I found this article about the cause of the skyrocketing rates. It does not sound like it will be letting up soon.
https://www.truckinginfo.com/157754/why-insurance-costs-are-sky-high
I have to wonder if today's culture of "everyone is a winner" might also be contributing to the issue. After all, that accident had to be someone else's fault, right? Especially if it was that big, bad truck (and it's company, with the deep pockets).
I'm sure the cost issues in the medical side of things aren't helping either. A "precautionary" trip to the hospital after a collision will definitely run four figures, and possibly five, as the docs make sure that they can't be sued for missing something. People don't take two aspirins and "call me in the morning" any more. They want to be fixed now...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
greyhounds Please don't tell me about "Geedy" insurance companies. I'm retired from Allstate and I know how insurance prices are set. It's a very competitive line of business and any company that gets "Greedy" will quickly loose its customers.
Please don't tell me about "Geedy" insurance companies. I'm retired from Allstate and I know how insurance prices are set. It's a very competitive line of business and any company that gets "Greedy" will quickly loose its customers.
Insurance may be competitive industry, however, I think the Allstate you worked for and the Allstate of today are totally different organizations. We are living in the age of the gouge and collusion. Jack up the rates and profit from it and your comptition will seek those same levels of profit and jack up their rates so no one is left out on a island.
The business world we worked in has changed and not for the better.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Agree, although I recall my father studied this provocative 1936 book in his UofC MBA program way back in the 40s: "Life Insurance, a Legalized Racket"
EuclidSo what percentage of truck freight will substitute to rail transport if truck insurance prices truck freight out of business?
No amount of truck-insurance price increase will 'price truck freight out of business'. The cost will be passed along to those consumers who have no alternative to truck freight -- essentially including all last-mile delivery service or container drayage for railborne TOFC/COFC. For a model, see the way fuel price surcharges were imposed several years ago.
If you look carefully at what he actually said, there might be savings for that portion of an intermodal trip covered by the railroad's, rather than a truck line's, insurance, and this might be an incentive for increased use of intermodal moves. What is left unsaid and unimplied is whether railroad insurance cost for intermodal may not be increasing also, something I have not yet looked into.
Another problem not discussed is that many of the service and performance issues with part-rail moves are not strictly cost-associated, and merely increasing the insurance cost as passed to customers may not cause them to switch modes.
I would expect only a small percentage of overall 'truck customers' to switch to pure rail (e.g. from siding to siding with minimal drayage) although a section of the industry that might acquire an advantage would be cross-dock facilities like the one we were discussing on CRandIC last week.
greyhoundsSo possibly a trucker could save money by railing the load and reducing his/her own liability along with the insurance carrier's liability. (If the train has an incident it's on the railroad, not the trucker.) This should lead to lower insurance costs for the trucker.
What type of mechanism do you propose that would confirm to the truckers insurance company that the railroads insurance company has assumed the risk (per trip)?
I'm assuming that the trucker will pay annual or biannual premiums, yet there needs to be a way to accurately measure and confirm the conveyance of liability to the railroad in order to give the trucker's insurance company the comfort it requires to make some form of rebate or credit.
Obviously the trucker is still going to have to maintain some form of coverage for his payload even during the time it is in transit with the railroad, to protect him from Geedy lawyers that might be working for his customers?
Convicted OneObviously the trucker is still going to have to maintain some form of coverage for his payload even during the time it is in transit with the railroad, to protect him from "Geedy" lawyers that might be working for his customers?
Suspect this would be handled via subrogation, where the trucker's insurance company may pay a claim but immediately goes after the railroad's insurer for compensation and costs. Presumably the railroad insurer would be consulted before any 'settlement' were reached, and given the right to participate in a suit rather than settlement on terms if they disagreed on fault or amount.
OvermodSuspect this would be handled via subrogation, where the trucker's insurance company may pay a claim but immediately goes after the railroad's insurer for compensation and costs.
I agree with you completely there. The thought process I was going through at the time, however, was more along the lines that the fact that the truck was under the umbrella of the railroad (during their portion of the trip) would not excuse the truck from the need for coverage on his payload.
So, whatever formula was devised to determine how much the trucker is to save on his premium (by using a program such as is proposed), will be more complex than just a straight proportionate share calculation.
Still, and foremost,....I'm wondering how any such savings is to be determined and applied in such a way that the truckers insurance company feels good about making the credit?
Based upon my own experiences moving state to state that required me to terminate policies earlier than full term, I recall the Geedy insurance company wanted more than just a proportionate share of the premium for the time elapsed while under their coverage.
So (I'm playing my hand here) I doubt they would want to surrender a truly proportionate share as a savings to the poor trucker.
How does the trucker communicate "well, these 50 loads traveled 100% by highway, while these other 75 loads traveled 90% by train AND 10% by highway in such a way that the insurance company accepts it and feels good about issuing a credit?
Convicted OneSo (I'm playing my hand here) I doubt they would want to surrender a truly proportionate share as a savings to the poor trucker.
I'm sure they would not.
On the other hand, if the "reason" for higher nominal rates includes risk from on-road operation (or driver responsibility) the recognition of different risk when the load is running intermodal may involve lower premium amounts, perhaps quite substantial for companies with 'higher risk' of having unskilled drivers, operating on-road in trouble areas, etc.
The real question is 'how competitive the market will actually be' for trucking companies. If via tacit collusion everyone's "market" rate goes up substantially, how far can you gouge before the threat of re-regulation gets traction? (I suspect, given the reaction to fuel surcharges, the answer is in real terms 'quite a bit'.)
In a perfect world, an insurer would look at a given company's track record of claims. If indeed the intermodal operation results in a lower share of claims, or lower absolute claims, then a rate-adjustment program "might" be an option for business generation ... the problem being that the first insurer through that door stampedes everyone into lower rates, which is a war no insurer probably wants.
If the subrogation process for railborne claims is immediate and positive, the same review process may apply even if the relative number of claims should be high for a given period, for any reason beyond the trucking company's control. This might further lead to mandatory TOFC/COFC routings to avoid 'problem' carriers or areas, even if the overall tariff should be higher.
Thinking further about it, there are so many keen minds already working the intermodal pool, I doubt they have overlooked insurance cost assignment.
Probably already a form that some clerk fills out to make it all official. At least for the large outfits that do this sort of thing regularly.
Not sure if "Joe Owner-Operator" has the same option.
Question: would the railroads even want to work with small owner/operator outfits? Probably have to work through an intermediary like TnT or similar.
Success in business is much less about keeping costs down and more about one's ability to pass those costs on to the customer. Insurance rates are going up for everyone.. even if you're a good operator the cost is going up. So we pass them along, and in three months from now Joe/Jane Consumer will be paying more at Walmart. Not a big deal.
greyhounds said
"Please don't tell me about "Geedy" insurance companies. I'm retired from Allstate and I know how insurance prices are set. It's a very competitive line of business and any company that gets "Greedy" will quickly loose its customers."
My experience with Allstate seems to indicate greed. I had Allstate auto insurance since I started to drive, over 50 years ago. Every year there were small increases which I accepted.When I bought two new cars a few years ago I thought the large increase was excessive and went to an insurance agent looking for new coverage. The agent looked at the rate that Allstate wanted and asked if I had multiple accidents or dui's. None of that applied. She found better coverage with another company for less than half the cost.
The state of Pennsylvania claimed that Allstate was using a program to determine how much of a rate increase a customer would tolerate before changing insurance companies. Maybe they all do that. Their business is to make money. It's been said that the best way for customers to hold their costs down is to switch insurers every few years. They all seem to offer better rates for new customers.
greyhounds Please don't tell me about "Greedy" insurance companies. I'm retired from Allstate and I know how insurance prices are set. It's a very competitive line of business and any company that gets "Greedy" will quickly loose its customers.
Please don't tell me about "Greedy" insurance companies. I'm retired from Allstate and I know how insurance prices are set. It's a very competitive line of business and any company that gets "Greedy" will quickly loose its customers.
And oil companies don't conspire to keep the price of gasoline high.
And utilities have never manipulated the electricity market to raise prices.
And the U.S. has the best healthcare system in the world.
And Hunter Harrison was a fluffy little bunny who held his employees close to his heart.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Surprised we have not heard from 'Shadow the cat's Owner'.
BaltACDSurprised we have not heard from 'Shadow the cat's Owner'.
I was thinking the same thing, this would be an ideal topic for stco.
I don't think the insurance companies are going to give squat for a credit to single owner-operators based upon a pass-off to rail....because the Trucker isn't going to go home and sit idle once the load has been passed. He's going to go out and find another load to haul and will need coverage for that.
mvlandswThe state of Pennsylvania claimed that Allstate was using a program to determine how much of a rate increase a customer would tolerate before changing insurance companies. Maybe they all do that.
I believe that the concept is known as "the dollar left on the table".
Most Geedy business types try to avoid it.
SD70Dude greyhounds Please don't tell me about "Greedy" insurance companies. I'm retired from Allstate and I know how insurance prices are set. It's a very competitive line of business and any company that gets "Greedy" will quickly loose its customers. And oil companies don't conspire to keep the price of gasoline high. And utilities have never manipulated the electricity market to raise prices. And the U.S. has the best healthcare system in the world. And Hunter Harrison was a fluffy little bunny who held his employees close to his heart.
And there's this land in South Florida...
mvlandswThe state of Pennsylvania claimed that Allstate was using a program to determine how much of a rate increase a customer would tolerate before changing insurance companies.
To me, this sounds like good business practice.
If you have a product for sale, it would be silly to price it lower than what someone would pay.
It's not greed, it's common sense.
York1 John
Sorry been busy dealing with a FMCSA visit plus a couple other wonderful things called prepping for the end of quarter numbers and other issues. Yes we just got hammered with a 15% increase in our own insurance costs. Now reminder my boss has had ZERO chargable accidents ZERO OOS citiations for drug use ZERO maintaince OOS issues in the last 18 months and ZERO HOS violations for 2 years. The reason given and I asked some of the smaller carriers we help by giving loads to around here when we are strapped for trucks was this the ELD Mandate has actually caused more accidents in the last 2 years than it has prevented. Why drivers have to race their freaking clocks on the computers instead of being able to come up with the time needed to find a space to safely park. Who would have thought that. Also one of the larger insurance companies for OTR carriers stopped insurance policies for OTR carriers meaning there are less companies that will insure companies now than before. Which means they can charge more. Hell if your a hazmat carrier like us we have a choice of 3 nationwide we can pick from unless we self insure and that requires a 100 million dollar bond. So we pay what they require. IIRC the cost for us for this year for 250 trucks was in the neighborhood of 25 Million dollars to cover the fleet. Yet people wonder why carriers are going out of business when they can not get a rate increase to cover their own costs.
York1 mvlandsw The state of Pennsylvania claimed that Allstate was using a program to determine how much of a rate increase a customer would tolerate before changing insurance companies. To me, this sounds like good business practice. If you have a product for sale, it would be silly to price it lower than what someone would pay. It's not greed, it's common sense.
mvlandsw The state of Pennsylvania claimed that Allstate was using a program to determine how much of a rate increase a customer would tolerate before changing insurance companies.
Ah yes - why sell insulin to a diabetic for $50 a month when you can gouge them for $1500 a month - after all it is only life or death for the diabetic - both financial and real life or death. After all it is only business.
Shadow the Cats owner Sorry been busy dealing with a FMCSA visit plus a couple other wonderful things called prepping for the end of quarter numbers and other issues. Yes we just got hammered with a 15% increase in our own insurance costs. Now reminder my boss has had ZERO chargable accidents ZERO OOS citiations for drug use ZERO maintaince OOS issues in the last 18 months and ZERO HOS violations for 2 years. The reason given and I asked some of the smaller carriers we help by giving loads to around here when we are strapped for trucks was this the ELD Mandate has actually caused more accidents in the last 2 years than it has prevented. Why drivers have to race their freaking clocks on the computers instead of being able to come up with the time needed to find a space to safely park. Who would have thought that. Also one of the larger insurance companies for OTR carriers stopped insurance policies for OTR carriers meaning there are less companies that will insure companies now than before. Which means they can charge more. Hell if your a hazmat carrier like us we have a choice of 3 nationwide we can pick from unless we self insure and that requires a 100 million dollar bond. So we pay what they require. IIRC the cost for us for this year for 250 trucks was in the neighborhood of 25 Million dollars to cover the fleet. Yet people wonder why carriers are going out of business when they can not get a rate increase to cover their own costs.
Now, that's on topic.
The over the road (OTR) truckers have a significant cost increase problem at a time when their charges to their own customers are under significant downward pressure. The railroads could, and should, take advantage of this.
The major railroads are, in fact, largely self insured. That means they just cover their own cost for things such as a "Normal" wreck. They will carry insurance for catastrophic losses. But such coverage doesn't kick in until some million dollars of loss.
The rails are largely not covering anyone but themselves. They're in charge of their own fate and are not burdened by being in a loss pool with other carriers who may have lower standards.
This should be a cost advantage vis a vis trucking. And the railroads should use it aggressively. I do not see a return to carload. Except for niches, I see carload as obsolete. But it could boost intermodal. Fewer truck miles = fewer truck insurance claims. And that will reduce the cost of truckers' insurance. So a trucker using intermodal will have an increased cost advantage over an OTR operator.
As to insurance pricing, please know that many insurance "Companies" are non profit mutual pools. State Farm and USAA are but two examples. There are no shareholders. Each policy holder just throws in some money and anyone suffering a loss gets paid out of the pool. They do have to keep some money to effectively manage the pool. Allstate is a for profit company. But it has to be rate competitive with the non profit pools. That should tell you something about the cost of capital.
As far as predicting how much the insurance charges can be increased without loosing the customers, that's just normal. Heck, your local pizza shop does that. In economics it's called "Elasticity".
BaltACDAh yes - why sell insulin to a diabetic for $50 a month when you can gouge them for $1500 a month - after all it is only life or death for the diabetic - both financial and real life or death. After all it is only business.
Really?
You're going to compare car insurance, with dozens of companies, each offering dozens of pricing schedules, to life and death insulin?
The poster himself said that he went to a different company and got cheaper insurance.
York1 BaltACD Ah yes - why sell insulin to a diabetic for $50 a month when you can gouge them for $1500 a month - after all it is only life or death for the diabetic - both financial and real life or death. After all it is only business. Really? You're going to compare car insurance, with dozens of companies, each offering dozens of pricing schedules, to life and death insulin? The poster himself said that he went to a different company and got cheaper insurance.
BaltACD Ah yes - why sell insulin to a diabetic for $50 a month when you can gouge them for $1500 a month - after all it is only life or death for the diabetic - both financial and real life or death. After all it is only business.
Gouging is Gouging - no matter the industry.
In many cases cheaper insurance results in poorer coverage under the guise of it being the 'same' coverage - problem is no on EVER knows how good or bad the coverage is until it has to be used.
Wonder about the truck chasing lawyers and the rates going up? Constant parade of "Hit by a truck? Better call Saul!" TV and billboard ads blanketing Atlanta....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
BaltACDGouging is Gouging - no matter the industry. In many cases cheaper insurance results in poorer coverage under the guise of it being the 'same' coverage - problem is no on EVER knows how good or bad the coverage is until it has to be used.
1. The car insurance company had a program to find the highest price they could charge before the customer went to a different company.
2. Here is the customer who found the rates too high: "When I bought two new cars a few years ago I thought the large increase was excessive and went to an insurance agent looking for new coverage. The agent looked at the rate that Allstate wanted and asked if I had multiple accidents or dui's. None of that applied. She found better coverage with another company for less than half the cost."
3. The customer bought better insurance for a lower price.
What's the alternative? I have a product. I developed the product. I want to sell the product and make money for my work. People are willng and able to buy my product for $10. However, because I'm a nice guy, I'll only charge them $7.
York1 BaltACD Gouging is Gouging - no matter the industry. In many cases cheaper insurance results in poorer coverage under the guise of it being the 'same' coverage - problem is no on EVER knows how good or bad the coverage is until it has to be used. 1. The car insurance company had a program to find the highest price they could charge before the customer went to a different company. 2. Here is the customer who found the rates too high: "When I bought two new cars a few years ago I thought the large increase was excessive and went to an insurance agent looking for new coverage. The agent looked at the rate that Allstate wanted and asked if I had multiple accidents or dui's. None of that applied. She found better coverage with another company for less than half the cost." 3. The customer bought better insurance for a lower price. Customer has no idea of whether the insurance is better or worse until he needs to file a claim. Will the claim be settled at 100 cents on the dollar or 10 cents on the dollar. All the customer knows when he signs up - it is cheaper, he has no means to judge its 'quality'. What's the alternative? I have a product. I developed the product. I want to sell the product and make money for my work. People are willng and able to buy my product for $10. However, because I'm a nice guy, I'll only charge them $7.
BaltACD Gouging is Gouging - no matter the industry. In many cases cheaper insurance results in poorer coverage under the guise of it being the 'same' coverage - problem is no on EVER knows how good or bad the coverage is until it has to be used.
3. The customer bought better insurance for a lower price. Customer has no idea of whether the insurance is better or worse until he needs to file a claim. Will the claim be settled at 100 cents on the dollar or 10 cents on the dollar. All the customer knows when he signs up - it is cheaper, he has no means to judge its 'quality'.
You made money and became a Billionaire at $10 a unit, but you want to be a Trillionaire and think you can gouge our $100 a unit. Unless, competition develops a competing product that your customers turn too - then you can file for bankruptcy because of your greed. You could even make a casino go bankrupt.
BaltACD You could even make a casino go bankrupt.
You could even make a casino go bankrupt.
Who would have ever thought that could be possible. Isn't the House always supposed to win?
People do not realize it but there is about to be a crisis in the OTR industry. Why the older drivers and company owners are about to hang it up. I am talking the people that started carriers around the time of Deregulation in the early 80's and when they do you think the current crop of drivers are going to be able to pick up the slack. I have drivers now in their 20's that complain if they have to run over 2500 miles a week. My husband was screaming bloody murder at his dispatcher in the 90's if he had less than 3K miles a week on his paycheck. My hubby today even with these current HOS regualtions would run rings around most of the current guys. We have some people come in here complain that we do not provide a Xbox in the truck for them. Yeah it is getting that bad anymore.
Shadow the Cats owner People do not realize it but there is about to be a crisis in the OTR industry. Why the older drivers and company owners are about to hang it up. I am talking the people that started carriers around the time of Deregulation in the early 80's and when they do you think the current crop of drivers are going to be able to pick up the slack. I have drivers now in their 20's that complain if they have to run over 2500 miles a week. My husband was screaming bloody murder at his dispatcher in the 90's if he had less than 3K miles a week on his paycheck. My hubby today even with these current HOS regualtions would run rings around most of the current guys. We have some people come in here complain that we do not provide a Xbox in the truck for them. Yeah it is getting that bad anymore.
But I thought self-driving trucks were going to save the day
BaltACDYou made money and became a Billionaire at $10 a unit, but you want to be a Trillionaire and think you can gouge our $100 a unit. Unless, competition develops a competing product that your customers turn too - then you can file for bankruptcy because of your greed. You could even make a casino go bankrupt.
What makes you think competition wouldn't develop and sell it for $95 a unit, undercutting me?
If you're correct, then what do you propose?
Do you want companies to sell products for less than what is possible? How much less? Who determines how much?
SD70Dude Shadow the Cats owner People do not realize it but there is about to be a crisis in the OTR industry. Why the older drivers and company owners are about to hang it up. I am talking the people that started carriers around the time of Deregulation in the early 80's and when they do you think the current crop of drivers are going to be able to pick up the slack. I have drivers now in their 20's that complain if they have to run over 2500 miles a week. My husband was screaming bloody murder at his dispatcher in the 90's if he had less than 3K miles a week on his paycheck. My hubby today even with these current HOS regualtions would run rings around most of the current guys. We have some people come in here complain that we do not provide a Xbox in the truck for them. Yeah it is getting that bad anymore. But I thought self-driving trucks were going to save the day
Excuse me while I clean the tea off my montior from laughing so freaking hard. Those so called self driving trucks have no clue what to do when someone cuts them off in heavy traffic can not open their own trailer doors refuel themselves handle an emergency on the road such as a blown tire bad weather or other issues that crop up. They still require a driver in them to monitor the situation and take over if something goes wrong. Around here we have a saying for those who want to see a self driving truck. Tesla has a system on their cars that does drive the cars for the people. Tesla has killed more of their own customers in the last few years than my drivers have in the last decade from getting confused on the roads. IIRC there have been over a dozen crashes were Teslas on Autopilot either drove off the roadway into barricades under trucks or other obstacles in their way. We all have complained about how PTC does not work properly now imagine a truck weighing 80K pounds loaded with some of the nastiest stuff around in a city with a computer driving it loses where it is in traffic takes out a freaking School Bus. Sorry but it will not be allowed to happen by the Regualtors and the Politicans in this nation. Why the carnage they could create. The FMCSA learned a huge lesson in the 70's when they tried the first time to mandate ABS systems on the OTR industry with their 121 standard. Drivers would be coming down a mountain need to slow down and find out they HAD NO BRAKES at all. Why the 121 brake system failed and blocked the brakes from even working at all. Carriers started to replace the systems with standard braking systems less than 6 months later. Also do not believe those that say capacity is larger than needed. We here are running at full capacity and have been even through the so called trade war. Yes certain areas have slowed down the Automotive carriers got hit by the GM strike a bit however we are seeing an uptick in demand since USMCA was passed here in the States plus an uptick since China and the USA signed that phase 1 deal.
The carriers that collasped last year for the most part where being run by Vulture Capitalists except for Celadon which had been cooking their books for years and got caught in 2015 and they are still under lawsuits by multiple parties. NEMF and the other LTL places where being hamstrung by Labor issues aka the Teamsters that still think it takes 10 drivers to move a load 1000 miles. Yeah they are that bad at times. Then throw in lack of flexiblity in the HOS and it was a perfect storm that caught several other smaller places. Those that had been running Elogs prior to the change mandate were already used to them. Those that had not made the switch are the ones having issues.
At least I made you laugh!
SD70Dude Shadow the Cats owner We have some people come in here complain that we do not provide a Xbox in the truck for them. Yeah it is getting that bad anymore. But I thought self-driving trucks were going to save the day
Shadow the Cats owner We have some people come in here complain that we do not provide a Xbox in the truck for them. Yeah it is getting that bad anymore.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
TO "Shadow's OWNER"...I read your previous post!
My one thought was "...I am so glad that I was able to retire from Dispatch{JIT,etc} and Trucking{22 yrs OTR} in 2002..."
'Way back when'...It was getting crazier and crazier, even almost 20 years ago...Dispatch the, was almost insane!
Drivers who could, or would, not read their maps {Company supplied Rand-McNally. A new Trucker's Edition Map to each driver at Orientation; Every truck had an installed alarm clock { assistance with delivery time on JIT Loads}, and Qualcom in each truck.... Not to mention, we had at least a half dozen drivers whos job was to go out and' recover' abandoned equipment, and loads... AND That was before "SwiftTrans" bought us out! ...
You Betcha! My hat is off to you, and your bosses! To operate in this "NEW" environment- Federal H.O.S rules and logging...
"Heck of a way to run a railroad!" ...
That's fine if you have a choice to buy a product or service or not buy it. When government tells you that you must buy it, the company can charge as much as they want unless there is regulation or effective competition.
No self drive trucks yet, but we have the next best thing... easy to drive trucks. Trucks so easy to drive that if you can drive a pickup you're 75% of the way there.
Actually no Ulrich your not even close when it comes to the braking systems alone along with the coupling systems for the trailers load securement requirements if hauling flatbed or hazmat regulations that alone will drive you insane. There is a huge difference between an airbrake system over a hydraulic or electric brake system especially when it comes to reaction times and stopping distance. It can take over 100 feet for the brakes on an OTR truck to even fully apply at 70 MPH. We consider ourselves lucky to stop in 500 feet. Most modern pickups even with a full load in the bed can do that in under 200. Even with 5 axles of disc brakes the best we can do is 450 feet from 70 fully loaded and longer if empty why more if empty the truck loses traction and the ABS kicks in.
And therein lies the problem - drivers who get into a semi and think they're still driving a pick-up.
We had some of that back when the fire service first started changing over to automatic transmissions. Now it's hard to buy a fire truck with a standard.
I'm comparing trucks and required skills today compared to what was required 20 or 30 years ago. Today's equipment is much easier to operate..(I've got experience on both and most everything in between). From that standpoint technology has helped to alleviate the driver shortage. Moreover, 30 years ago hearing loss and back problems were a given.. not anymore.. everything better now..due to these changes the profession is now more open to people who aren't mechanically inclined not to mention women.
Not many people today get into a semi thinking its a pickup. The training is much better today too. My own training in 1979 consisted of the following words: "swing wide and don't hit nothin" end of training, and I picked it up from there. Can't get away with that anymore! Things are way better today.. can't even compare it although some of the old timers with no hearing and back problems will dig in their heels and disagree.
As for autonomous trucks.. they're coming.. give it five years.. 10 years max.
I think Ulrich knows something about trucking, enough so as to not be so abruptly dismissed.
Sorry very bad day here personally. Why I just found out that a niece of mine is being abused by her brother and has been for years and instead of being helped by her parents they instead thought she was lying and making it up. It literally took her trying to commit suicide for anyone to pay attention to her. Now she is finally getting the help she needs. Not the news I needed to get today at work. This girl has been thru hell over the last few years and her parents thought she was making it up. Instead they are now under investigation for child abuse and her brothers are possibly looking at prison for abuse.
Ulrich I'm comparing trucks and required skills today compared to what was required 20 or 30 years ago. Today's equipment is much easier to operate..(I've got experience on both and most everything in between). From that standpoint technology has helped to alleviate the driver shortage. Moreover, 30 years ago hearing loss and back problems were a given.. not anymore.. everything better now..due to these changes the profession is now more open to people who aren't mechanically inclined not to mention women. Not many people today get into a semi thinking its a pickup. The training is much better today too. My own training in 1979 consisted of the following words: "swing wide and don't hit nothin" end of training, and I picked it up from there. Can't get away with that anymore! Things are way better today.. can't even compare it although some of the old timers with no hearing and back problems will dig in their heels and disagree. "As for autonomous trucks.. they're coming.. give it five years.. 10 years max. "
"As for autonomous trucks.. they're coming.. give it five years.. 10 years max. "
First: Ulrich... As toyour first OTR training, mine was similar. In 1961 I was asked if I wanted a job, driving a truck? My experience at that time was mainly, military duce and a half in USMC( R)... So what did I know? I said "SURE!".. I was hired on the spot...My first truck was a B-61 Mack(no sleeper) witrh a very long wheelbase, and a quadraplex trans. My first load was a load of rough lumber to a town in central Mississippi, about 250 miles. Concrete pipe back. By the time I got back, I finally figured out how to shift it and not run over signs on corners. Training then? It was pat' em on the bottom, and throw 'em to the wolves.
As to the statement about autonomous trucks....I am not sure the world is quite ready for AI and trucking? ... IF it happens, I just hope we can all aford the Insurance Premiums....
Better training today? What about the Humboldt Broncos.?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/world/canada/humboldt-hockey-team-bus-crash.html
Gents, I've had two New York Times linked articles today that I couldn't see as I'm not an on-line subscriber. I'm not PO'd about it by any means, but a word to the wise, the Times isn't giving it away, at least not to me, probably others as well.
Back to autonomous trucks, and cars for that matter. Another poster in the know said a year or so ago DON'T believe what the techno-geeks are telling you, 100% reliability is a long, long way off on those things. It's not going to happen anytime soon.
You'll probably see more use of autonomous trains long before then, and I'm not crazy about those either, depending on where they're used. Way out in a howling wilderness with no "civilians" around, maybe. In populated areas, I'm not so sure.
Sorry about that Wayne.
Try this:
https://globalnews.ca/video/4903850/humboldt-broncos-crash-what-the-rcmp-forensics-team-found
Flintlock76Back to autonomous trucks, and cars for that matter. Another poster in the know said a year or so ago DON'T believe what the techno-geeks are telling you, 100% reliability is a long, long way off on those things. It's not going to happen anytime soon.
I think we'll see it quicker than we think. Can't complain about a lack of decent drivers on one hand, then dismiss pending automation on the other. Maybe not door-door, but at least on interstates.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Shadow the Cats owner I have drivers now in their 20's that complain if they have to run over 2500 miles a week. My husband was screaming bloody murder at his dispatcher in the 90's if he had less than 3K miles a week on his paycheck. My hubby today even with these current HOS regualtions would run rings around most of the current guys.
I am very pleased that you chose to chime in on this thread, you have provided much needed practical insight.
With regard to the portion of your post that I have copied above, would you please elaborate on what your fleet-wide daily average is for miles?
I'm trying to qualify your comment in the context if it really is the miles of driving that bothers them, or if it's the number of days per week they have to drive in order to fulfill those miles that bother's them?
Miningman Sorry about that Wayne. Try this: https://globalnews.ca/video/4903850/humboldt-broncos-crash-what-the-rcmp-forensics-team-found
Truly horriffic Vince, the trucker must have been asleep at the wheel, or something.
For a view of the general crazyness on the road have a look at a Facebook page I just found out about recently.
It's called "The Route 80 Rant Page," and it covers the section of US Route 80 in New Jersey from the Pennsylvania border to the George Washington Bridge. It's a little "primal scream therapy" for the commuters and others who use Route 80 on a daily basis. Those who have dash-cams, both drivers and truckers, post videos of the wacky stuff they see all too often.
Some of this is hysterically funny, some tragic, some will have you shaking your head in disbelief. And the question is, just how is an autonomous anything supposed to deal with this?
Be warned before you click, there's some VERY ROUGH LANGUAGE used by some of the participants! If you ever watched "The Sopranos" you get the idea, so if you're offended by the same don't go to the "Rant Page."
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1959587334362143/
Miningman Better training today? What about the Humboldt Broncos.? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/world/canada/humboldt-hockey-team-bus-crash.html
He ran a stop sign. Lack of training? Poor training? I don't think so. Surely he knew what a stop sign is.. surely he knew what a brake pedal is. Bringing the truck to a stop would have required him to a) place his right foot over the brake pedal and b) apply downward pressure to the pedal. We need a course for that? Then perhaps we need a course called STOP 101 too.. a 20 hour course about stop signs and what they mean. The accident was due to driver lack of care and attention, not lack of skills and training.
Last year I can tell you this much we did over 250 trucks per our Ifta this is a combined with our tanker and van fleets right at 38 million miles for the year. I am going off our IFTA reports for the year. Some drivers did more some less of course but that was the total for the fleet. That comes out to just over 416 miles a day for the entire fleet. Now remember we have several teams that are running a dedicated run to and from SLC to the midwest.
zugmann Flintlock76 Back to autonomous trucks, and cars for that matter. Another poster in the know said a year or so ago DON'T believe what the techno-geeks are telling you, 100% reliability is a long, long way off on those things. It's not going to happen anytime soon. I think we'll see it quicker than we think. Can't complain about a lack of decent drivers on one hand, then dismiss pending automation on the other. Maybe not door-door, but at least on interstates.
Flintlock76 Back to autonomous trucks, and cars for that matter. Another poster in the know said a year or so ago DON'T believe what the techno-geeks are telling you, 100% reliability is a long, long way off on those things. It's not going to happen anytime soon.
And even if car drivers swoon over self-driving cars, they are bound to worry about self-driving trucks because truck crashes pose greater risk of damage. Before either self-driving trucks or cars are instituted, there will have to be a massive upgrade to the road infrastucture. We will need smart roads with millions of sensors to talk to the self-driving vehicles. Also bear in mind that with self-driving vehicles, will come the mandate to use them. The option of human driving will have to be taken away. So the necessary rapid conversion will pose a problem just like ECP brakes requireing an overnight coversion of the entire North American rolling stock fleet.
But self-driving trains are right around the bend, and will be coming our way easily within a decade. Unlike cars and trucks, self-driving trains can be installed incrementally, starting with the easiest applications. There is no need for an all or nothing conversion. Human operated trains in some applications will probably continue indefinitely. What automatic trains need most are applications of pure running and no work along the way. So the technolgy for trains will begin an evolution of development that transform the entire physical plant into an automatic operation. Some switching will be automated, but a lot of it will be replaced by more specialized fixed consists and fewer loose cars.
Elon Musk is a genius, a modern day da Vinci and then some. Given what he's achieved so far (and he's not even 50 yet) I wouldn't bet against him on self drving vehicles and the colonization of Mars.
Euclid The option of human driving will have to be taken away. So the necessary rapid conversion will pose a problem just like ECP brakes requireing an overnight coversion of the entire North American rolling stock fleet.
The option of human driving will have to be taken away. So the necessary rapid conversion will pose a problem just like ECP brakes requireing an overnight coversion of the entire North American rolling stock fleet.
I took a self driving Lyft down the Strip the last time I was in Las Vegas. There were still plenty of human driven cars around us. It worked just fine.
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/lyft-aptiv-self-driving-car-50k-rides/
An "expensive model collector"
Euclid said the magic word, sensors.
Take it from one who had to deal with them for thirty years, path sensors, drum potential sensors, density sensors, size sensors, temerature sensors, you name it, if you don't keep 'em clean they don't work.
Imagine what's going to happen when car-mounted sensors needed for self-driving vehicles start to gunk up from road grime, dust, mud, road salt residue and other nasties if the vehicles owner doesn't clean them on a regular basis.
And if there's thousands, if not millions of roadside sensors installed, who's going to keep them clean? Has that been figured into the equation?
Technology is an amazing thing, but it's not the panacea people want it to be, not 100% of the time.
The closest thing we've ever had to a self-driving vehicle that worked was the horse-drawn carriage. The road carnage began when drivers didn't have a horse to help them with the thinking.
I have some tire pressure sensors on my Ford truck that have NEVER worked properly. The mechanics tell me to ignore the warning.
"The closest thing we've ever had to a self-driving vehicle that worked was the horse-drawn carriage. The road carnage began when drivers didn't have a horse to help them with the thinking."
Well said, Wayne!
Johnny
Thanks Johhny!
Although, the one problem with a horse is you can't shut it off, you can only put it in "neutral." Of course, then it's idling and still generating "exhaust."
Wayne
Interestingly enough, 'sensor integrity' -- including how the devices degrade, gracefully or otherwise, and how to keep them reliably 'sensing' under dirty and damaging conditions, has been of high interest since before the original 'automatic highway' research in the late 1940s. One of the reasons to keep RF 'in the mix' when THz and lidar are more 'capable' is precisely the effect of "contamination" in various ways on light transmission. The 'default' is that the vehicle will not enter full autonomous mode if 'too much' of the massive redundancy is not present, or that it shuts off autonomy and goes to safe shutdown 'while it still can' if the going gets too tough. In a great many of the hypothetical cases human drivers would be having objective safety issues before autonomous vehicles actually would...
Flintlock76Take it from one who had to deal with them for thirty years, path sensors, drum potential sensors, density sensors, size sensors, temerature sensors, you name it, if you don't keep 'em clean they don't work.
For reinforcement of your point, come on up to the north country, where a wind driven (and we're not talking gale force - 5-10 MPH will do it) will easily paste wet snow on road signs as it is, rendering them unreadable. And we have the people who can't be bothered to clean off their entire windshield, much less the rest of the windows, roof, etc. They probably won't keep the sensors cleared of snow, either.
And, of course, there's all that road salt and sand that gets spread on the roads...
GM did some work with self driving cars back in the 1960's - I saw it demonstrated at an open house at GM's Milford Proving Grounds. The key component was a wire buried in the pavement, which a bumper-mounted sensor followed.
For that matter, the big model layout in Munich uses autonomous vehicles which follow a wire in the roads. They are not completely captive to one wire, as the vehicles are reportedly smart enough to drive to a charging area when their battery gets low.
Of course, the cost of such an installation would be astronomical, even if it was gradually brought out (ie, start with the Interstates). And, if these self-driving systems adhere to the posted speed limits, speeding ticket revenue will drop to zero...
Ulrich Elon Musk is a genius, a modern day da Vinci and then some. Given what he's achieved so far (and he's not even 50 yet) I wouldn't bet against him on self drving vehicles and the colonization of Mars.
Flintlock76 Imagine what's going to happen when car-mounted sensors needed for self-driving vehicles start to gunk up from road grime, dust, mud, road salt residue and other nasties if the vehicles owner doesn't clean them on a regular basis.
In a car it would be no big deal. When the car detects it has a dirty sensor, it kicks itself out of automatic mode, and makes the driver take over. My car has adaptive cruise control, that allows the car to brake and keep up with traffic without my imput. If one of the sensors is too dirty, it will not allow me to ingage it, and will give me a warning on the dashboard. Really isn't a big deal.
n012944 Flintlock76 Imagine what's going to happen when car-mounted sensors needed for self-driving vehicles start to gunk up from road grime, dust, mud, road salt residue and other nasties if the vehicles owner doesn't clean them on a regular basis. In a car it would be no big deal. When the car detects it has a dirty sensor, it kicks itself out of automatic mode, and makes the driver take over. My car has adaptive cruise control, that allows the car to brake and keep up with traffic without my imput. If one of the sensors is too dirty, it will not allow me to ingage it, and will give me a warning on the dashboard. Really isn't a big deal.
Screw adaptive cruise control. I control when it is on or off.
CSSHEGEWISCH Ulrich Elon Musk is a genius, a modern day da Vinci and then some. Given what he's achieved so far (and he's not even 50 yet) I wouldn't bet against him on self drving vehicles and the colonization of Mars. I would not be that generous. Consider how he treats people who disagree with him (see the cave rescue in Thailand) or won't let him do as he pleases (the SEC)
I agree. The guy is a jerk. History may wind up being kind to him; we shall see; but to me he has the look of someone who's going to crash and burn.
BaltACD n012944 Flintlock76 Imagine what's going to happen when car-mounted sensors needed for self-driving vehicles start to gunk up from road grime, dust, mud, road salt residue and other nasties if the vehicles owner doesn't clean them on a regular basis. In a car it would be no big deal. When the car detects it has a dirty sensor, it kicks itself out of automatic mode, and makes the driver take over. My car has adaptive cruise control, that allows the car to brake and keep up with traffic without my imput. If one of the sensors is too dirty, it will not allow me to ingage it, and will give me a warning on the dashboard. Really isn't a big deal. Screw adaptive cruise control. I control when it is on or off.
Good for you. My guess is you have not used it.
Lithonia Operator CSSHEGEWISCH Ulrich Elon Musk is a genius, a modern day da Vinci and then some. Given what he's achieved so far (and he's not even 50 yet) I wouldn't bet against him on self drving vehicles and the colonization of Mars. I would not be that generous. Consider how he treats people who disagree with him (see the cave rescue in Thailand) or won't let him do as he pleases (the SEC) I agree. The guy is a jerk. History may wind up being kind to him; we shall see; but to me he has the look of someone who's going to crash and burn.
From what I've read he is a jerk..and an arrogant overbearing nanomanager.. BUT.. he's a genius nontheless.
Shadow the Cats owner That comes out to just over 416 miles a day for the entire fleet
Okay, thanks! That provides a little perspective.
Don't get me wrong, I am frequently appalled by the lack of work ethic apparent in most new hires I've worked with over the past 15 years, and it seems to be getting worse. (non-transportation work).
But to me personally (non-commercial), driving 800+ miles a day on interstate hiways never seemed like too much of a chore, so I was just curious if your youngsters were butting heads with HOS limits that were pushing them into 7 day weeks. Thinking perhaps the time, and not the toil was the lions share of their gripe.
Interesting what you mentioned "C-O," about the "...lack of a work ethic."
I was reading an industrial magazine several years ago, and there was a letter to the editor from a plant manger who stated the problem he had with many new hires wasn't that they didn't want to work, they didn't know how to work! So before he could train them on the various jobs he had to train them on the basics, time management, working efficiently, and blending working hard and working smart. "Where's the fault?" he asked. Where indeed?
Flintlock76Interesting what you mentioned "C-O," about the "...lack of a work ethic." I was reading an industrial magazine several years ago, and there was a letter to the editor from a plant manger who stated the problem he had with many new hires wasn't that they didn't want to work, they didn't know how to work! So before he could train them on the various jobs he had to train them on the basics, time management, working efficiently, and blending working hard and working smart. "Where's the fault?" he asked. Where indeed?
And then you have management types that can't tell the difference between working smart and working hard - when you are working smart you aren't expending as much energy and time as those that are working dumb.
Where do the management types learn to manage? Where indeed?
The beatings will continue until moral improves.
A speaker (a fire chief for a large department) at a fire conference last year told us that he's now getting recruits who have effectively never heard the word "no." A local teacher told me the same thing.
From that we can perhaps extrapolate that mom and dad never tell Junior that "no, he can't play his game, that he has to rake/mow/what-have-you." Can't have Junior hating us because we made him take out the trash! We have to be his friend...
Come to think of it, there's been another casualty of the digital revolution. When I was young, I had a paper route. Up every morning at oh-dark-thirty to deliver the morning edition. Nowadays, our local paper doesn't even publish on Monday, and pretty much everything in the printed paper the rest of the week (except maybe the coupons...) is available on-line.
When we do hire the newest generation how we break them into the need to work hard is very simple they are sent with a trainer for 3 months. For the first month the trainee does 100 percent of the driving and we watch how far the loads are scheduled to make sure they can get there on time. Then the 2nd month we start to run them farther and the trainer starts to drive about 33% of the time. Then the last month the first part of the month they are doing the 66-33% split and then the 3 weeks if possible or last 2 weeks minimum they are running a team schedule. If they make it thru the first month normally they make it. When we do hire new trainees we expect to lose 20-30 percent of them. Why they can not handle the needs of the job. Yet those that make it become some of the best drivers I have ever seen. Who created this program that we put in a couple years ago. I can honestly say it was my husband. He approached my now boss when he was operations manager and said you need to toughen up the newest crop of drivers. So the now owner asked how to do it. My hubby laid out a 3 month training schedule that would teach the newest drivers what it means to be an OTR driver in today's world. Those that have made it thru the program thank me personally for having such a bright husband that showed them how to make this work. They know that this is a hard job but it pays well. Heck I just hired a 20 year vet of the industry. The first thing he asked me if I was married to my husband. When I said yes he was like he trained ME 20 years ago and to this day he made me into what I am. He was one of the rare direct hires into our hazmat tanker fleet normally we hire from within.
BaltACD Flintlock76 Interesting what you mentioned "C-O," about the "...lack of a work ethic." I was reading an industrial magazine several years ago, and there was a letter to the editor from a plant manger who stated the problem he had with many new hires wasn't that they didn't want to work, they didn't know how to work! So before he could train them on the various jobs he had to train them on the basics, time management, working efficiently, and blending working hard and working smart. "Where's the fault?" he asked. Where indeed? And then you have management types that can't tell the difference between working smart and working hard - when you are working smart you aren't expending as much energy and time as those that are working dumb. Where do the management types learn to manage? Where indeed? The beatings will continue until moral improves.
Flintlock76 Interesting what you mentioned "C-O," about the "...lack of a work ethic." I was reading an industrial magazine several years ago, and there was a letter to the editor from a plant manger who stated the problem he had with many new hires wasn't that they didn't want to work, they didn't know how to work! So before he could train them on the various jobs he had to train them on the basics, time management, working efficiently, and blending working hard and working smart. "Where's the fault?" he asked. Where indeed?
The only management/leadership school in the world I'm aware of that works, at least 75% of the time, is the military. Nothing else comes close.
I have to say 75% of the time because let's face it, nothing's perfect.
In the civilian world, short of "up from the ranks" experience, with those above watching the outstanding performers all the way nothing else works. It can and has been done. A degree, an MBA, or any other kind of piece of paper is no guarantee of leadership, management, or even basic people skills.
In the business I just retired from the best overall managers, by that I mean overseeing all departments, came from the sales division. They knew people and how to deal with various types from their "in the trenches" first-hand experience. In the technical division tha I was in, all the managers started as technicians themselves, the knew the techs and knew the product.
There was a great "Dilbert" comic several years ago where one of the characters, Alice, asks a new manager how he came by the position. "I've got an MBA!" he says. Alice replies, "So, you got the manager's job just because you're good at math?"
You're joking in regard to the military, right? An examination of the pork in defense contracting would suggest otherwise.
Pork in defense contracting is another matter. I know it's real, and I know it exists, but that's the result of collaboration between defense contractors, politicians of both parties, and the (sometimes) involvement of the top brass. And remember, if you want to get multiple stars on your shoulders you have to be a bit of a politician and system-worker yourself. That's just the way it is. I don't like it, you don't like it, and rest assured most of the folks in uniform don't like it either.
When I speak about leadership I'm talking about leading "troops in the field" of all types, combat arms and supporting services.
And keep in mind, I did say the system wasn't perfect, it just works better than anything else.
And there are generals and admirals that their various services won't let anywhere near Washington DC! They're afraid those guys and gals may strangle a senator or congressman or two given the chance!
charlie hebdoYou're joking in regard to the military, right? An examination of the pork in defense contracting would suggest otherwise.
It all depends on what the aim of the military contract is and who is looking at it. From a cost perspective. From a employment perspective. From a profit perspective and a multitude of other perspectives.
greyhounds This is an article from the Wall Street Journal about how truckers' insurance rates are skyrocketing. It's behind a paywall. https://www.wsj.com/articles/surging-truck-insurance-rates-hit-freight-operators-1157893483 So possibly a trucker could save money by railing the load and reducing his/her own liability along with the insurance carrier's liability. (If the train has an incident it's on the railroad, not the trucker.) This should lead to lower insurance costs for the trucker. And truckers are in dire need of lower costs. Please don't tell me about "Geedy" insurance companies. I'm retired from Allstate and I know how insurance prices are set. It's a very competitive line of business and any company that gets "Greedy" will quickly loose its customers. And, another thing. On another site there was a picture of some Hub Group reefer containers. They were of the new high cube type made possible by a new Thermo King design. So Hub Group has joined the reefer parade. That's a big change. Hub Group was founded Phill Yeager, who, I was told, "Hated" reefers. He's with God now, and the acquisition of reefer containers by Hub is a good change. There's a whole lot of business out there to be gained by the railroads, so don't be all doom and gloom. We've got to see opportunities as much as we see problems.
This is an article from the Wall Street Journal about how truckers' insurance rates are skyrocketing. It's behind a paywall.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/surging-truck-insurance-rates-hit-freight-operators-1157893483
So possibly a trucker could save money by railing the load and reducing his/her own liability along with the insurance carrier's liability. (If the train has an incident it's on the railroad, not the trucker.) This should lead to lower insurance costs for the trucker. And truckers are in dire need of lower costs.
And, another thing.
On another site there was a picture of some Hub Group reefer containers. They were of the new high cube type made possible by a new Thermo King design. So Hub Group has joined the reefer parade. That's a big change. Hub Group was founded Phill Yeager, who, I was told, "Hated" reefers. He's with God now, and the acquisition of reefer containers by Hub is a good change. There's a whole lot of business out there to be gained by the railroads, so don't be all doom and gloom.
We've got to see opportunities as much as we see problems.
That last sentence says it all. There IS alot of opportunity out there.. lots of freight currently going down the road that could very easliy be converted to rail. Like Gretta Thunberg said.. and she's right.. climate change is real and the time to act was yesterday. In that context trucking for p&d and rail for the linehaul is a good model I think.
BaltACD charlie hebdo You're joking in regard to the military, right? An examination of the pork in defense contracting would suggest otherwise. It all depends on what the aim of the military contract is and who is looking at it. From a cost perspective. From a employment perspective. From a profit perspective and a multitude of other perspectives.
charlie hebdo You're joking in regard to the military, right? An examination of the pork in defense contracting would suggest otherwise.
From the perspectives of value, honesty and ethics, the military record is pretty dismal with regard to procurement contracts. Ike had it pegged: the Military Industrial Complex. He was going to add the Intelligence community and call it a corrupt triad, but decided to be cautious.
charlie hebdo BaltACD charlie hebdo You're joking in regard to the military, right? An examination of the pork in defense contracting would suggest otherwise. It all depends on what the aim of the military contract is and who is looking at it. From a cost perspective. From a employment perspective. From a profit perspective and a multitude of other perspectives. From the perspectives of value, honesty and ethics, the military record is pretty dismal with regard to procurement contracts. Ike had it pegged: the Military Industrial Complex. He was going to add the Intelligence community and call it a corrupt triad, but decided to be cautious.
Again, Flintlock is not talking about the upper levels of procurements and contracts and political wheeling and dealing. He's talking about the training of the rank and file. When I joined the army, I had a considerable knowledge of electronics through learning on my own, then two years of college electrical engineering (no degree). I feel that almost a year of training in radar and missle fire control in the army was probably the most valuable to me in later life.
I've mentioned this before, but around 1990-ish, I was talking to my branch manager who had had to let two new-hires go because of complaints from customers about arrogance and rudeness. He lamented the fact that he was having trouble finding competent people to hire and attributed it partly to the lack of the draft. Almost all of my co-workers had served in the military, and frankly, if it had not been for the draft, I never would have enlisted. I now consider it one of the best things I could have done. Many young people's only experience was something like a six-week diploma mill school, and they came out thinking they knew it all.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Thank you Paul, I really wasn't in the mood to spell it out.
And Charlie, I know you're a "Warbird" fan, (You were pretty PO'd at that great "Warbird" thread getting locked just as I was) so you know some pretty good stuff has come out of the "Military-Industrial Complex." They're not saints, by any means, none of us are, but they do get it right more often than not.
By the way, do you miss drooling over that Oshkosh Fly-In live feed as much as I do?
And just so everyone knows, I am not in favor of a re-institution of the draft, or any kind of coerced "public service." Not a topic for discussion here so that's all I'll say about it.
Flintlock76Interesting what you mentioned "C-O," about the "...lack of a work ethic."
I don't want to go off on a huge tangent, but "will to work" has been an achilles heel for the past several entry level positions we have filled.
I can train anybody who is being honest, and willing to follow directions.
Just keeping them away from their text buddies can be aggravating.
Hired one guy, and on his first day I told him smart phones while on the clock were not permissable. Through his first 4 days I watched him rack up at least 45 minutes during each 8 hour shift (outside of lunch and official breaks)
I kept giving him polite reminders, and they lasted only until the next time he believed he had me buffaloed, dodging into back rooms and the like. It was so obvious that I started following him each time he ducked out of sight, only to catch him red handed.
Finally I caught him one time and decided I had enough, and told him to take his phone out to his car and leave it there.
He quit the next day. Never even showed up.
These youngsters are bonded to those things.
Had another one, 19 years old. Had real problems with absenteeism and tardiness the first two weeks he was on the job. Fired him. His response? He asked "well how will I pay my bills then?"
As if I was supposed to care.
These are typical of what I've been seeing.
It was bad enough before smartphones were available when you had empoyees who liked to gab, especially when a like person came by. There was a time when the man responsible for receiving incoming raw material was one who would rather talk with other employees than tend to his responsibilities. His supervisor at last traded him with another supervisor who took care of chemicals and cylinder gases--these items were delivered by truck and he had to unload them and put them away when the trucks arrived.
When I was given the responsibilty for raw material, I was able to take care of other matters that I saw should be done after handling my primary responsibility.
DeggestyWhen I was given the responsibilty for raw material, I was able to take care of other matters that I saw should be done after handling my primary responsibility.
Seriusly though Deggesty, from the look of those whiskers, it's been many a moon since anyone called you "new hire"...lol
I suspect that you "came up" back when people still wanted to work.
Some times I get the feeling that these kids are playing me the same way they play their parents. They just haven't yet dealt with a world where they have to earn any respect they hope to gather.
SO, I guess I'm really doing many of them a favor, introducing them to the real world.
I'd say approx 1 in 5 of the entry level people we hire actually impress me as wanting to excell.
The good news being that the ineptness of the other 4 only reinforces my value to the organization.
Convicted One Flintlock76 Interesting what you mentioned "C-O," about the "...lack of a work ethic." I don't want to go off on a huge tangent, but "will to work" has been an achilles heel for the past several entry level positions we have filled. I can train anybody who is being honest, and willing to follow directions. Just keeping them away from their text buddies can be aggravating. Hired one guy, and on his first day I told him smart phones while on the clock were not permissable. Through his first 4 days I watched him rack up at least 45 minutes during each 8 hour shift (outside of lunch and official breaks) I kept giving him polite reminders, and they lasted only until the next time he believed he had me buffaloed, dodging into back rooms and the like. It was so obvious that I started following him each time he ducked out of sight, only to catch him red handed. Finally I caught him one time and decided I had enough, and told him to take his phone out to his car and leave it there. He quit the next day. Never even showed up. These youngsters are bonded to those things. Had another one, 19 years old. Had real problems with absenteeism and tardiness the first two weeks he was on the job. Fired him. His response? He asked "well how will I pay my bills then?" As if I was supposed to care. These are typical of what I've been seeing.
Flintlock76 Interesting what you mentioned "C-O," about the "...lack of a work ethic."
Quoting the One with Convictions "Seriusly though Deggesty, from the look of those whiskers, it's been many a moon since anyone called you "new hire"...lol" Yes, I lasted several years with the company--and was not asked to retire, though at one meeting the plant manager remarked that I hired on the year that the hospitals for people with impaired minds discharged many. I was given a party when I did retire.
By and large I don't have a problem with "Millenials." All those children out there dressed up like soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coasties are "Millenials," and they're doing a damn good job!
What goes around comes around you know. I remember the antics of the 1960's when some "Boomers" were doing crazy stuff in the streets and our elders thought the world was going to hell in a handbasket. Now who's the elders?
"OK, Boomer!"
Murphy Siding On a similar note- we hear all the bad rap about millenials. I've got one
Sure man,...some of my best friends are millenials.
I recognize that part of our problem is self inflicted, the people our owner hires tend to be the ones who will work for rock bottom, then he hands them to me and says "train 'em"......so we are not getting the best and brightest to begin with.
I think we might live in a time warp of sorts, as well. When our owner first entered the work force, $200/week was a lot of money. So now he's paying his entry level guys twice that, and he thinks he's handing them the keys to Ft Knox.
Luckily for me I retired 2 months ago, and just agreed to stay on part time for pocket money. So it's like having a hobby that pays.
Flintlock76 "OK, Boomer!"
Flintlock76What goes around comes around you know. I remember the antics of the 1960's when some "Boomers" were doing crazy stuff in the streets and our elders thought the world was going to hell in a handbasket. Now who's the elders?
What you say certainly resonates with me. Relative to the experiences we have with new hires, I often think of how people have (allegedly) bemoaned the decline between generations since the days of ancient Greece.
Could this all be just a matter of perception? It's hard for me to imagine that, because at least when I first entered the work force, I cared, I wanted to learn the needed skills, I wanted to be a valuable asset..etc etc.
I believe for myself that I judge a good work day by the value of product going out the door....but these kids just seem oblivious to any link that productivity is what enables them to be paid. To them a good day means last till 5:00 before hitting the time card.
Do you think that it's possible that we judge the entire generation based upon only the worst examples, and this has been going on for thousands of years?
So this could all be a "Marcus Aurelius" type thing?
I'd say absolutely, we all too often judge a whole generation based on the worst examples, but after all, it's the worst examples who always seem to stand out more and get most of the publicity.
I certainly laugh at some of the antics of some Millenials, and shake my head at others, but one thing I learned in the service was don't judge a group by the actions of a few. Human nature being what it is each group has it's outstanding performers and it's losers. That's how it is and how it's always been.
Speaking of judging generations, three co-workers come to mind that had about 20 years seniority on me that were practically worthless. It's not that they didn't know, but they just didn't care.
One case really stands out in my mind. I drove about 230 miles to help on a problem. The problem was just minor things that were routine maintenance. I pointed out what was needed and listed the parts to order. A couple of weeks later, I was told that he was still having problems, and I drove back to help. When I got there, he took me to a wall locker and said, "Here are the parts you ordered." The company back then was kind of like family in its loyalty to old-timers.
Paul, did you let him live?
Seriously, I had the same issue with another technician a few years back. I live in Richmond, he covered the Frederickburg area, about 60 mile to the north of us. My manager told me he was having problems keeping up with his copier repairs and could I head north and take some machines off his hands? "Certainly!" says I.
Well no damn wonder he was having problems! His machines were filthy and badly in need of critical parts replacements, and according to the service logs he'd only been there a day or two previously! On all of them!
I took care of four copiers, got them running smoothly, then called my manager. "Danny, I've done here, I might as well come home."
"This soon? It's no-where near 5:00."
"I'm wiped out of parts!"
"WHAT?"
"I'll talk to you about it when I get to the shop. I'll see you in about an hour and a half."
Turns out others had the same problem with him. He was gone in about a year, the boss just couldn't straighten him out. And he'd been on the job a good ten years!
Paul of CovingtonThe company back then was kind of like family in its loyalty to old-timers.
It's interesting to weigh what you mention here in contrast to the stories one hears where companies abandon institutional knowledge through forced retirement and early severance packages.
Flintlock, we could probably go on all day trading stories like this.
Convicted, things sure changed in later years. We got tired of working while looking over our shoulders. I always had the impression management wanted to get rid of us and replace us with new-hires at minimum wage.
I've been off the payroll for 23-1/2 years, but I'd like to chime in as follows:
1. My military service has been more important to me in both work and living in the USa and to my survival as a sane productive human being in Israel even more than MIT.
2. I would ask the question, are not some of the problems with new hires absent with new hires that are veterans of military service? So, should not wise management make every effort to hire veterans?
Having thought further about the process through which Greyhounds states that insurance cost savings will eventualize, I have to say that I have serious doubts that material savings will be passed back to the customer. At least not the small guys.
More loads traveling by rail will mean a reduced volume of rubber tire traffic. Since constant growth is a fundemental requirement for prosperity in a capitalist system, the decline in rubber tire traffic will, despite the commensurate dip in claims, move the Geedy insurance company to protect it's Geedy stockholders by not returning those savings to their customers.
If anything at all, they will excuse this decision as a convoluted strategy whereby they will not have to raise premiums as soon or as much in the future.
"Cynical me",...I know.
daveklepper I've been off the payroll for 23-1/2 years, but I'd like to chime in as follows: 1. My military service has been more important to me in both work and living in the USa and to my survival as a sane productive human being in Israel even more than MIT. 2. I would ask the question, are not some of the problems with new hires absent with new hires that are veterans of military service? So, should not wise management make every effort to hire veterans?
I'd have to say being a veteran certainly opened doors for me, and it still opens doors for others. Employers, in my experience anyway, like to hire veterans as they're a "known quantity," that is graduates of a stern school that in this era of the all volunteer military no-one makes them enter. They have the work ethic and the spirit of teamwork, plus as I've said earlier the experience of the best leadership school around.
Convicted One Having thought further about the process through which Greyhounds states that insurance cost savings will eventualize, I have to say that I have serious doubts that material savings will be passed back to the customer. At least not the small guys. More loads traveling by rail will mean a reduced volume of rubber tire traffic. Since constant growth is a fundemental requirement for prosperity in a capitalist system, the decline in rubber tire traffic will, despite the commensurate dip in claims, move the Geedy insurance company to protect it's Geedy stockholders by not returning those savings to their customers. If anything at all, they will excuse this decision as a convoluted strategy whereby they will not have to raise premiums as soon or as much in the future. "Cynical me",...I know.
greyhounds This is an article from the Wall Street Journal about how truckers' insurance rates are skyrocketing. It's behind a paywall. https://www.wsj.com/articles/surging-truck-insurance-rates-hit-freight-operators-1157893483 So possibly a trucker could save money by railing the load and reducing his/her own liability along with the insurance carrier's liability. (If the train has an incident it's on the railroad, not the trucker.) This should lead to lower insurance costs for the trucker. And truckers are in dire need of lower costs. Please don't tell me about "Greedy" insurance companies. I'm retired from Allstate and I know how insurance prices are set. It's a very competitive line of business and any company that gets "Greedy" will quickly loose its customers. .
Please don't tell me about "Greedy" insurance companies. I'm retired from Allstate and I know how insurance prices are set. It's a very competitive line of business and any company that gets "Greedy" will quickly loose its customers. .
Murphy Siding Does Berkshire Hathaway own any insurance companies?
Warren Buffett owned GEICO at one time, not sure if he still does
Murphy Siding What you're suggesting only works if the insurance company has no competition. Insurance companies have to compete for the business just like (most) everyone else.
Sure, just like the oil companies right? Any kink anywhere in the system motivates them all to raise their prices.
Convicted One Murphy Siding What you're suggesting only works if the insurance company has no competition. Insurance companies have to compete for the business just like (most) everyone else. Sure, just like the oil companies right? Any kink anywhere in the system motivates them all to raise their prices.
Pshaw!
This a wierd contention that when a demand goes down (less risks to cover), the price will increase. I think such a contention probably results from an ideology that causes an out right rejection of reality.
There is no possible gain from the use of logic and reason. CO's mind is locked and facts won't make a dent.
I've got some experience and knowledge of insurance pricing. If the risks/claims go down (resulting from using rail instead of over the road) competition within the insurance industry will cause the premiums to go down. And again, it's common in the insurance industry to have non profit mutual pools. So any for profit company has to be competitive with such pools.
But that won't fit CO's ideology, so he just ignores such things.
greyhounds Convicted One Having thought further about the process through which Greyhounds states that insurance cost savings will eventualize, I have to say that I have serious doubts that material savings will be passed back to the customer. At least not the small guys. More loads traveling by rail will mean a reduced volume of rubber tire traffic. Since constant growth is a fundemental requirement for prosperity in a capitalist system, the decline in rubber tire traffic will, despite the commensurate dip in claims, move the Geedy insurance company to protect it's Geedy stockholders by not returning those savings to their customers. If anything at all, they will excuse this decision as a convoluted strategy whereby they will not have to raise premiums as soon or as much in the future. "Cynical me",...I know. Pshaw! This a wierd contention that when a demand goes down (less risks to cover), the price will increase. I think such a contention probably results from an ideology that causes an out right rejection of reality. There is no possible gain from the use of logic and reason. CO's mind is locked and facts won't make a dent. I've got some experience and knowledge of insurance pricing. If the risks/claims go down (resulting from using rail instead of over the road) competition within the insurance industry will cause the premiums to go down. And again, it's common in the insurance industry to have non profit mutual pools. So any for profit company has to be competitive with such pools. But that won't fit CO's ideology, so he just ignores such things.
All of which presumes that there is no collusion among the players.
Dave, I remember reading in a magazine article about employment opportunities where they interviewed high level people in tech companies that the company I worked for said that they had very good results hiring people with military experience. The trouble in later years is that there is not the large pool available since the draft was discontinued. I'm not saying that I think the draft should be reinstituted, but there was a favorable side to it. For instance, many youngsters learned to get along with others from different areas and backgrounds, and they learned respect for authority.
BaltACD All of which presumes that there is no collusion among the players.
Actually, it presumes no such thing. In the first place, such collusion would be in violation of the law. I've never met anyone who was willing to go to prison for the company. Like anything, pricing collusion does happen. And the people who do it get nailed to the wall. (A recent case involved canned tuna.) There are 51+ attorney generals and generally they'd all like to make a name for themselves by nailing a price fixing scheme. We were regularly trained on not doing it. It isn't worth it either for the company or the people involved.
In an industry as diverse and competitive as insurance it would be impossible. In addition to the legal ramifications, there is no need for "No Collusion." It would only take one, just one, insurance company to act in its own best interest (people tend to do that) and try to grab the business by offering a lowered price. That would break the fictitious cartel. There would have to be "Complete and Utter Collusion" and that is not possible.
The railroads tried cartels. They just didn't work. Until the stupid government got involved and gave them the force of law.
I see you as looking for villains instead of understanding and knowledge. Go over there with CO.
Murphy Siding Insurance, I believe, is on a little different level because it's always seemed somewhat mysterious and intangible for most people
When you see Warren Buffett using BNSF to leverage Geico's premiums lower in order that they can write more policies, you be sure and get ahold of me.
greyhoundsBut that won't fit CO's ideology, so he just ignores such things.
Thanks for crediting me with having an ideology! Most people are not near as charitable.
greyhounds BaltACD All of which presumes that there is no collusion among the players. Actually, it presumes no such thing. In the first place, such collusion would be in violation of the law. I've never met anyone who was willing to go to prison for the company. Like anything, pricing collusion does happen. And the people who do it get nailed to the wall. (A recent case involved canned tuna.) There are 51+ attorney generals and generally they'd all like to make a name for themselves by nailing a price fixing scheme. We were regularly trained on not doing it. It isn't worth it either for the company or the people involved. In an industry as diverse and competitive as insurance it would be impossible. In addition to the legal ramifications, there is no need for "No Collusion." It would only take one, just one, insurance company to act in its own best interest (people tend to do that) and try to grab the business by offering a lowered price. That would break the fictitious cartel. There would have to be "Complete and Utter Collusion" and that is not possible. The railroads tried cartels. They just didn't work. Until the stupid government got involved and gave them the force of law. I see you as looking for villains instead of understanding and knowledge. Go over there with CO.
To paraphrase Captain Renault: "Collusion? I'm shocked to hear anyone suggest that collusion might be going on in the insurance industry."
Murphy Siding Insurance, I believe, is on a little different level because it's always seemed somewhat mysterious and intangible for most people.
Ahh! You must mean like when my agent threatened to not renew my auto policy if I failed to keep my homeowners insurance with him as well?
Those insurance companies, salt of the earth I tell ya! ALWAYS put the well being of their customers ahead of profit motive.
charlie hebdo greyhounds BaltACD All of which presumes that there is no collusion among the players. Actually, it presumes no such thing. In the first place, such collusion would be in violation of the law. I've never met anyone who was willing to go to prison for the company. Like anything, pricing collusion does happen. And the people who do it get nailed to the wall. (A recent case involved canned tuna.) There are 51+ attorney generals and generally they'd all like to make a name for themselves by nailing a price fixing scheme. We were regularly trained on not doing it. It isn't worth it either for the company or the people involved. In an industry as diverse and competitive as insurance it would be impossible. In addition to the legal ramifications, there is no need for "No Collusion." It would only take one, just one, insurance company to act in its own best interest (people tend to do that) and try to grab the business by offering a lowered price. That would break the fictitious cartel. There would have to be "Complete and Utter Collusion" and that is not possible. The railroads tried cartels. They just didn't work. Until the stupid government got involved and gave them the force of law. I see you as looking for villains instead of understanding and knowledge. Go over there with CO. To paraphrase Captain Renault: "Collusion? I'm shocked to hear anyone suggest that collusion might be going on in the insurance industry."
OK, don't learn economics from an old movie. Got that.
But, of course, it fits your own deranged ideology. You B the one who insists the government regulators had a valid reason for forcing rail container rates higher to non competitive levels in a depression to "Protect" truckers. You have zero evidence for this, but you insist upon it because, in your mind, government economic regulation cannot be wrong.
If you're going to claim illegal activity, have some evidence. Otherwise, you're just slinging mud.
Let's open this can: Every state in the U.S. has some type of insurance commission. These commissions regulate the companies, the prices, and the profits.
Some states regulate the companies very tightly, while others do very little regulation. Most states fall in the middle -- some regulation.
In 1945, the Congress ruled that states have the right to regulate insurance within the state, not the national government. This includes rates, coverage, and availability.
For example, if you have ever moved from one state to another, you know that you have to transfer car insurance, even if you are staying within the same company.
Insurance company rates and profits are regulated by your state. If you have an issue with your rates or coverage, talk to your legislator, not your agent.
greyhounds charlie hebdo greyhounds BaltACD All of which presumes that there is no collusion among the players. Actually, it presumes no such thing. In the first place, such collusion would be in violation of the law. I've never met anyone who was willing to go to prison for the company. Like anything, pricing collusion does happen. And the people who do it get nailed to the wall. (A recent case involved canned tuna.) There are 51+ attorney generals and generally they'd all like to make a name for themselves by nailing a price fixing scheme. We were regularly trained on not doing it. It isn't worth it either for the company or the people involved. In an industry as diverse and competitive as insurance it would be impossible. In addition to the legal ramifications, there is no need for "No Collusion." It would only take one, just one, insurance company to act in its own best interest (people tend to do that) and try to grab the business by offering a lowered price. That would break the fictitious cartel. There would have to be "Complete and Utter Collusion" and that is not possible. The railroads tried cartels. They just didn't work. Until the stupid government got involved and gave them the force of law. I see you as looking for villains instead of understanding and knowledge. Go over there with CO. To paraphrase Captain Renault: "Collusion? I'm shocked to hear anyone suggest that collusion might be going on in the insurance industry." OK, don't learn economics from an old movie. Got that. But, of course, it fits your own deranged ideology. You B the one who insists the government regulators had a valid reason for forcing rail container rates higher to non competitive levels in a depression to "Protect" truckers. You have zero evidence for this, but you insist upon it because, in your mind, government economic regulation cannot be wrong. If you're going to claim illegal activity, have some evidence. Otherwise, you're just slinging mud.
Let's see your "evidence" instead of a nasty attack. You have presented no evidence of a lack of collusion except your having previously worked for an insurance company. And really know your hobbyhorse is insisting "them pesky regulators done did the rails wrong."
As to state insurance regulatory commissions, many of those in leadership positions there previously worked in the insurance industry.
"Fox guarding the henhouse?"
charlie hebdoAs to state insurance regulatory commissions, many of those in leadership positions there previously worked in the insurance industry. "Fox guarding the henhouse?"
All the more reason to be in contact with legislators. Quit complaining to the ones making the money, and complain to the ones regulating the profits.
Convicted One Murphy Siding Insurance, I believe, is on a little different level because it's always seemed somewhat mysterious and intangible for most people When you see Warren Buffett using BNSF to leverage Geico's premiums lower in order that they can write more policies, you be sure and get ahold of me.
I have no doubt that some (or most? I dunno.) in the insurance industry might be playing games, being less than honest or colluding, what-have-you. All I'm saying is that they have competition just like every other industry. Going back to the original post, maybe someone in the truck insurance industry could work with a railroad to market the idea of more trucks on rails?
Murphy SidingI have no doubt that some (or most? I dunno.) in the insurance industry might be playing games, being less than honest or colluding, what-have-you. All I'm saying is that they have competition just like every other industry.
I completely agree.
In fact, the insurance companies have even more issues, because they cannot raise rates or cut coverage without the approval of the state.
How many other industries exist under those constraints?
Murphy SidingI take it you've never worked in sales?
To the contrary, I spent 15+ years leasing office space and industrial space in drastically overbuilt markets, where I not only had to "sell" our product to end users, but I frequently had to "sell" the building owner on deals that could be got, so I frequently was pinched in the middle.
I also spent 3 years managing a retail outlet,....
You have a point you wish to make?
I place insurance companies right up there with banks, doctors, and big pharma as far as caring about my financial well being.
Would you like to know how much it cost me to have a sinus infection diagnosed and prescribed recently? Despite plenty of competition, the marketplace appears suspiciously rigged.
From the TOP there is no longer integrity in the USA, so collusion and all the other business means to take advantage of the suckers is off an running.
I am a cynic.
Convicted OneI place insurance companies right up there with banks, doctors, and big pharma as far as caring about my financial well being. Would you like to know how much it cost me to have a sinus infection diagnosed and prescribed recently? Despite plenty of competition, the marketplace appears suspiciously rigged.
?
Does the company you bought your car from care about your financial well-being?
Does your Senator in Washington care about your financial well-being, except every six years?
Does your grocery store care about your financial well-being?
Why do you demand something of your doctor, your insurance agency, and your bank, that is not demanded of others with whom you deal?
BaltACDFrom the TOP there is no longer integrity in the USA
I seriously question if it was ever any other way. I more suspect that we are cultivated to be naive right up until we finally figure out the way things really work.
"It's a cookbook!!"..LOL
Flintlock76Imagine what's going to happen when car-mounted sensors needed for self-driving vehicles start to gunk up from road grime, dust, mud, road salt residue and other nasties if the vehicles owner doesn't clean them on a regular basis.
I just have sensors on my Mercedes ML 350 and they work fine with zero road sensors. They just look at the reflective road lines or reflectors some how. They do not work with no road markings. Pretty cool though the car will fight me for the steering if I attempt to cross the solid line at the edge of the road without using my blinker. The dashed lines I get a warning vibration to steering wheel if I cross those without a blinker, then a chime if I do it again. If the radio is on loud it automatically turns down the radio for the chime. Not exactly self driving yet but siimilar concept. It is reading the road markings somehow.
Only problem with all the Mercedes gizmos, adaptive cruise control, pre-brake, etc. It does not work in very heavy rain nor does it work in very remote areas. So I kind of think it uses satellite as well. You get a full dashboard fireworks display before the service cuts out though.
York1Why do you demand something of your doctor, your insurance agency, and your bank, that is not demanded of others with whom you deal?
MurphySiding was trying to portray insurance companies as having some kind of special quality that made them more ?accountable? for their conduct than others. I was simply trying to counter argue that point .
I trust big insurance to give me the best possible rate about as much as I trust Wells Fargo to build my portfolio, or Marathon Pharmaceuticals (makers of Emflaza) to care about my sniffles........perhaps blunt is better?
Sorry if I misunderstood your point.
My point is that insurance companies are not too blame, any more than any other company.
Your state's insurance commissioner, who was elected to regulate insurance company profits, is the one with whom you should be upset.
We don't have used car commissioners, or canned green beans commissioners, or...
York1 Sorry if I misunderstood your point. My point is that insurance companies are not too blame, any more than any other company. Your state's insurance commissioner, who was elected to regulate insurance company profits, is the one with whom you should be upset. We don't have used car commissioners, or canned green beans commissioners, or...
Check out the composition of state insurance regulatory boards. Mostly appointed. Many worked in the insurance Industry. We naively expect regulators to check the worst excesses of corporations but often they do what their former bosses want.
Convicted One York1 Why do you demand something of your doctor, your insurance agency, and your bank, that is not demanded of others with whom you deal? MurphySiding was trying to portray insurance companies as having some kind of special quality that made them more ?accountable? for their conduct than others. I was simply trying to counter argue that point . I trust big insurance to give me the best possible rate about as much as I trust Wells Fargo to build my portfolio, or Marathon Pharmaceuticals (makers of Emflaza) to care about my sniffles........perhaps blunt is better?
York1 Why do you demand something of your doctor, your insurance agency, and your bank, that is not demanded of others with whom you deal?
And doctors really should be able to diagnose an infection and prescribe antibiotics for less tham $750, and should be able to pull a metal splinter from my eyeball without a referal on top of a $1200 specialist fee
So why don't they? Is competition not the cure-all defect solution that some claim it to be.
charlie hebdo York1 Sorry if I misunderstood your point. My point is that insurance companies are not too blame, any more than any other company. Your state's insurance commissioner, who was elected to regulate insurance company profits, is the one with whom you should be upset. We don't have used car commissioners, or canned green beans commissioners, or... Check out the composition of state insurance regulatory boards. Mostly appointed. Many worked in the insurance Industry. We naively expect regulators to check the worst excesses of corporations but often they do what their former bosses want.
charlie hebdoWe naively expect regulators to check the worst excesses of corporations but often they do what their former bosses want.
Whose fault is that? The insurance companies?
Maybe people are getting what they deserve for electing insurance commissioners who don't do their jobs.
Convicted One And doctors really should be able to diagnose an infection and prescribe antibiotics for less tham $750, and should be able to pull a metal splinter from my eyeball without a referal on top of a $1200 specialist fee So why don't they? Is competition not the cure-all defect solution that some claim it to be.
Convicted OneAnd doctors really should be able to diagnose an infection and prescribe antibiotics for less tham $750, and should be able to pull a metal splinter from my eyeball without a referal on top of a $1200 specialist fee So why don't they? Is competition not the cure-all defect solution that some claim it to be.
Did your insurance pay that full amount? I'll bet not.
Almost every medical bill submitted to insurance companies or Medicare is readjusted to amounts allowable. Often that is less than half the original charge.
Murphy Sidingf Dr. Welby had simply pulled a metal splinter from your eyeball and it popped out and rolled accross the floor,
Why should I care what he does with the splinter after he pulls it out?
York1Did your insurance pay that full amount? I'll bet not
I pay the "shared responsibility" penalty on my income tax form.
York1 Convicted One And doctors really should be able to diagnose an infection and prescribe antibiotics for less tham $750, and should be able to pull a metal splinter from my eyeball without a referal on top of a $1200 specialist fee So why don't they? Is competition not the cure-all defect solution that some claim it to be. Did your insurance pay that full amount? I'll bet not. Almost every medical bill submitted to insurance companies or Medicare is readjusted to amounts allowable. Often that is less than half the origional charge.
Almost every medical bill submitted to insurance companies or Medicare is readjusted to amounts allowable. Often that is less than half the origional charge.
With the so called proviso that insurance pays 'reasonable and customary' amounts. I have YET to be charged by any care provider or any service or procedure the amount that is 'reasonable and customary'. The insurance company's 'reasonable and cusomary' is generally about 1/2 of what actually gets billed - no matter if the billing originates in a high or low cost area. Throw on top of it all a 'co-pay' amount. What a racket.
Convicted,
I'm asking this sincerely, and I have no wish to argue or condemn.
Why don't you have medical insurance? Do you fear an accident or a diagnosis that will bankrupt you?
BaltACD I have YET to be charged by any care provider or any service or procedure the amount that is 'reasonable and customary'. The insurance company's 'reasonable and cusomary' is generally about 1/2 of what actually gets billed - no matter if the billing originates in a high or low cost area.
Are you billed for the amount the provider overcharged? If you are, you need to talk to the provider.
Why do you insist on assuming they are all elected? I looked the websites for several. Some don't even list the top officials and on the several that do, they are appointees. Check a few states.
This is problem in many industries: FDA, the Fed, to name two. The worst case of collusion is the Pentagon, where procurement is mostly done by brass who go on to highly-paid positions with defense contractors.
York1Convicted, I'm asking this sincerely, and I have no wish to argue or condemn. Why don't you have medical insurance? Do you fear an accident or a diagnosis that will bankrupt you?
Boy, that's really a story outside the realm of this thead.
Let's just say that I never go to a doctor unless I'm really sick, and thankfully that doesn't happen very often. I've got a couple angles that I play to my advantage as well that effectively make my shared responsibility payment a fraction of what health coverage would cost. That's just the way it is.
Also, I figure that my outlay for premiums plus copay would exceed actual out of pocket expenses without coverage.
charlie hebdoWhy do you insist on assuming they are all elected? I looked the websites for several. Some don't even list the top officials and on the several that do, they are appointees. Check a few states.
This was my error. I mistakenly believed that since the Louisiana insurance commissioner is elected, most other states would be the same. Only 12 states have elected commissioners.
I checked, and it seems that in the states in which the insurance commissioners are not elected, the appointments are made by the executive branch.
I would guess that if enough people complained to the governor, he or she might appoint a more responsible commissioner.
Convicted OneLet's just say that I never go to a doctor unless I'm really sick, and thankfully that doesn't happen very often. I've got a couple angles that I play to my advantage as well that effectively make my shared responsibility payment a fraction of what health coverage would cost.
Thanks!
My dad had an expression thats relavant to this discussion.
"THERE IS NO UNSELFISH MOTIVE"
Meaning that even Mother Teresa got satisfaction from doing service for the poor. But too many businesses take selfish motives to extremes. Harah for my side and screw you. Or they push their employees to do more than is reasonable. Unions fight back. Employers push right to work rules to negate union power. The cycle goes on and on. I wish as Rodney King said, "CAN"T WE JUST GET ALONG!"
Well you knew this was coming!
https://youtu.be/MPMmC0UAnj0
Thanks, York
As was said by Monty Python, "Now for something different". I had never seen this. Good one.
Miningman Well you knew this was coming! https://youtu.be/MPMmC0UAnj0
Electroliner 1935 Miningman Well you knew this was coming! https://youtu.be/MPMmC0UAnj0 As was said by Monty Python, "Now for something different". I had never seen this. Good one.
What I got a kick out of was the weapon that finally worked against the Martians. When they heard country music, their heads exploded.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.