Do you build a high performing team through superior selection or excellent OTR training? Remember the old proverb: you can teach a squirrel to fly but you’re better off starting with an eagle?
There’s truth there, but there aren’t as many eagles flying around as there once were, so perhaps we should consider better training. That said, it’s still wise to invest in aeries.
Analogies aside, the challenge you face is how to how to build and maintain a motivated team of professional drivers, despite the headwinds of the dreaded driver shortage.
Dr. Peter Cappelli, Director of Wharton’s Center for Human Resources, authored a great fact-filled book, Why Good People Can’t Get Jobs. He finds that even in times of high unemployment, companies across dissimilar industries can’t seem to find capable employees. They insist applicants aren’t qualified; schools aren’t adequate; or the government isn’t letting in enough skilled immigrants. What we have is a woe-is-me mindset and driver-hungry carriers are convinced that driver recruitment is like hunting for polar bears in Arizona.
Training Gap
Capelli asserts the problem is a combination of inflated expectations and a training gap. He points out that everyone is looking for applicants who can hit the ground running. Here’s how companies think:
1. With high unemployment, we should be able to get what we want (no training required);
2. We can save money by cutting training or by delaying purchase of updated materials;
3. If we train new employees, they’ll just leave for greener pastures, taking our investment with them.
Further, some applicant-screening software programs have corrupted the hiring process by defining the wrong qualifications as must-haves. This and the ubiquitous stories of a driver shortage have heightened the impression that there aren’t enough people with the right stuff.
Based on Dr. Cappelli’s reasoning, I would argue that there are enough CDL drivers with the right qualities (when you get serious about competing for them), but you need to define what’s needed versus what’s wanted. He tells the story of a temp who’s doing a great job. The employer can’t seem to fill the job she’s covering. Someone asks, “Why not hire her?” The answer: “She’s not qualified.” Huh?
Sure, driver applicants have to meet the minimums: CDL, 21, medically qualified, etc. And they should have key traits like responsibility, dependability, compliance and risk aversion, which are vital to safety, productivity and good customer service. In short, you should hire drivers for the characteristics that cannot be taught. Know-how and skills can be taught.
When did we start to believe that drivers would be finished from day one; that they’d assimilate our values without having a structured process to help them? When did we convert driver training to an exercise in CYA/check-the-box, instead of truly giving them the knowledge and skills needed to safely and efficiently perform the job?
Assess For Personal Qualities
The right model is to first find drivers who have the minimums (table stakes), but also assess for the personal qualities that make them safe dependable drivers. Then, provide effective, up-to-date training programs to take it from there.
Many may believe that they’re already doing this, so let me be more specific.
• If you require applicants to be 23 years old, why not 22? Then provide exceptional training.
• If you require two years of experience, why not one? Excellent training can supplement.
• If you require unique experience, like tankers, why not consider dry van drivers and then teach them tanker-specific skills and knowledge?
Dr. Cappelli cites Con-way as a sparkling example of taking initiative to solve the driver conundrum through training. In 18 months they graduated 440 new drivers and held onto 98 percent of them!
Hire for the things you can’t change: minimum qualifications and characteristics that resist change such as values and personality. Then provide meaningful professional safe driver training. Not a sheep dip. Not CYA, but something that leads to real learning and new behaviors.
You can’t expect old, feeble training materials that didn’t cut it ten years ago to magically begin to work today. Times change and training should change with the times. Half the battle is keeping drivers engaged and interested. If your training can’t bridge the gap, it’s time to look for better training materials.
Aeries are nests where baby eagles are nurtured until they’re self-sufficient and can fly on their own. The best aeries produce the best eagles. Nurture your drivers with better training.
Mark G. Gardner
Chief Executive Officer
Avatar Management Services, Inc
Macedonia, OH
www.avatarfleet.com/wp
There’s no question that fleets need to review driver abstracts (or Motor Vehicle Reports – MVRs) on their drivers to identify any trend or pattern in past moving violations. The American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) has connected the links between receiving a violation and increased risk of subsequent collision in two studies – Predicting Truck Crash Involvement 2011 Update (their original study was released in October of 2005).
As recently reported at a fleet safety conference, two similar fleets had chosen to use the same standard for MVR review — exclude violations greater than 36 months old and allow for a combination of three violations and one preventable crash before suspending driving privileges. One of these fleets tightened their standard to two violations and one crash during the most recent 24 months and saw a five point reduction in collisions (from 22% of their fleet vehicles involved in a crash per year to 17% of their vehicles involved in a crash) and $2 million in savings.
Since not all violations represent the same level of risk taking, targeting specific types of violations would be expected to further enhance the results. The ATRI study showed that the occurrence of JUST one of the following moving violations dramatically increased the likelihood of becoming involved in a crash by the following amount:
• Failure to use or improper turn signal: 96%
• Improper passing: 88%
• Improper turn: 84%
• Improper or erratic lane change: 80%
In comparison, speeding more than 15 mph over the speed limit — which most safety mangers would likely target as a clear indicator of a risky driver — increased the overall crash risk by only 67%.
Analysis of data revealed that driving behaviors (measured as violations, convictions and historical crashes linked to specific drivers) are linked to specifically measurable increased risk of becoming involved in a crash. Perhaps more notable is the conclusion that:
“By becoming aware of problem behaviors, carriers and enforcement agencies are able to address those issues prior to them leading to serious consequences. The converse is also true, however, as lower priority behaviors, if ignored, may begin to play an increasing role in crash involvement.”
In simpler terms, if you take the time to look for behavioral issues and do something about them, you can directly influence your crash rates. Similarly, if you ignore behaviors deemed to be “low priority” such as failing to use turn signals, these habits can develop into an increasing role in crash involvement.
Paul Farrell
CEO
SafetyFirst Systems
Parsippany, NJ
paulf@safetyfirst.com
by Avery Vise in Down the Road
On New Year’s Eve, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration announced that it had shut down two affiliated South Carolina trucking operations and the owner-driver of one of them as “imminent hazards to public safety.” The agency’s actions certainly seem appropriate. The owner-driver of one company was involved in a fatal crash on Nov. 27 while driving without a commercial driver’s license. And it appears that the other company, for which this driver was operating at the time, employed three drivers that weren’t qualified. And it only had four drivers total.
Sure, it’s good that FMCSA took these carriers off the road, but a closer look at the situation reveals something troubling. If you look up the companies involved – CER Trucking (USDOT No. 196777) and Edward Risher Trucking (USDOT No. 685781) – in FMCSA’s Safety Measurement System, you will find that one company has no “golden triangles” while the other has just one for the Controlled Substances and Alcohol BASIC.
Based on the SMS data alone, these carriers don’t look that bad. Consider that a carrier could easily cross the intervention threshold based solely on one inspection that indicated possession – not necessarily even use – of drugs or alcohol. What the SMS profiles of CER Trucking and Edward Risher Trucking really highlight, however, is how blind the SMS and FMCSA’s Compliance, Safety, Accountability program are to very small trucking operations.
Aside from the alert on controlled substances and alcohol, there was insufficient data in the SMS to give CER Trucking a score in the other four public BASICs; it had undergone only five total inspections in the past 24 months. Edward Risher Trucking was a blank slate with no inspections at all.
A snapshot of CER Trucking’s SMS page indicating the current operating status of the carrier.
The lack of data is hardly surprising considering that between them CER Trucking and Edward Risher Trucking operated just three trucks. Perhaps as individual operations, carriers of this scope aren’t a high priority. As a group, however, they are a huge player in trucking and highway safety. In the latest census uploaded on the SMS website, 772,045 motor carriers had just one or two trucks – about 74% of all carriers in the database. So FMCSA needs an effective way to oversee these small operations, and CSA just doesn’t get the job done.
In theory, FMCSA could identify weak and downright bad small operations if it had more inspection data, but the trend is in the wrong direction. The total number of inspections fell about 6% from 2009 to 2012. Although roadside inspections were about flat, traffic enforcement inspections plummeted by about 34%.
To a lesser extent, the record and fate of CER Trucking highlight another issue: FMCSA’s failure to act proactively. The inspection that led to CER’s golden triangle in controlled substances and alcohol stemmed from a Feb. 12, 2013, report in which a driver was using or was in possession of drugs. That violation showed up almost immediately in FMCSA’s database, and the carrier has been above the intervention threshold since the February 2013 data run. And based on an inspection conducted in late September – also reflected immediately in the federal database – it was clear that at least one of CER Trucking’s drivers was operating with a suspended CDL.
A snapshot of Edward Risher Trucking’s SMS page indicating the current operating status of the carrier.
The CER Trucking situation arguably underscores the National Transportation Safety Board’s recent criticism of FMCSA’s safety oversight. “While FMCSA deserves recognition for putting bad operators out of business, they need to crack down before crashes occur, not just after high-visibility events,” said NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman in calling for audits.
Perhaps it’s unfair to cite CER Trucking as an example of FMCSA’s failure to be proactive. Certainly you would not expect FMCSA to prioritize a two-truck operation for scrutiny. But if that’s the case, then FMCSA should not get much credit for shutting down CER Trucking either.
Ultimately, FMCSA and its state partners can improve safety only by devoting more resources to safety oversight, and that costs money they don’t have. It’s not even clear that they are spending the money they do have wisely. Putting aside legitimate gripes over SMS methodology, this sad reality seriously undermines CSA’s integrity, especially considering that CSA data is public and not just an internal enforcement tool.
Perhaps one day technology and automation – universal electronic logs and wireless roadside inspections, for example – will substitute for “boots on the ground.” For now, however, we must accept that motor carrier safety oversight is inherently flawed because it can’t target the very operations that need it most.
FMCSA PROPOSES MANDATORY ELECTRONIC LOGGING DEVICES.
April 2014, TruckingInfo.com – Feature
By Oliver Patton
After 28 years of proposals, studies, drafts, revisions, legal battles and technological innovations – not to mention an Act of Congress – federal regulators are close to requiring most interstate commercial drivers to keep track of their work hours with an electronic device.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s proposed electronic log mandate, published last month, addresses a broad range of issues but still must go through a comment period and faces possible legal challenges before it becomes final.
At the core of the 256-page proposal is the requirement that interstate drivers who fill out paper logs must eventually switch to electronic logs.
It also covers technical standards for the electronic logging devices, as they are now termed (or ELDs) and the supporting documents regulators need to confirm compliance. And it sets requirements to ensure that electronic logs are not used to harass drivers.
The agency will take comments on the proposal until about mid-May. After it reviews the comments and publishes a final rule, perhaps later this year, carriers will have two years to comply. Carriers that already have recording devices that meet current specifications would have an additional two years to bring their devices into compliance with the new specifications.
It remains to be seen how the various constituents will react.
While larger trucking companies generally support ELDs, they may have concerns about some of the technical details, the supporting documents requirements or the agency’s approach to grandfathering devices already in use.
Owner-operators have long opposed ELDs and may not be satisfied by the agency’s approach to harassment prevention.
The rule will apply to drivers who have to prepare paper logs. Drivers who don’t have to prepare logs may use the electronic devices but won’t have to. Drivers who use timecards will not have to use the devices. And drivers who use logs intermittently can stick with paper logs unless they use them more than eight days in 30 days.
Device details
The technical specifications spell out how ELDs should work.
The basic requirement is that the device record specific information – date, time, location, engine hours, mileage and driver, vehicle and carrier identification – and make it available to inspectors.
The driver must be identified by his full license number and the state where his license is issued.
The device has to be synchronized with the engine to record on/off status, the truck’s motion, mileage and engine hours.
The device will have to automatically record a driver’s change of duty and hourly status while the truck is moving. It also must track engine on/off, and the beginning and end of personal use or yard moves.
The agency is proposing that the devices use automatic positioning services: either the satellite-based Global Positioning System, land-based systems, or both.
Many carriers now have onboard information systems that warn the driver when he’s approaching his hourly limits, but the agency is not requiring that capability in its proposal.
The devices won’t have to print out the log, but may have that feature as an option. They will have to produce a graph grid of a driver’s daily duty status, either on a digital display unit or on a printout. This is the first time the agency has proposed using a printer, and it’s looking for comments on the costs and benefits of that approach.
The primary communications methods will be wireless web services, Bluetooth 2.1 or email. The backup will be wired USB 2.0 or scannable Quick Response code.
FMCSA is working with its state enforcement partners on a software system, eRODS, that will be the platform for transmitting and viewing the log data.
These requirements will be of particular interest to the enforcement community, which has expressed concern about how roadside inspectors will get access to the logs.
To guard against tampering, the device must not allow changes in original information about the driver’s records or in the source data streams that provide the information. It also must be able to check the integrity of the information.
Also, the device must be able to monitor and record compliance for malfunctions and inconsistencies.
The agency is proposing that the devices be certified by the manufacturer, and that certified devices be registered on the FMCSA website to make it easier for carriers to shop.
Harassment and more
The agency projects net annual benefits of about $454 million, based on an average annual cost of about $495 per truck for the device and services. It based its calculations on Omnitracs’ MCP50 system, describing it as an appropriate example of the current state-of-the-art device, although it looked at other products as well.
Among the benefits are reduced paperwork costs for carriers – no more paper logs – as well as 1,425 fewer truck crashes and 20 fewer fatalities a year due to fatigue prevention, the agency said.
The supporting documents portion of the proposal eliminates the requirement that carriers keep paper that verifies driving time, since the electronic log takes care of that. It retains the requirement that carriers keep a variety of documents, ranging from bills of lading, dispatch records, expense receipts or payroll records.
The agency would prohibit carriers from using ELD information to harass drivers, and is proposing procedural and technical provisions to protect drivers from harassment.
For instance, the device must have a mute or low-volume capability so the carrier can’t interrupt a driver when he’s in the sleeper berth. And the driver would have to approve any changes the carrier makes in his data.
The agency plans to propose another rule to protect drivers from coercion by carriers, shippers, receivers or transportation intermediaries. This proposal, which is awaiting clearance at the White House Office of Management and Budget, will include ways for drivers to report coercion as well as penalties for violators.
Many trucking companies support electronic logging, and early reaction from the American Trucking Associations was generally positive.
“ATA supports FMCSA’s efforts to mandate these devices in commercial vehicles as a way to improve safety and compliance in the trucking industry and to level the playing field with thousands for fleets that have already voluntarily moved to this technology,” said President and CEO Bill Graves in a statement.
ATA Executive Vice President Dave Osiecki said he’s particularly pleased that the agency is proposing to allow paper printouts of logs, but not requiring their use.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, which has long opposed ELDs, is taking a more cautious stance.
“The agency must address the serious safety issue of how (ELDs) are used to harass and coerce truck drivers into continuing to drive regardless of driving conditions,” said spokesperson Norita Taylor in a statement.
The group also is worried about some of the technical details and whether or not ELDs will improve safety, Taylor said.
“This is the first stage in the regulatory process for the agency’s latest attempt to craft a rule on this topic, and OOIDA and small business truckers will certainly be weighing in and providing comments,” she said.
Dear Direct Response Letter Subscriber:
When the Winter Olympics were on, my wife watched it devotedly.
But she also did social media and e-mail on her laptop at the
same time.
“You’re going to miss the performance,” I said while figure
skating was on.
“I can multitask,” she said proudly.
A minute later a skater did a spectacular triple Lutz, but Amy
missed it because she was looking at her computer screen and not
at the TV screen.
This is yet another demonstration that multitasking is a bad
idea and usually doesn’t work.
A few times I wrote something on the PC while simultaneously
talking on the phone.
Invariably, my concentration on the phone call waned, and
before I knew it, I missed what the person was saying, which was
uncomfortable and potentially embarrassing.
People who multitask think they are getting more done, but a
growing body of psychology research indicates this is not true.
In particular, a 2001 study conducted by Joshua Rubinstein,
Jeffrey Evans, and David Meyer found that multitasking reduces
productivity as much as 40%.
The only multitasking that really works is when you do two
activities at the same time and both are not demanding – for
instance, mowing the lawn while listening to an educational
lecture on your iPod.
I don’t actually do that because I do not mow the lawn or own an
iPod. But you get the idea.
I know a lot of subscribers will write to tell me that they are
successful multitaskers. But unless you have measured your
productivity and quality on a task (e.g., writing) with and
without multitasking, I would argue that you don’t know whether
it serves you well.
As a youngster fresh out of college, I drove from the plant at
Westinghouse into Baltimore to take marketing classes at Johns
Hopkins.
I multitasked way back then when, in bumper-to-bumper traffic,
I foolishly opened my textbook on my lap and read while driving.
Result: several narrowly avoided fender benders and minimal
retention of read material.
I am much more of a fan of sequential tasking: doing one
project, and then when you tire of it, switching to something
else.
I saw the rudest form of multitasking recently when I attended a
lecture: many people in the audience were pecking away at their
smart phone screens as the speaker talked.
This is discourteous as well as disconcerting to the speaker if
he sees it. If you don’t want to listen to the lecture, don’t
attend. Otherwise, eyes on the stage and phone in your pocket.
Sincerely,
Bob Bly
P.S. While I wrote this essay, I did absolutely nothing else. I
mono-task while writing, which means while I write, that’s all I
am doing. Result: 83 published books and counting. And remember,
I write books on the side; my main job is copywriting.
Bob Bly
Copywriter / Consultant
31 Cheyenne Dr.
Montville, NJ 07045
Phone 973-263-0562
Fax 973-263-0613
www.bly.com
I welcome your feedback! Did you like today’s message?
What other topics would you like to see covered in my e-mails?
Please let me know at: rwbly@bly.com
DataQs, the online system for correcting CSA scoring, has the reputation of being cumbersome and unpredictable, but there’s a way for safety managers to get what they need from it.
Call it the ABCs of DataQs.
• Act quickly and consistently to fix incorrect information.
• Be specific and factual when you present your case for the fix.
• Contact the DataQs liaison in the states and establish a relationship.
A trio of experts laid out these fundamentals in a recent DataQs webinar hosted by the Truckload Carriers Association. On hand were Ron Cordova, a retired New Mexico Motor Transportation Police officer; Allan Hicks, vice president of safety, compliance and human resources for B.R. Williams Trucking, and Steve Bryan, CEO of Vigillo, the CSA service provider.
Act Quickly
Cordova and Hicks made the case for quick, consistent action to correct mistakes in CSA data.
Cordova counseled safety managers to move on a mistake within a week – “So it’s fresh on the mind of the inspector and he can move quickly.”
Hicks, providing the carrier perspective, said he reviews his company’s data every day. He goes to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Compass Portal, which with a single password and ID gives him access to a variety of federal truck safety databases, including DataQs.
A quick survey of the carriers attending the webinar indicated that close to 60% check their roadside inspection reports every day, and more than 30% do it at least once a week.
“It’s important that you get the process started as soon as possible,” Hicks said. If there are questions, he starts with the driver, and does not hesitate to call in his CSA service provider.
Be Specific and Factual
It is equally important that the request for a correction be factual and succinct.
“Homework is key,” said Cordova. Be sure to look up the applicable federal regulation, he said.
“Get the information from the regulations into the DataQs request to help the reviewer understand what the regulation says and what you are challenging.”
And don’t be distracted by unrelated information. “Do not attempt to provide a long dissertation concerning a violation.”
For example, if you are challenging a finding that the driver’s log is not current, explain exactly why the log was written the way it was, and why it is correct. It might help to have the driver photograph the log with his phone and email the photo so it can be part of the DataQs submission.
And think of the process in a strategic way. When state officials see that a particular officer is repeatedly being challenged on the same issue, it gives them a data trail that can guide improvements.
“You help us, we help you,” Cordova said.
It helps, for example, to understand how an inspector works. Suppose a driver is cited for having a cut in a brake service line, and for inoperative pushrods in the brakes.
It is normal for the inspector to flag the pushrods because they were not working, but clearly the cut line is the source of the problem.
“It’s worth a (DataQs) challenge,” Cordova said, “because if the line were not cut the brakes would be operative.”
Hicks said there’s an additional benefit from frequently checking your data through the Compass Portal: it gets your drivers’ attention when they realize you are keeping close tabs.
The flip side is that this can help with driver retention, he said. Fixing a CSA error through DataQs tells the driver that the company is paying attention on his behalf.
“It gives him a reason to stay,” he said. Plus, it gives the company feedback to improve training.
One frequent DataQs complaint is that it’s difficult to get the CSA record corrected after a court has dismissed a citation.
The problem arises, Cordova said, because of the disconnect between two different types of legal proceedings. The court action is criminal, while CSA and DataQs are administrative.
It’s a tough situation for the carrier because many jurisdictions are reluctant to overturn a violation that a court has dismissed. It’s best to take the same approach you take in a regular DataQs correction: be quick, specific, concise and factual.
Contact State Officials
Steve Bryan of Vigillo added the third fundamental: that while CSA is a federal program it is administered to some extent by 50 separate entities. Most people don’t look at DataQs as a state-specific system, but that’s what it is, Bryan said.
Vigillo’s data shows that the companies that are most successful in their DataQs challenges are the ones that know how each state handles the citations.
California, Kansas and Florida, for instance, are among those that often respond positively to DataQs challenges, while New Mexico, Missouri and Michigan are less responsive.
At the same time, some states have a tendency to make the same kind of mistake, such as assigning the inspection to the wrong carrier. Oddly, the same state may be better at assigning a crash to the right carrier.
In Bryan’s experience, the solution is to contact the state and get to know the people. From his customers he hears stories of two companies having completely opposite experiences in the same state.
“Getting a personal relationship developed with state people is key,” he said.
The best way to do that? Reach out to the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, the enforcement-industry group that sets enforcement policy for North America, he said.
Cordova suggested joining CVSA as an associate member, but said in any event the group’s web site lists key state contacts.
Hicks added that he’s had success going directly to the source. His company was getting an unusual number of citations at a particular roadside inspection station, so he went there, met the personnel to learn how they were working, and got the situation turned around.
At the same time, it’s important not to waste energy where there’s little chance of success, Bryan said. If you fail to get a correction it makes sense to appeal if you have new information, but don’t pursue it just because it’s wrong.
“At the end of the day, the better strategy may be to look for other CSA points you can reduce,” he said.
