretically seems easy but I think practically it's incredibly difficult due to the unpredictable nature of Over the road trucking. There's no automated cross country trains and those move on a predictable path. Although I would love to see it happen because of how incredibly efficient it would make the transportation industry.
- greenyoda 12y ago
  I think we're quite a bit farther away from self-driving semis than from self-driving cars. Big trucks are much more dangerous vehicles than cars: their braking distances are much longer, their weight makes it possible for them to destroy any cars in their path, they can require multiple lanes to make a turn, many car drivers don't know how to drive safely near trucks, etc.
  - pjbrunet 12y ago
    No kidding. I'll get downvoted for this but the Hacker News demographic hasn't spent much time on the road. Try driving down 710 toward Long Beach. Last time I lived down there, tons of trucks, tiny lanes, uneven pavement, completely insane. I want to see a self-driving car navigate Manhattan or Brooklyn during the day, normal driving rules do not apply there, New York drivers mean business ;-)
    - thrownaway2424 12y ago
      Sure, but the entire 710 just needs to be demolished. They should be moving those containers out of the port on trains, but they've got it backwards. They move the containers out of the port on trucks, to intermodal terminals inland where they get switched to trains. Completely backwards. If they just punched the railroads through all the way to Long Beach then they wouldn't need those trucks on 710 humping boxes to the Inland Empire.
      - pjbrunet 12y ago
        I haven't been there in over 10 years but it was the most direct way by car to get to Long Beach from say downtown Los Angeles. It was strange to see that industrial wasteland along 710. I tried to find a shortcut through there once and ended up on a distant, post-apocalyptic planet ;-)
      - _delirium 12y ago
        > If they just punched the railroads through Isn't that what the Alameda Corridor project did? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_Corridor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_Corridor
polarix 12y ago
> But corporate America has become so parsimonious about paying workers outside the executive suite that meaningful wage increases may seem an unacceptable affront. In this environment, it may be easier to say “There is a shortage of skilled workers” than “We aren’t paying our workers enough,” even if, in economic terms, those come down to the same thing.
- rayiner 12y ago
  The "worker shortage" concept is seriously one of the dumbest memes of corporate America. There's a ton of people out of work, and it doesn't take much in the way of skill to be a truck driver. Companies simply aren't paying enough for what can be a very demanding job.
  - fiatmoney 12y ago
    "it doesn't take much in the way of skill to be a truck driver" It's harder than you'd think to do a perfect 90 degree backup of a full-size semi into a loading dock without jackknifing, or to develop the temperament to pay attention to a boring stretch of highway for 8 hours at a time. You're being trusted with a lot of valuable equipment and cargo, to say nothing of the insurance risk should you flatten someone's Mercedes.
    - purringmeow 12y ago
      And that's why truck driving is the perfect job to automate.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        All driving is, for more-less the same reasons.
        eru 12y ago
        Apart from driving for fun.
Havvy 12y ago
I've got family in the auto transport brokerage industry. Can confirm that there is a shortage of drivers.
- dehmlow 12y ago
  I have some familiarity with the trucking industry in the midwest. I can also confirm that there's a shortage of drivers in the region. The funny thing is that at some companies, working some overtime (although under the safety limit), drivers can make ~$80k including benefits, which is pretty good considering the cost of living there.
  - thrownaway2424 12y ago
    I have a feeling that the energy boom is cutting into the supply of truckers. If you have any skills at all (welding, driving) you can top $100k in oil or gas fields, but even if you're a high school drop out with no skills of any kind you can pull down $60k just humping pipe from one side of rig to the other.
  - the_ancient 12y ago
    The only people I know that can make that level of money is Owner Operators, and while gross my be 80K most of that ends up back in the truck. If you know of a company driver making 80K a year let me know the name of that company
    - dehmlow 12y ago
      They are all hazardous material tank drivers. Some are owner operators, some are not. And some were close to that as local drivers.
      - the_ancient 12y ago
        1. Hazardous drivers have a shit load more regulations on them, and I do not believe it would be worth 80K to haul some of that shit 2. You have to be an experienced driver with spotless driving record for most companies, I would hope these companies are not hiring newly minted 6 week school drivers to haul HazMat. 3. this specialize area of trucking should be used to gauge the wider industry.
lgleason 12y ago
Sounds like the same argument being used for more H1B visas. We cant find enough (cheap) resources locally so we need to import some from elsewhere willing to work for a pittance.
- hibikir 12y ago
  The strength of the argument changes with market elasticity. If a single company has trouble hiring, they can raise salaries. However, if the pool of workers remains finite, all you are really doing is switching which company has the hiring problem. If two people need an all day plumbing job done today, and there's only one plumber in time, one of them is not going to get it done, regardless of how much they pay. So when we look industry-wide, what the salary increases do is make people change professions. If it takes the same effort to become a truck driver than a cab driver, but the truck driver makes 4 times as much, everything else being equal, we'll have more trouble finding people to be cabbies, as long as there's an opportunity trucking. People then decide which training they get to choose. But the real demand problem is not solved until the workers are trained. We don't even need workers for this. Imagine that we suddenly need 60 million gallons of 25 year old scotch every day. It doesn't matter how much we want to pay: There isn't enough scotch to meet demand today. If we paid a million dollars a bottle, it'd not make a difference: We'd only get an increase in supply as time goes by, and people just put more scotch on casks, and don't open the casks at 15 years, because 25 makes more money: But nothing is going to make this demand shock get fixed earlier, no matter how much you pay. So the harder it is to actually perform the job, and the longer it takes to train, the stronger the immigration argument gets.
  - tomjen3 12y ago
    > if the pool of workers remains finite You take an alternative. There may only be one plumber, but if he is bid up to a million I am going to spend a day doing it myself, buy an entirely new WHATEVER_WE_ARE_REPLACING or do without. If the price of scotchs go to 50 usd per centilitier I am going to buy rum. If programmers start charging 10000 usd/day I am going to continue doing my spreadsheets by hand. Your analysis fails to take into account substitute goods. If a taxi gets too expensive I can rent a car (no driver cost), take public transportation (lot less driver cost) or stay the night and go home when I am sober.
the_ancient 12y ago
It is not a matter of paying "more" but changing how they pay Most Truckers are paid by the mile... So if your sitting in traffic no pay (next time your stopped in traffic look around, how many semi's are sitting with you, most of those drivers are doing it for free) Then there is load and unload time, which for some companies is non-paid, other is a nominal flat rate of like $35 that could take up hours of your day. Then there is the "hours of service" which many companies require their drivers go "off duty" when they arrive at warehouse, but the warehouse required them to monitor the CB Radio to be called to pull into a dock, so their "sleep" time is taken up waiting to be unloaded, and they do this waiting for free. Trucking companies need to end the practice of per mile pay, and start paying drivers Per Hour or a Salary (non-exempt) like every other company.
- twothamendment 12y ago
  You started down the right road. Much of their pay has to do with how they are paid. There are trucking companies that don't pay drivers to fuel the truck. Do you know how long that takes? It isn't like it is an optional task - that truck won't move without fuel. I know a driver who spends 2-6 hours waiting to be unloaded. He doesn't get paid for that time but isn't free to leave the truck because when the loading dock is ready for him he needs to be there to move the truck. How is that not being "on call"? If he wasn't working he could go catch a movie or dinner, sleep or whatever, but for some reason the law says it is OK to make him sit without pay to do his job.
  - tombrossman 12y ago
    The issue is that most drivers incorrectly assume they are in the weakest position for any given scenario. They absorb delays as if it were their own fault and falsify logs to compensate. Many drivers even absorbed the reimbursable toll costs on a route because they couldn't match the ticket times to their falsified logs. They are afraid to log as 'on duty not driving', which is how they legally should be doing it. Sure, they make less that one day but the sheer number of hours wasted at the shipper or consignee will have a knock-on effect which will make on-time delivery less likely. I drove tractor-trailers in the US for eight years and I would tell other drivers 'this system is broken, allow it to fail and cover your ass by documenting everything'. I refused to falsify my logs and would rigidly log everything 100% accurately, even logging Hours of Service violations (e.g. difficulty finding parking & going 30-45 min over on drive time) which could have cost me a ticket. Once in a while I'd get hauled into a weigh station for an inspection and they'd notice the hours violation. I explained about refusing to falsify and they'd see this was true. I'd get a funny look but never a ticket. The outcome here was that I was very predictable to the 'trip planners', who were one grade above the lowly dispatchers. The trip planners always knew exactly where I stood from the truck's telemetry data, plus I would always communicate delays. They were better able to predict how to use my time and their company truck. I was never out of pocket for reimbursable expenses because time/date stamps on receipts always matched. I was making more than most of our company-employed drivers and even some of the owner-operators who struggled with fuel costs, etc. The dispatchers hated me because they constantly had to explain to management why my loads were late and how I could not be blamed for the delays as I had documented everything and communicated the delays well in advance. Every other driver would have gone over their hours illegally to compensate, but I always stopped when I ran out of driving hours and therefore missed appointments. They all caught on after a while and learned to use my time more wisely. I reliably made $50-55K/year which was exceptional for trucking and enjoyed the very low tax rate Hours of Service workers get (9%, taking the standard deduction x days worked, typically). It was an interesting job overall because of all the sights you see, but I can't recommend it to anyone looking for a career change. Stick with the tech sector as it is much safer and you can go home every night.
fred_durst 12y ago
Sorry, Swift's stock price is more about the horror show that is Swift's corporate governance. Especially CEO Jerry Moyes. The very fact that he'll keep his job after this dismal lack of forecasting is an example of how much corruption there is there. Honestly, I would not be surprised if it was intentional. He had to step down 10 years ago due to insider trading with Swift shares. Now he's back after a they brought it private and then to a second IPO. The stock tanked, in my opinion, because investors know they can't trust Jerry Moyes and Swift's board. More fun stuff. http://teamster.org/content/teamsters-warn-swift-transportation-board-lets-ceo-pledge-nearly-25-percent-outstanding http://teamster.org/content/teamsters-warn-swift-transportat... http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/9796076/nhl-lawsuit-jerry-moyes-former-phoenix-coyotes-owner-thrown-according-report http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/9796076/nhl-lawsuit-jerry-...
l33tbro 12y ago
Hmmm, why are we still talking about truck drivers exactly? The trucking industry is about to tank hard. Mercedes demo'd its first driverless truck a couple of weeks ago (!). Yes, there will be specialists drivers sure and niche companies. But the day of the interstate road train will be done shortly. The biggest new niche in my mind will be vehicle security. These trucks will be flying solo across the nation - unmanned. How will these trucks be fitted out against good ol' fashioned highway robbers in remote areas that are barely on the grid? Fun times ahead. (!). http://www.caradvice.com.au/295713/self-driving-mercedes-benz-truck-demonstrated-in-germany/ http://www.caradvice.com.au/295713/self-driving-mercedes-ben...
- sanswork 12y ago
  >How will these trucks be fitted out against good ol' fashioned highway robbers in remote areas that are barely on the grid? They would handle it the exact same way the ones with drivers do. They would do nothing while it is happening but contact the police and claim insurance. The only difference is no one is at risk of dying and they will likely have video evidence.
- twothamendment 12y ago
  Can the driver-less truck put chains on its tires in the winter? I didn't think so. I'm sure that we'll make use of the tech we have but there is so much more to driving a truck than driving. Maybe the "drivers" will be able to climb in the back and sleep while the truck does they driving and they can take care of everything else.
  - l33tbro 12y ago
    This is why I think the "driver" will shift more to a "captain" type archetype. Ie, driverless road-trains will travel in fleets and there will be a mechanic somewhere in that convoy to deal with breaking down in dead of nowhere. Also hard not to imagine this guy being armed.
    - tdicola 12y ago
A_COMPUTER 12y ago
My semi-retired parents were lured in by the claims of making upwards of 80K a year if you worked hard enough. They did it for about three years and quit with more debt than when they started. You can only make decent money if you own your own rig, which costs as much as a house. Trucking is heavily regulated, but in ways that dump all the problems on the drivers. You are in competition with other drivers, which pretty much guarantees you're going to be cooking the books increasingly regulated-away ways, not to mention how dangerous it is. There are exceptions to everything though, if you've been on the road long enough you make more money per mile as you build up a reputation, or you can make money money working for fedex or doing hazardous materials shipping, but it takes years of toiling in shit conditions for low pay to get to that point. They also told me that they met a lot of people who clearly hadn't done the math, and were losing money instead of making it despite working very hard. The cost of the truck alone puts you in massive debt with no guarantee of work to pay it off. As far as automating it, maybe in 20 years it will be viable. It's not useful to talk about that today.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- msane 12y ago
  I think automation will happen sooner than we expect. 5-8 years seems likely to me. There is a hurdle with interstate trucking, where some states will lag behind in allowing it and providing the required bureaucratic support. But it is already technologically possible, if not yet a fully developed product. It just takes one company to get it allowed in one state and start doing it, the others will follow. Self driving personal vehicles are 1-3 years away from being on the market, it seems natural that trucking will follow. I think trained people might still handle the parking though for a while :P
  - georgemcbay 12y ago
    Parking shouldn't be a difficult task for a self-driving truck; but I suspect there will be a 'driver' along for the ride well after the task is mostly automated, just to deal with exceptional circumstances (eg. flash flood has made road impassable in some way the automated truck cannot deal with) and also to act as a security guard so nobody robs the robo-truck.
briandh 12y ago
This is way too far down the fold: > For example, new safety requirements mean that individual truckers drive fewer miles than a decade ago: An average long-haul truck can now cover 8,000 miles a month, down from almost 11,000 in 2007, according to the trade association. So the maximum miles driven per month is 73% of what it was in 2007, whereas the inflation-adjusted salary is 97% (based on eyeballing the graph) of what it was. Now, if despite the higher maximum drivers were going, say 9000 miles a month before 2007, the difference would be less stark. Nevertheless, viewing from that perspective makes the situation seem much different. Of course, that doesn't account for the 03-07 downward trend. And while I do agree in theory that they should "just" raise wages if they need more drivers, we should be careful jumping to conclusions as outsiders. After all, it is possible, for instance, that paying new (and probably many existing) drivers more could eat up the revenues gained from the customers they're currently turning away. And moreover, said prospective customers could adapt so that by the time the trucking companies have enough drivers, the orders are no longer there.
frozenport 12y ago
Is the real story that the overhead for trucking is too large and we should switch to more cost effective transport like rail?
gremlinsinc 12y ago
THis will be moot in a few years when automated cars are in place, truckers will be begging for jobs.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
grondilu 12y ago
Or maybe they need to invest in self-driving trucks R&D.
yorak 12y ago
Automating a fleet of trucks has come up few times in these comments. Many commenters have raised concerns of difficult and special situations. I have worked with machine vision and currently I'm doing my PhD in computational logistics (mainly working on automating the deployment of Vehicle Routing Systems). With this background in mind have given some tought to this: What would be needed, at least in the transition phase, is technology that would allow remote drive-by-wire of trucks in difficult situations (platforms, urban traffic) and wheater conditions. Imagine a system not entirely unlike the unmanned UAVs the US is using but for civilian use of remote controlling trucks. One driver could probably handle dowzen or so trucks because they would drive under full automation at least 90% of the time. In addition the truck driver could have a normal 9 to 5 job. Of course there are technical challenges like communications delay etc., but I'd like to hear your opinion on feasibility of such system.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Delay in the control loop is always critical to accurate control. But in the case of a large heavy truck, we already have to live with that (slow acceleration/braking/steering response built in).
Thimothy 12y ago
Aaaand just another reason with liberal economics is bullsht. Perfect market my ss.
2close4comfort 12y ago
Margins are VERY tight in transportation. In a solid company most of this should be going to pay drivers, and in decent companies it does they can make a pretty decent paycheck (none of that per mile crap) BUT with licensing points and experience being the biggest roadblocks getting decent drivers. Plus how many kids are growing up to be truck drivers these days... not many
- LargeWu 12y ago
  Then trucking companies can maintain their margins by charging more to haul goods. If there really is excess demand, then the market should be able to absorb price increases.
  - 2close4comfort 12y ago
    Safety would be the largest cut into margins. Completely unplanned and everything from bumping into a yellow pole to an accident. Those all cost hundreds of thousands apprx 130k for a yellow pole...the market is not ready or willing for the risk that the companies traditionally absorb.
jtshana92 12y ago
More star journalism from the NY Times: "In this environment, it may be easier to say 'There is a shortage of skilled workers' than 'We aren’t paying our workers enough,' even if, in economic terms, those come down to the same thing." No, those aren't necessarily the same thing. Even if there was a surplus of licensed truck drivers to meet the new demand, it does not mean that the sole reason trucking companies don't wish to hire more workers is because it will cost too much in wages. I suspect the reason they don't hire more truckers to fill existing empty truck seats is for the following reasons: 1) Every truck runs with a huge damage liability (life insurance, lost goods, rebates to customers). A string of truck crashes from the increased volume would rapidly eat into the profits of more business. 2) Operating costs: gas, computer systems, dispatchers, parts, labor. It may be cheaper to raise prices on existing routes, and leave a few trucks empty. Here's another snippit: "It’s not an ideal job for everyone. There is no question that trucking is hard work, necessitating long hours and longer stretches away from family. But that’s why it is well compensated, at least in comparison to other jobs not requiring college degrees." Nobody is paid because the job is hard and lonely. Oil workers in North Dakota aren't paid 250k a year because it's "5 times" harder than a desk job of 50k. Companies pay workers based on what the company expects its customers will pay. No matter how hard the job is, if the market doesn't want to pay higher prices to move goods via truck (which is what would happen if you rose trucker's salaries to 50k instead of 40k, for example), then the companies employing the truckers won't want to take on those higher wage costs. So TLDR, if you feel you can run a more cost-efficient trucking company, then go fucking do it.

123 points by cadlin 12y ago

I've got a good friend with his Masters degree who quit teaching school to drive a truck because it paid so much more. He makes a great deal more than $41 K a year. It must depend on the particular company and the alternatives where you live.

tapp 12y ago
I researched this a bunch at one point. Some of the primary variables are: * Licensure (e.g. if you have a Hazmat endorsement) * Route type (Long haul pays a lot more) * Driver's safety record * Employment status - Independent contractors who own their own rig vs captive employees Etc.
- rmason 12y ago
  My friend picks up high end foreign cars at the port and takes them to the different dealerships. They're very high priced vehicles and the company is extremely fussy about every step of the process. Most of his fellow drivers are college graduates by the way.

hughes 12y ago

Maybe transport & trucking needs to be automated. If there's a lack of labourers, why not fill in the gaps with self-driving semis?

idlewords 12y ago
Long-distance trucking seems like a huge and obvious market for autonomous vehicles. Trucks mostly travel along Interstate highways and drivers have mandatory rest periods. Usually that means the truck sits somewhere, sometimes with the engine on.
- kazagistar 12y ago
  As far as I understand, many places use trains for these purposes. It means that less drivers are needed and the cargo spends more time in transit. Alas, the united states has a fairly poor cargo rail system, which in fairness is due to its spread out geography in many places.
  - skybrian 12y ago
    I don't know that much about the railroads but that doesn't sound right: "America's freight railways are one of the unsung transport successes of the past 30 years. They are universally recognised in the industry as the best in the world." http://www.economist.com/node/16636101 http://www.economist.com/node/16636101
  - idlewords 12y ago
    No, in the US the two systems are used for different things. Trucks allow point-to-point delivery. Trains are more useful for carrying bulk commodities. John McPhee has written some wonderful articles about modes of transport, and the people who work in them: http://www.amazon.com/Uncommon-Carriers-John-McPhee/dp/0865477396 http://www.amazon.com/Uncommon-Carriers-John-McPhee/dp/08654...
    - mjhoy 12y ago
      I was about to post about John McPhee, too, when I saw your comment. Excellent book, recommended. Somewhat related, also great: Looking for a Ship.
      - afarrell 12y ago
        The Box, but Mark Levinson is also a great read. http://www.amazon.com/The-Box-Shipping-Container-Smaller/dp/0691136408 http://www.amazon.com/The-Box-Shipping-Container-Smaller/dp/...
    - gsnedders 12y ago
      What's stopping intermodal containers being used to displace the long-distance trucking? Trains should on the face of it be cheaper, even when you're not transporting bulk commodities (you're talking in the US case a train 1500m long, potentially with the containers double-stacked depending on the route).
ChuckMcM 12y ago
Not surprisingly this is the first step in that process. Automating the driving of trucks is expensive, there was at one time an ample supply of truck drivers keeping wages low, so no automation. As the cost of human drivers goes up, it changes the math with respect to automation, once it hits the tipping point the change over is inevitable. We saw an exact corollary of this with automation in Chinese factories. As long as the cost of labor was lower than the cost of automation factories remained manual only shops, but the cost of labor has gone up, and with it have come robots. What I find particularly fascinating is that in the labor case the manufacturing went off shore first (it was cheaper to hire Chinese workers) and now it is being automated, in China. Since you cannot easily off shore truck driving that option doesn't exist. I do however keep my eye out for 'teleoperated' trucks. Something which is a mix of robotic driving with supervision and command and control with a human. This is also possible today and would allow a trucking company to operate more trucks with fewer drivers, but it also requires some automation on refueling. The system has resisted this form for a while. So what I took away from the NYT article was that the economics of trucking are entering the point where the system can support more dramatic changes than it has in the past. That means there are opportunities there.
nickthemagicman 12y ago
Theoretically seems easy but I think practically it's incredibly difficult due to the unpredictable nature of Over the road trucking. There's no automated cross country trains and those move on a predictable path. Although I would love to see it happen because of how incredibly efficient it would make the transportation industry.
greenyoda 12y ago
I think we're quite a bit farther away from self-driving semis than from self-driving cars. Big trucks are much more dangerous vehicles than cars: their braking distances are much longer, their weight makes it possible for them to destroy any cars in their path, they can require multiple lanes to make a turn, many car drivers don't know how to drive safely near trucks, etc.
- pjbrunet 12y ago
  No kidding. I'll get downvoted for this but the Hacker News demographic hasn't spent much time on the road. Try driving down 710 toward Long Beach. Last time I lived down there, tons of trucks, tiny lanes, uneven pavement, completely insane. I want to see a self-driving car navigate Manhattan or Brooklyn during the day, normal driving rules do not apply there, New York drivers mean business ;-)
  - thrownaway2424 12y ago
    Sure, but the entire 710 just needs to be demolished. They should be moving those containers out of the port on trains, but they've got it backwards. They move the containers out of the port on trucks, to intermodal terminals inland where they get switched to trains. Completely backwards. If they just punched the railroads through all the way to Long Beach then they wouldn't need those trucks on 710 humping boxes to the Inland Empire.
    - pjbrunet 12y ago
      I haven't been there in over 10 years but it was the most direct way by car to get to Long Beach from say downtown Los Angeles. It was strange to see that industrial wasteland along 710. I tried to find a shortcut through there once and ended up on a distant, post-apocalyptic planet ;-)
    - _delirium 12y ago
      > If they just punched the railroads through Isn't that what the Alameda Corridor project did? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_Corridor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_Corridor

polarix 12y ago

> But corporate America has become so parsimonious about paying workers outside the executive suite that meaningful wage increases may seem an unacceptable affront. In this environment, it may be easier to say “There is a shortage of skilled workers” than “We aren’t paying our workers enough,” even if, in economic terms, those come down to the same thing.

rayiner 12y ago
The "worker shortage" concept is seriously one of the dumbest memes of corporate America. There's a ton of people out of work, and it doesn't take much in the way of skill to be a truck driver. Companies simply aren't paying enough for what can be a very demanding job.
- fiatmoney 12y ago
  "it doesn't take much in the way of skill to be a truck driver" It's harder than you'd think to do a perfect 90 degree backup of a full-size semi into a loading dock without jackknifing, or to develop the temperament to pay attention to a boring stretch of highway for 8 hours at a time. You're being trusted with a lot of valuable equipment and cargo, to say nothing of the insurance risk should you flatten someone's Mercedes.
  - purringmeow 12y ago
    And that's why truck driving is the perfect job to automate.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      All driving is, for more-less the same reasons.
      - eru 12y ago
        Apart from driving for fun.

Havvy 12y ago

I've got family in the auto transport brokerage industry. Can confirm that there is a shortage of drivers.

dehmlow 12y ago
I have some familiarity with the trucking industry in the midwest. I can also confirm that there's a shortage of drivers in the region. The funny thing is that at some companies, working some overtime (although under the safety limit), drivers can make ~$80k including benefits, which is pretty good considering the cost of living there.
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  I have a feeling that the energy boom is cutting into the supply of truckers. If you have any skills at all (welding, driving) you can top $100k in oil or gas fields, but even if you're a high school drop out with no skills of any kind you can pull down $60k just humping pipe from one side of rig to the other.
- the_ancient 12y ago
  The only people I know that can make that level of money is Owner Operators, and while gross my be 80K most of that ends up back in the truck. If you know of a company driver making 80K a year let me know the name of that company
  - dehmlow 12y ago
    They are all hazardous material tank drivers. Some are owner operators, some are not. And some were close to that as local drivers.
    - the_ancient 12y ago
      1. Hazardous drivers have a shit load more regulations on them, and I do not believe it would be worth 80K to haul some of that shit 2. You have to be an experienced driver with spotless driving record for most companies, I would hope these companies are not hiring newly minted 6 week school drivers to haul HazMat. 3. this specialize area of trucking should be used to gauge the wider industry.

lgleason 12y ago

Sounds like the same argument being used for more H1B visas. We cant find enough (cheap) resources locally so we need to import some from elsewhere willing to work for a pittance.

hibikir 12y ago
The strength of the argument changes with market elasticity. If a single company has trouble hiring, they can raise salaries. However, if the pool of workers remains finite, all you are really doing is switching which company has the hiring problem. If two people need an all day plumbing job done today, and there's only one plumber in time, one of them is not going to get it done, regardless of how much they pay. So when we look industry-wide, what the salary increases do is make people change professions. If it takes the same effort to become a truck driver than a cab driver, but the truck driver makes 4 times as much, everything else being equal, we'll have more trouble finding people to be cabbies, as long as there's an opportunity trucking. People then decide which training they get to choose. But the real demand problem is not solved until the workers are trained. We don't even need workers for this. Imagine that we suddenly need 60 million gallons of 25 year old scotch every day. It doesn't matter how much we want to pay: There isn't enough scotch to meet demand today. If we paid a million dollars a bottle, it'd not make a difference: We'd only get an increase in supply as time goes by, and people just put more scotch on casks, and don't open the casks at 15 years, because 25 makes more money: But nothing is going to make this demand shock get fixed earlier, no matter how much you pay. So the harder it is to actually perform the job, and the longer it takes to train, the stronger the immigration argument gets.
- tomjen3 12y ago
  > if the pool of workers remains finite You take an alternative. There may only be one plumber, but if he is bid up to a million I am going to spend a day doing it myself, buy an entirely new WHATEVER_WE_ARE_REPLACING or do without. If the price of scotchs go to 50 usd per centilitier I am going to buy rum. If programmers start charging 10000 usd/day I am going to continue doing my spreadsheets by hand. Your analysis fails to take into account substitute goods. If a taxi gets too expensive I can rent a car (no driver cost), take public transportation (lot less driver cost) or stay the night and go home when I am sober.

the_ancient 12y ago

It is not a matter of paying "more" but changing how they pay Most Truckers are paid by the mile... So if your sitting in traffic no pay (next time your stopped in traffic look around, how many semi's are sitting with you, most of those drivers are doing it for free) Then there is load and unload time, which for some companies is non-paid, other is a nominal flat rate of like $35 that could take up hours of your day. Then there is the "hours of service" which many companies require their drivers go "off duty" when they arrive at warehouse, but the warehouse required them to monitor the CB Radio to be called to pull into a dock, so their "sleep" time is taken up waiting to be unloaded, and they do this waiting for free. Trucking companies need to end the practice of per mile pay, and start paying drivers Per Hour or a Salary (non-exempt) like every other company.

twothamendment 12y ago
You started down the right road. Much of their pay has to do with how they are paid. There are trucking companies that don't pay drivers to fuel the truck. Do you know how long that takes? It isn't like it is an optional task - that truck won't move without fuel. I know a driver who spends 2-6 hours waiting to be unloaded. He doesn't get paid for that time but isn't free to leave the truck because when the loading dock is ready for him he needs to be there to move the truck. How is that not being "on call"? If he wasn't working he could go catch a movie or dinner, sleep or whatever, but for some reason the law says it is OK to make him sit without pay to do his job.
- tombrossman 12y ago
  The issue is that most drivers incorrectly assume they are in the weakest position for any given scenario. They absorb delays as if it were their own fault and falsify logs to compensate. Many drivers even absorbed the reimbursable toll costs on a route because they couldn't match the ticket times to their falsified logs. They are afraid to log as 'on duty not driving', which is how they legally should be doing it. Sure, they make less that one day but the sheer number of hours wasted at the shipper or consignee will have a knock-on effect which will make on-time delivery less likely. I drove tractor-trailers in the US for eight years and I would tell other drivers 'this system is broken, allow it to fail and cover your ass by documenting everything'. I refused to falsify my logs and would rigidly log everything 100% accurately, even logging Hours of Service violations (e.g. difficulty finding parking & going 30-45 min over on drive time) which could have cost me a ticket. Once in a while I'd get hauled into a weigh station for an inspection and they'd notice the hours violation. I explained about refusing to falsify and they'd see this was true. I'd get a funny look but never a ticket. The outcome here was that I was very predictable to the 'trip planners', who were one grade above the lowly dispatchers. The trip planners always knew exactly where I stood from the truck's telemetry data, plus I would always communicate delays. They were better able to predict how to use my time and their company truck. I was never out of pocket for reimbursable expenses because time/date stamps on receipts always matched. I was making more than most of our company-employed drivers and even some of the owner-operators who struggled with fuel costs, etc. The dispatchers hated me because they constantly had to explain to management why my loads were late and how I could not be blamed for the delays as I had documented everything and communicated the delays well in advance. Every other driver would have gone over their hours illegally to compensate, but I always stopped when I ran out of driving hours and therefore missed appointments. They all caught on after a while and learned to use my time more wisely. I reliably made $50-55K/year which was exceptional for trucking and enjoyed the very low tax rate Hours of Service workers get (9%, taking the standard deduction x days worked, typically). It was an interesting job overall because of all the sights you see, but I can't recommend it to anyone looking for a career change. Stick with the tech sector as it is much safer and you can go home every night.

fred_durst 12y ago

Sorry, Swift's stock price is more about the horror show that is Swift's corporate governance. Especially CEO Jerry Moyes. The very fact that he'll keep his job after this dismal lack of forecasting is an example of how much corruption there is there. Honestly, I would not be surprised if it was intentional. He had to step down 10 years ago due to insider trading with Swift shares. Now he's back after a they brought it private and then to a second IPO. The stock tanked, in my opinion, because investors know they can't trust Jerry Moyes and Swift's board. More fun stuff. http://teamster.org/content/teamsters-warn-swift-transportation-board-lets-ceo-pledge-nearly-25-percent-outstanding http://teamster.org/content/teamsters-warn-swift-transportat... http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/9796076/nhl-lawsuit-jerry-moyes-former-phoenix-coyotes-owner-thrown-according-report http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/9796076/nhl-lawsuit-jerry-...

l33tbro 12y ago

Hmmm, why are we still talking about truck drivers exactly? The trucking industry is about to tank hard. Mercedes demo'd its first driverless truck a couple of weeks ago (!). Yes, there will be specialists drivers sure and niche companies. But the day of the interstate road train will be done shortly. The biggest new niche in my mind will be vehicle security. These trucks will be flying solo across the nation - unmanned. How will these trucks be fitted out against good ol' fashioned highway robbers in remote areas that are barely on the grid? Fun times ahead. (!). http://www.caradvice.com.au/295713/self-driving-mercedes-benz-truck-demonstrated-in-germany/ http://www.caradvice.com.au/295713/self-driving-mercedes-ben...

sanswork 12y ago
>How will these trucks be fitted out against good ol' fashioned highway robbers in remote areas that are barely on the grid? They would handle it the exact same way the ones with drivers do. They would do nothing while it is happening but contact the police and claim insurance. The only difference is no one is at risk of dying and they will likely have video evidence.
twothamendment 12y ago
Can the driver-less truck put chains on its tires in the winter? I didn't think so. I'm sure that we'll make use of the tech we have but there is so much more to driving a truck than driving. Maybe the "drivers" will be able to climb in the back and sleep while the truck does they driving and they can take care of everything else.
- l33tbro 12y ago
  This is why I think the "driver" will shift more to a "captain" type archetype. Ie, driverless road-trains will travel in fleets and there will be a mechanic somewhere in that convoy to deal with breaking down in dead of nowhere. Also hard not to imagine this guy being armed.
  - tdicola 12y ago

A_COMPUTER 12y ago

My semi-retired parents were lured in by the claims of making upwards of 80K a year if you worked hard enough. They did it for about three years and quit with more debt than when they started. You can only make decent money if you own your own rig, which costs as much as a house. Trucking is heavily regulated, but in ways that dump all the problems on the drivers. You are in competition with other drivers, which pretty much guarantees you're going to be cooking the books increasingly regulated-away ways, not to mention how dangerous it is. There are exceptions to everything though, if you've been on the road long enough you make more money per mile as you build up a reputation, or you can make money money working for fedex or doing hazardous materials shipping, but it takes years of toiling in shit conditions for low pay to get to that point. They also told me that they met a lot of people who clearly hadn't done the math, and were losing money instead of making it despite working very hard. The cost of the truck alone puts you in massive debt with no guarantee of work to pay it off. As far as automating it, maybe in 20 years it will be viable. It's not useful to talk about that today.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
msane 12y ago
I think automation will happen sooner than we expect. 5-8 years seems likely to me. There is a hurdle with interstate trucking, where some states will lag behind in allowing it and providing the required bureaucratic support. But it is already technologically possible, if not yet a fully developed product. It just takes one company to get it allowed in one state and start doing it, the others will follow. Self driving personal vehicles are 1-3 years away from being on the market, it seems natural that trucking will follow. I think trained people might still handle the parking though for a while :P
- georgemcbay 12y ago
  Parking shouldn't be a difficult task for a self-driving truck; but I suspect there will be a 'driver' along for the ride well after the task is mostly automated, just to deal with exceptional circumstances (eg. flash flood has made road impassable in some way the automated truck cannot deal with) and also to act as a security guard so nobody robs the robo-truck.

briandh 12y ago

This is way too far down the fold: > For example, new safety requirements mean that individual truckers drive fewer miles than a decade ago: An average long-haul truck can now cover 8,000 miles a month, down from almost 11,000 in 2007, according to the trade association. So the maximum miles driven per month is 73% of what it was in 2007, whereas the inflation-adjusted salary is 97% (based on eyeballing the graph) of what it was. Now, if despite the higher maximum drivers were going, say 9000 miles a month before 2007, the difference would be less stark. Nevertheless, viewing from that perspective makes the situation seem much different. Of course, that doesn't account for the 03-07 downward trend. And while I do agree in theory that they should "just" raise wages if they need more drivers, we should be careful jumping to conclusions as outsiders. After all, it is possible, for instance, that paying new (and probably many existing) drivers more could eat up the revenues gained from the customers they're currently turning away. And moreover, said prospective customers could adapt so that by the time the trucking companies have enough drivers, the orders are no longer there.

frozenport 12y ago

Is the real story that the overhead for trucking is too large and we should switch to more cost effective transport like rail?

gremlinsinc 12y ago

THis will be moot in a few years when automated cars are in place, truckers will be begging for jobs.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

grondilu 12y ago

Or maybe they need to invest in self-driving trucks R&D.

yorak 12y ago

Automating a fleet of trucks has come up few times in these comments. Many commenters have raised concerns of difficult and special situations. I have worked with machine vision and currently I'm doing my PhD in computational logistics (mainly working on automating the deployment of Vehicle Routing Systems). With this background in mind have given some tought to this: What would be needed, at least in the transition phase, is technology that would allow remote drive-by-wire of trucks in difficult situations (platforms, urban traffic) and wheater conditions. Imagine a system not entirely unlike the unmanned UAVs the US is using but for civilian use of remote controlling trucks. One driver could probably handle dowzen or so trucks because they would drive under full automation at least 90% of the time. In addition the truck driver could have a normal 9 to 5 job. Of course there are technical challenges like communications delay etc., but I'd like to hear your opinion on feasibility of such system.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Delay in the control loop is always critical to accurate control. But in the case of a large heavy truck, we already have to live with that (slow acceleration/braking/steering response built in).

Thimothy 12y ago

Aaaand just another reason with liberal economics is bullsht. Perfect market my ss.

2close4comfort 12y ago

Margins are VERY tight in transportation. In a solid company most of this should be going to pay drivers, and in decent companies it does they can make a pretty decent paycheck (none of that per mile crap) BUT with licensing points and experience being the biggest roadblocks getting decent drivers. Plus how many kids are growing up to be truck drivers these days... not many

LargeWu 12y ago
Then trucking companies can maintain their margins by charging more to haul goods. If there really is excess demand, then the market should be able to absorb price increases.
- 2close4comfort 12y ago
  Safety would be the largest cut into margins. Completely unplanned and everything from bumping into a yellow pole to an accident. Those all cost hundreds of thousands apprx 130k for a yellow pole...the market is not ready or willing for the risk that the companies traditionally absorb.

jtshana92 12y ago

More star journalism from the NY Times: "In this environment, it may be easier to say 'There is a shortage of skilled workers' than 'We aren’t paying our workers enough,' even if, in economic terms, those come down to the same thing." No, those aren't necessarily the same thing. Even if there was a surplus of licensed truck drivers to meet the new demand, it does not mean that the sole reason trucking companies don't wish to hire more workers is because it will cost too much in wages. I suspect the reason they don't hire more truckers to fill existing empty truck seats is for the following reasons: 1) Every truck runs with a huge damage liability (life insurance, lost goods, rebates to customers). A string of truck crashes from the increased volume would rapidly eat into the profits of more business. 2) Operating costs: gas, computer systems, dispatchers, parts, labor. It may be cheaper to raise prices on existing routes, and leave a few trucks empty. Here's another snippit: "It’s not an ideal job for everyone. There is no question that trucking is hard work, necessitating long hours and longer stretches away from family. But that’s why it is well compensated, at least in comparison to other jobs not requiring college degrees." Nobody is paid because the job is hard and lonely. Oil workers in North Dakota aren't paid 250k a year because it's "5 times" harder than a desk job of 50k. Companies pay workers based on what the company expects its customers will pay. No matter how hard the job is, if the market doesn't want to pay higher prices to move goods via truck (which is what would happen if you rose trucker's salaries to 50k instead of 40k, for example), then the companies employing the truckers won't want to take on those higher wage costs. So TLDR, if you feel you can run a more cost-efficient trucking company, then go fucking do it.