a couple of changes since this map was made. Delaware has just adopted an 80,000-pound gross limit. And Virginia also on certain highways. On non-Interstate highways in Virginia you can go 80,000 pounds. So you can get up through that eastern seaboard, except for Maryland. And Maryland has the thing stymied, it has the whole east coast bottled up.

Mr. HUNGATE. And if you need to go through Maryland you are just in trouble?

Mr. BROOKS. Their fine is not as high as Pennsylvania, but it is bad enough on 67,000 pounds, yes sir.

Mr. HUNGATE. Your testimony here is that at one time your truck had 26 stickers and 13 license plates. It is ridiculous, but it is tragic, too, I imagine.

Mr. BROOKS. Another thing, too, Mr. Hungate, if I were to rip off all those stickers and tear them off-in fact, when I did tear them off it defaced the paint job on my truck. And to get a decent paint job on a truck you are talking about another $1,000. So it is not really right in that respect.

Mr. HUNGATE. We had testimony earlier that in Europe you can traverse all countries with one license that is good between the countries, but we haven't yet accomplished that between the States in this country.

Mr. BROOKS. Yes. The comments yesterday about a national transportation policy were interesting. And I would like to follow up on that national transportation policy and learn more about it.

Mr. BALDUS. Will the chairman yield on that?

Mr. HUNGATE. Yes; I yield.

Mr. BALDUS. Do we have uniform credit codes so that people dealing with financial affairs from one State to another will have a more reasonable way of doing it? There have been some attempts at uniform penal codes, and different attempts toward arriving at some uniformity. Has there been any legislatively oriented proposal by the various States in combination to bring about uniformity that you are aware of?

Mr. BROOKS. Not really, Mr. Baldus, within the time that I have been in this thing, which is just a little over 2 years that I have really actively been involved in dealing with legislators, and so on. Not to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. BALDUS. Thank you.

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Bedell.

Mr. BEDELL. You operate a truck now, do you Mr. Brooks?

Mr. BROOKS. Yes.

Mr. BEDELL. You drive the trucks?

Mr. BROOKS. I own and drive my own tractor and trailer.
Mr. BEDELL. And you just operate the one trailer-tractor?
Mr. BROOKS. The one unit, yes sir.

Mr. BEDELL. You said here that the total deregulation would not work because of greed. Would you expand upon that. Just what do you mean by that?

Mr. BROOKS. Well, there are several different ways that that can come about. But one way would be, for instance, in this-I am getting off into another area here which I shouldn't, but I do know a little something about it-the produce haulers that Mr. Parkhurst men

tioned, the regulated carriers were going into produce-growing areas and hauling produce back out for as low as half of the normal rate. Mr. BEDELL. But they can do that?

Mr. BROOKS. They can afford to do that.

Mr. BEDELL. Because they are regulated on the other part of their haul, are they not? So they are not competing equally with the produce haulers, they have a subsidy, so to speak, and they can make their money on the haul going in and then have what is equivalent to a free ride coming back, so they can undercharge. And if there were total deregulation it would apply to both carriers so they wouldn't have that advantage, would they?

Mr. BROOKS. The way the thing is working now, as you mentioned, they will go into a produce-growing area and haul a load of oranges or whatever back out for down as low as maybe half the normal price. All they are interested in really is covering fuel and driving wages. Then when they drive enough of the independents who depend on this kind of outhaul of this produce, when they drive enough of them out of business, so that when there are no longer trucks available to service that area, then they are going to be free to charge any blessed thing they want.

Mr. BEDELL. I understand that well enough. But do you believe that with total deregulation the small operators would not be able to compete with the big operators, with total deregulation? Because with total deregulation you wouldn't have the situation you are talking about there. That situation you mentioned exists because there is regulation which prohibits the produce haulers from hauling the other articles that these truckers have come in to the produce areas with.. And with total deregulation, is it your opinion that the small operators would not be able to compete with the big operators?

Mr. BROOKS. I guess I have gotten a little bit cynical in this respect. I feel that there is some way or another-somehow or another there is always going to be somebody who is going to be big enough to squeeze the little guy out and use any means whatever to do it, and then go ahead-unless the small man has some protection, has the protection of some fair regulations.

Mr. BEDELL. So your belief is that the control of rates protects the small man rather than the big man generally in trucking?

Mr. BROOKS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Lynch has two questions.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Brooks, from you own experience, what percent of your travels are only on Federal interstate highways?

Mr. BROOKS. Would you include toll roads on that, too, Mr. Lynch? Mr. LYNCH. Yes, the entire trips.

Mr. BROOKS. Such as the Federal highway?

Mr. LYNCH. Yes.

Mr. BROOKS. I would say probably 90 percent of my traveling is on interstate highways.

Mr. LYNCH. The other question is on the log limit of 70 hours a week discussed yesterday. I just want to make sure we understand that. Ten hours a day, that limit, if you are waiting at a loading dock for 5 hours, that comes out of the 10 hours, is that correct?

Mr. BROOKS. No, sir.

Mr. LYNCH. It does not?

Mr. BROOKS. No, sir. The 10-hour limit-in the first place, the 10hour limit is not per day. That 10-hour limit is a 10-hour driving unit, 10 hours behind the wheel.

Mr. LYNCH. That is just behind the wheel?

Mr. BROOKS. And then for every 10 hours that you put behind the wheel you must have an 8-hour break. Now, there is nothing in the law that says that that 8-hour break has to be uninterrupted. It can be interrupted. But to get back to your question, time spent at a loading dock, as long as the driver is responsible for his vehicle, he must attend the vehicle, so that you can move it at any time the people want it. And then that must be considered as line before time on duty not driving. If you go into business and the guy said, I won't need you for 2 hours, under the regulations, if you have a sleeper berth in that truck, you can climb up in that sleeper berth for a minimum of 2 hours and log that as off duty time.

Mr. HUNGATE. Any further questions?

Thank you very much. You have been a very helpful witness.

I would like to ask Mr. Bedell if you would take the Chair at this time.

Mr. BEDELL [now presiding]. Our next witness is Mr. James Foote, of the Association of Independent Owner-Operator Truckers, Cerritos, Calif.

Mr. Foote, do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. FOOTE. I do.

Mr. BEDELL. Would you kindly state your name and address for the subcommittee?


Mr. FOOTE. My name is James R. Foote and my business address is P.O. Box 6194, Cerritos, Calif. 90701.

Before I go into the prepared statement I wanted to make a few preliminary remarks.

Mr. BEDELL. Your statement will be made a part of the record, and you can proceed in whatever way you wish, you can follow your statement if you wish to or do as you please. We try to limit you to 20 minutes. And you should be aware that the House is now in session and we might be called for a quorum call while you are giving your testimony.

Mr. FOOTE. Thank you.

I want to say that the Associated Independent Owner-Operators, Inc., is a founding member of the National Independent Truckers Unit Council, and that we support the testimony of any other truck members that have appeared here. And I wanted to let the subcommittee know that my background has been as an individual owneroperator.

And in 1970 I went to work fulltime for A100, as we call ourselves, and about a year ago I became the business manager.

I am pleased to appear before this subcommittee to present the views of Associated Independent Owner-Operators, Inc., concerning the

problems of small businessmen which could be alleviated by Federal legislative and/or regulatory changes.

First, let me say that Associated Independent Owner-Operators, Inc., is a nonprofit trade association, incorporated in California. A100, as we are known on the West Coast, has existed since 1963, and is comprised of owner-operators of trucks, portable welders, and construction equipment, currently some 1,400 in number. A100 does not admit brokers or prime carriers as members, nor do we accept employees or fleet owners as members. I might explain, before going on, that of the 1,400 members that I mentioned, approximately 1,200 of those are independent owner-operators of trucks, and the balance of 200 are, as I say in the statement, portable welder operators and construction equipment operators.

And also of the 1,200 truckers, approximately half are general freight haulers, both intrastate in California and interstate, which comes under the ICC jurisdiction.

At its inception, A100 was involved in the construction industry almost exclusively, but over the year has become involved in the entire spectrum of the trucking industry as far as independent owner-operators are concerned.

The primary problem of owner-operators of trucks and equipment servicing the construction industry is the "job site proviso" contained in section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, which reads:

Provided, that nothing in this subsection (e) shall apply to an agreement between a labor organization and an employer in the construction industry relating to the contracting or subcontracting of work to be done at the site of the construction, alteration, painting, or repair of a building, structure or other work;

The job site proviso has caused untold hardship to owner-operators in California, and indeed, nationwide, because (1) no universally acceptable definition of "job site" exists, (2) owner-operators are forced to become employees of the construction contractor on many construction projects, (3) owner-operators must pay their own fringe benefits out of their equipment checks, rather than the employer paying these costs, as in a legitimate employee/employer relationship. Because of these problems, A100 has filed many unfair labor practice charges, some of which we have won, in the attempt to protect the owner-operators' right to be independent contractors and small businessmen. One case of vital importance to owner-operators in the construction industry is currently under appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Los Angeles. By decision D-307, dated September 23, 1975, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that the Master Labor Agreement between the Associated General Contractors of California and the Teamsters was null and void because the agreement was negotiated while a representation election was pending. AGC of California subsequently appealed this NLRB decision to the ninth circuit, and A100 is anxiously awaiting the court's decision.

A100 strongly urges this subcommittee to undertake a thorough study of the problems facing owner-operators servicing the construction industry, and to recommend to Congress that a change be made in the job site proviso of the National Labor Relations Act, to specifically define the status of independent owner-operators working "at the

site of construction." The gray area in the act causes undue hardship to both owner-operators and general contractors.

A100 has also filed unfair labor practice charges in the NLRB concerning the status of independent owner-operator truckers transporting general freight, who come under the provisions of article 22 of the Master Freight Agreement between Teamster Employers, Inc., and the Teamsters Union. These charges have resulted in several favorable settlement agreements from regions 20 and 21 of the NLRB, and also a permanent court order from the San Francisco District Federal Court restraining the activities of two Teamster locals.

I will now draw your attention to several matters outside the National Labor Relations Act, which are of equal importance to independent owner-operators.

The Federal highway use tax imposed on all heavy trucks, is, in our view, an unfair tax, in that it imposes fees on one segment of the transportation industry, and generates revenues which are supposed to help support the highway construction funds, but seem to get mixed up in the general fund, part of which is used to subsidize other segments of the transportation industry, such as the railroads. This tax is also, in our view, poorly administered and collected by the Internal Revenue Service. It is not at all unusual for an individual to purchase a truck and operate it for 2 or more years before he becomes aware of the Federal highway use tax. A100 recommends the revocation of this tax, or, if that is not accomplished, we recommend that some system of informing individuals purchasing trucks be established which will make it a requirement that either the truck dealers or the various State departments of motor vehicles inform every purchaser of this tax, and furnish the purchaser with the proper documents and forms. We also recommend that the Congress require the Internal Revenue Service, in its administration of this tax, to clarify and normalize its policies concerning sales of trucks and subsequent responsibility for the tax, and suspension of the tax while a truck is nonoperational. Several A100 members have been required to pay the balance of the year's tax after selling a truck, even if though the new owner is required to pay the tax from date of purchase. Also, many members, who become ill and park their trucks for 6 months or longer, find they are still obligated for the entire tax.

The widespread practice of ICC carriers, nationwide, is to lease owner-operated trucks and pay a percentage of the total revenue which the carrier collects to the leaser. Many ICC carriers, who own no power units of their own, take such a large percentage (as high as 70 percent) of the total revenues for themselves, that the leasers cannot continue to operate. This creates a large turnover of leasers, and in our view, lowers the standards of the whole trucking industry. A100 strongly recommends that the Congress pass legislation which would control the split in revenues between carrier and leaser in ICC regulations. In California, the Public Utilities Commission already has such regulations in dump trucks and cement. A100 has petitioned the California PUC for establishment of a percentage trailer rental rate in dump trucks, and has under preparation a petition which would establish a set split between carrier (known in California as an overlying carrier) and the owner-operator subhauler in the general

« ForrigeFortsett »