Mexican truck coming in for border inspection
Todd Spencer, Executive Vice President of OOIDA preaches that complying with our NAFTA obligations is “irresponsible and reckless”. What is more “irresponsible and reckless” is the opposition attempting to inflame the publics passions and prejudices with lies and misinformation about Mexico and it’s trucking industry.
A relatively new website, THE TRUCKERS VOICE is looking for 100 volunteers to help spread the misinformation and lies by having these volunteers;
- Call every politician, even your mayors.
- Email every politician, even your mayor.
- Write (snail mail) ever politician, even your mayor.
- Get all your friends (even your pet if he can legally write) to do the same.
- Start a petition in your town. Sit in front of your grocery store, or bring it to your church.
Kind of cute isn’t it, but in the end, a totally worthless effort.
Heather Pontruff, the publisher of TRUCKERS VOICE seems to be fully on board with OOIDA’s ridiculous claims of Mexican truckers taking over our industry, those truckers being controlled by the cartels. She says;
The public safety is at risk with this one.
A. There is a MAJOR cartel issue in the border states. These cartels grow stronger daily, and sneakier. How are we to keep them from completely taking over if we open the borders to all Mexican trucks? In short, we can’t ensure it.
B. There is an illegal immigration issue. True, the drivers in Mexico honestly make more per mile than American truckers. The issue here is there’s no guarantee that once upon entering, these drivers would actually exit.
C. Our border patrol is overwhelmed as is. With no money going into the system, they can’t afford to hire even more agents more. This means more stuff would get past the screening areas and into the U.S.
The only cartel issue we have in the border states is the baseless claims made by politicians seeking to secure more DHS funds for their districts and departments. Recently, the head of the Border Patrol in the Tucson sector chastised Cochise Country Sheriff Larry Deaver for spreading the lies about the cartels overrunning his county.
The cross border issue has absolutely nothing to do with illegal immigration other than to be used as an excuse to bash the program. People ignore the fact that trucks from Mexico, grandfathered in when Reagan signed the Foreign Carrier Exclusion Order in 1982 have continued to operate throughout the United States for more than50 years. And in addition, the dray trucks that operate in the commercial zone do so legally. No trucks are being abandoned as drivers disappear into the heartland. Simply another mechanism to stir the fear and prejudices people have in these times against Mexicans.
Further showing she knows nothing of issue is her claim about the Border Patrol being overwhelmed and can’t handle another hundred trucks crossing the border at the rate of one or two per week.
[pullquote]The agency anticipates an average of one long-haul border crossing per week per truck with each Mexican carrier having two trucks participating in the program. It assumes an attrition rate of 25 percent after 18 months in the project and calculates 46 carriers will suffice to achieve a target of 4,100 inspections within three years – OVERDRIVE MAGAZINE[/pullquote]
The Border Patrol has nothing to do with what crosses the border. That is the area of responsibility of Customs and Border Protection, a separate unit of DHS.
According to the fact sheet released by FMCSA concerning the issue that confuses Ms. Pontruf,
FMCSA has a staff of over 250 distributed at each commercial truck crossing between the
United States and Mexico. Our State partners have an additional 350 personnel to support the
program. These personnel, currently overseeing the safety of the trucks entering the U.S. commercial
zones, are adequate to oversee long-haul operations also.
So we have adequate personnel to oversee the inspection of these additional 100 or so trucks and the infrastructure is in place to screen them as they do all the others when they pass through Customs.
But perhaps the most outrageous statement she makes, and totally baseless and without facts is this;
I remember the last time they did the cross border program with Mexico, I lived in Texas. CMV “at fault” accidents sky rocketed. Why?
A. They brought over the best trucks Mexico across the border for the pilot program. Once they opened the border to a total of 100 outfits, the trucks were scary and unsafe.
B. Unlike Canada, there is no structured method for HOS (hours of service). The truck
crossing into the U.S. border could’ve driven 4 hours straight before entering or 40, there’s
no way of knowing.
CMV accidents might have skyrocketed, but they did not involve trucks from Mexico nor have anything to do with Mexican trucks.
According to FMCSA STATISTICS accident rates involving Mexican domiciles carriers actually went DOWN in 2007, the year the previous cross border program was initiated.
- 2006 – 92
- 2007 – 76
- 2008 – 67
- 2008 – 58
- 2010 – 17
Yes, Mexico has differing regulations than does the US and Canada’s regulations differ from ours, such as more liberal hours of service laws. Mexico’s regulatory environment sets out the rules the drivers and companies are expected to follow and puts the onus on the company and drivers. Traffic accidents in Mexico are criminal, not civil as they are in the US. Fatalities or accidents involving extreme property damage, causes the driver to lose his license and freedom. Yes, they put them in jail and there are no second chances. Perhaps something we should be looking at here.
But articles such as this one, and the ones OOIDA is publishing around the internet are the height of irresponsibility, something we’ve come to expect from Spencer and his gang. But there is no reason people like Ms Pontruf and THE TRUCKERS VOICE should lower themselves to that level.
Trucks traveling the highway between Nuevo Laredo and Monterrey
As resolution to the longstanding stalemate over allowing Mexican trucks access to our highways, as we agreed to do almost 20 years ago, is weeks, if not days away, OOIDA has issued another of their silly little “Calls to Action” exhorting it’s diminishing membership to call and annoy their Representatives about this inconsequential issue. The continued opposition by Teamsters, OOIDA and their allies continues to cost tens of thousands of American jobs and tremendous loss of market share in the agribusiness sector. Not that it matters to either of these organizations if they can keep a handful of Mexicans out of the country.
At issue this time, is a letter that well-known Mexico basher Duncan Hunter of California wrote to Secretary Ray LaHood urging him to cancel the upcoming program. And, as usual, Hunter is long on rhetoric and short on facts.
However, a competing letter has been issued by freshman congressman Francisco Canseco, urging other freshman congressman to do just the opposite. It’s concise and on point without the union talking points seen in Hunters letter.
Anyone care to guess which one will be most effective?
WHAT IF THEY OPENED THE BORDER AND NOBODY CAME?
Intriguing question and entirely possible as Mark B. Solomon, senior editor at DC VELOCITY suggest in an article titled “MUCH ADO ABOUT NADA”
Coincidentally, Mark’s article confirms and affirms what we’ve been preaching and teaching on Mexico Trucker Online for almost 5 years. It’s what has made this site well-regarded and used extensively throughout the transportation industry and by government agencies to learn the real truth about Mexican trucking.
The lead off question he asks is
What if they threw open the U.S.-Mexican border to all qualified trucking companies, but no Mexican truckers showed up?
Here’s some excerpts from Marks article.
It would indeed be an ironic outcome of a battle that has dragged on for more than 11 years, culminating in March 2009 in a mini-trade war that has cost U.S. exporters billions of dollars in lost revenue and, according to U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates, led to the loss of more than 25,000 American jobs.
Yet it is entirely plausible, according to various experts. For all the publicity surrounding the March 3 announcement by President Barack Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderón of a tentative resolution to the cross-border dispute, few expect the status quo to change for years to come. The agreement would allow carriers on both sides of the border to operate beyond a 25-mile “commercial zone,” but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll take advantage of that freedom. In fact, Mexican truckers will have little, if any, desire to operate deeper into U.S. commerce than they already do, these experts say.
So much for the claim by Teamsters and as recently as today, that tens of thousand of Mexican trucks are waiting to access American highways. We’ve been saying that for years.
Con-Way Truckload CEO Herb Schmidt had this to say about the situation;
“The majority of Mexican truckers don’t want any part of it. We estimates that only 5 percent of the 80 Mexican truckers that have cross-border interline relationships with Con-way Truckload have even considered serving the U.S. market beyond the commercial zone.”
CEO Derek J. Leathers of Warner Inc. added;
“There’s less interest on the part of Mexican truckers than many people think”
According to the article, Werner generates about 10% of its revenue from its Mexican operations.
The article also points out who would be the winners and losers when the border is opened. Obviously, US producers and manufacturers who have been hit hard by the tariffs would be the immediate winners.
According to Solomon, the losers could be Mexican customs brokers, about half of whom own drayage companies that move freight between Mexican and U.S. trucks for line-haul service into either country. Because the agreement allows Mexican truckers to operate beyond the commercial zone and haul freight directly to U.S. destinations, the need for those drayage services would diminish, if not disappear, experts say.
However, with the volume of freight moving between the countries, both way, losses would be minimal for decades, we believe.
Some other points made in the article that bear consideration.
- It’s likely to be business as usual along the border. U.S. carriers operating southbound to Mexico will continue to drive to the commercial zone and tender their trailers to their Mexican interline partners for the line-haul. The same is likely to prevail on the northbound routes, with Mexican truckers turning over trailers to their U.S. counterparts for movement into the U.S. interior
- Mexican truckers would be loath to enter the U.S. market because the liability exposure in the United States would be too great for many Mexican truckers to tolerate, Herb Schmidt pointed out.
And finally, the point we’ve been hammering on every time we hear someone erroneously claim that the disparity in drivers wages between Mexico and the United State will drive down our wages and give the Mexicans and unfair competitive advantage is further debunked.
Mexican carriers looking to expand into the United States would face significant upfront costs for labor, maintenance, facilities, and equipment. The typical Mexican trucker has a fleet of six trucks, hardly enough to justify the kind of capital investment needed to play in the world’s biggest economy, experts say. In addition, the agreement bars Mexican carriers from accepting loads moving between U.S. points, thus keeping the intra-U.S. market off-limits to competition with U.S. carriers.
THE DEBATE GOES ON
Further debunking the campaigns of misinformation and fear put forth by OOIDA and the TEAMSTERS, the article points out more of what we’ve been saying over the years.
In the meantime, the debate over easing restrictions on Mexican truckers continues. The agreement’s opponents—chief among them the Teamsters union and Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, the trade group representing the nation’s independent drivers—have warned that cheaper Mexican labor will undercut U.S. driver wages and siphon off jobs. Leathers of Werner says the argument is a red herring, contending that any labor cost advantage enjoyed by Mexican drivers will be more than offset by their companies’ higher costs of capital and equipment, as well as the increased liability exposure.
Schmidt of Con-way Truckload adds that should Mexican drivers enter the United States with more frequency, they will, over time, demand wages that are comparable to U.S. drivers’. Schmidt compares that possible scenario to what has occurred over the years at Mexican “maquiladoras,” plants in Mexico where raw materials imported on a duty-free basis are assembled into goods, which are re-exported back to the United States or another destination market. At Mexican “maquilas,” Schmidt says, rising labor costs have forced businesses to relocate deeper into Mexico to procure inexpensive labor.
Lana R. Batts, a partner in transport advisory firm Transport Capital Partners and vice president of government affairs for the American Trucking Associations in the 1980s and early 1990s, says the Teamsters have little to fear from Mexican drivers jeopardizing their livelihood. Batts adds that union concerns that the agreement will give Mexican drug lords and other unsavory characters an open supply chain into the United States are unfounded, noting that border security is not disappearing and that the situation will be no worse than if there were no agreement.
An apt title, “much ado about nothing”. Take out the overt racism of the issue, the lies and spin being pushed by opponents of the US finally complying with our obligations and especially, take the word “Mexican” out of the equation, and as Mark Solomon points out..
“The dispute over Mexican truckers’ access to U.S. markets is close to resolution. The industry’s response: A collective shrug”
CBP Commissioner Alan Bersin
Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Alan Bersin expressed strong confidence Wednesday in San Diego at a seminar to mark the 10th anniversary of the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, most commonly known by its acronym C-TPAT, that Mexican trucks and the Mexican trucking program will be secure and successful.
C-TPAT was started after the 9/11 terrorist attack in New York as a way to keep the global supply chain flowing and while securing the country from an outside attack. Seven companies were involved with the program when it began as a method in which global shippers share cargo data and enact security strategies as they build a level of “trust” in Customs officials. Today, more than 10,000 trucking companies have C-TPAT certification.
During his speech, Bersin gave his approval to the recent agreement between President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon to resolve the longstanding dispute over America’s compliance with our NAFTA obligations.
In his speech, Bersin said;
“The president agreed there would be a program whereby in a very certified way, in a very careful and deliberate way, Mexican long-haul trucks would be able to travel with their cargo across the border and on into the states.
It’s a big breakthrough for NAFTA, for North American competitiveness, for support of the Mexican economy and the US economy”
Despite claims to the contrary by opponents of Mexican trucking and Mexico in general, Mexican trucking companies have been eligible to join the C-TPAT program since 2008 and a good number of them have joined the program. Bersin expects the C-TPAT program to play an even stronger role at the US-Mexico border.
Bersin went on to say;
“C-TPAT is an important way to approach the problem. For that reason, we are cooperating with Mexican Customs to help Mexico to establish its own version of C-TPAT. Mexico’s Alliance for Secure Business is adopting many of the security strategies and principles of C-TPAT.
Downstream, I expect that we will be able to have mutual recognition — that is that a company recognized by C-TPAT will be recognized by the Mexican program and visa versa.”
By Nelson Balido
President
Border Trade Alliance
Nelson Balido – President – Border Trade Alliance
The Border Trade Alliance earlier this month expressed its optimism that a framework announced by President Barack Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderón for setting the trucking issue was a real step in the right direction.
If all this sounds familiar, it’s because the dispute over trucking dates back to the Clinton administration, when bogus claims over truck safety and environmental damage first won out over the need to comply with the North American Free Trade Agreement signed with our friends and neighbors, Canada and Mexico.
We’ve been close to settling this issue before, and yet here we are again.
Perhaps no other debate in NAFTA has featured the same level of high-pitched hyperbole as the trucking debate. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), one of the most vocal anti-Mexico trade voices in Congress, once famously called Mexican trucks “rumbling death traps” and painted a picture of Mexican truck drivers as sleep-deprived, drug-addled, 18-wheel drag racers.
But instead of claiming to worry about American jobs while he repeats talking points for Big Labor, the congressman might want to worry instead about the $36 million in retaliatory tariffs his protectionist position has cost Oregon agricultural products like Christmas trees, pears, frozen potatoes, cherries, wine and onions.
Because of the U.S.’ continued failure to live up to its responsibilities under NAFTA, Mexico finally resorted to slapping retaliatory tariffs totaling in the billions of dollars on a host of U.S. goods headed south.
Perhaps nowhere is the economic damage to the U.S. starker than in the agricultural sector, where what is commonly believed to be a U.S.-Mexico border issue has suddenly landed in America’s farms and ranches.
Our friends at Texas A&M’s Center for North American Studies recently completed an analysis of the Mexican tariffs’ effect on U.S. agriculture. They found that nationally nearly $153 billion in U.S. agricultural production has been impacted. They further found that four of the five states most impacted by Mexican tariffs are nowhere near the Mexican border: Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina and Wisconsin.
The trade community is holding out hope that the Obama and Calderón administrations can finally put this debate to an end, but there are powerful labor interests that will surely be reminding the White House of their ability to affect elections.
The importance of U.S.-Mexico bilateral trade has been made clear now to states not usually associated with the intricacies of cross-border trade. The Mexico border is suddenly closer to places like Davenport, Iowa and Madison, Wisconsin. This is just one more reminder of why issues like improved port infrastructure, increased human resources and better technology should be just as important to representatives and senators from the interior of the U.S. as they are to border state delegations.
The pro-trade argument can’t just be won on the border; it has to be won in the heartland, too.
Source Article: Border Trade Alliance
Mexican trucks at the border! Que Yonke!!!!
As the reality of a new and final cross border program to allow Mexican trucks access to American highways as we promised almost 20 years ago, comes closer to fruition, the desperation coming coming from the offices of OOIDA or Owner Operators Independent Drivers Association, is palpable.
For instance, OOIDA spokesman Norita Taylor appeared on an interview on Houston radio station KTRH News Radio 740 along with Congressman Kevin Brady giving counterpoint, and alleged that Mexican carriers have no regulatory costs in their country. You can listen to the interview here. What Taylor doesn’t say is not only does Mexico have to comply with their regulatory costs, but the additional costs of complying with US requirements also. OOIDA doesn’t want you to know this.
As a matter of fact, Mark Reddig sounded as if he had tears in his eyes this afternoon in his pleas for people to call Congress and try to stop this small handful of Mexican trucks that he fears his membership cannot compete with.
DEBUNKING OOIDA CLAIMS THAT MEXICO MUST MIRROR OUT REGULATORY CLIMATE
One of the biggest lies coming from OOIDA and others, such as the Teamsters, is that according to the 2001 NAFTA Arbitration panel agreement, the United States had the right to set standards for Mexican trucks that Mexico would be forced to abide by in their own country, is very easy to debunk.
First off, common sense should tell you that FMCSA has no statutory right to force any rules upon the sovereign country of Mexico. All they can do is set the standards that Mexican and Canadian trucks must adhere to when operating within the United States. Period! It leaves no room for discussion.
Let’s take a look at the decision of the NAFTA ARBITRATION PANEL in 2001.
Mexico v United States—Cross-Border Trucking
The NAFTA obligates the United States and Mexico to open restricted areas near their mutual border to cross-border trucking services three years after the date of signing, and to broadly open their territories to cross-border trucking services 6 years after entry into force of the agreement. Chapter 9 NAFTA sets forth rules applicable to the setting and maintenance of technical standards. Under the technical standards rules, each party is entitled to adopt and maintain measures relating to human safety (Art. 904 (1) NAFTA) at a level it considers appropriate (Art. 904 (2) NAFTA) in accordance with certain risk assessment rules (Art. 907 (2) NAFTA). Mexico alleged national treatment and violations of the ? most-favored-nation clause (‘MFN’) with regard to regulatory measures, as well as national treatment and MFN violations with respect to investment.
This sets the rules and the dispute
The US argued that fundamental disparities between US and Mexican regulatory systems legitimized a blanket restriction on allowing Mexican cross-border trucking into the US. It claimed that it was only required to provide national treatment under ‘like circumstances’, and that deficiencies in the Mexican regulatory system meant that US and Mexican trucks were not in ‘like circumstances’. The United States made a similar argument with respect to the denial of MFN treatment as compared with Canada
This is the US argument and the basis of OOIDA’s claims.
In its decision, the panel invoked principles established in GATT-WTO jurisprudence, including panel and appellate body reports, as well as customary international law, decisions of the ? International Court of Justice (ICJ), and expert commentators. The panel stated that the NAFTA and WTO national treatment principles are basically the same, and common to the field of international trade. In looking at conduct by the United States, it indicated it would avoid inquiring into motivation, for example union pressure on the Clinton Administration
What the arbitration panel is saying is that it recognizes the interference and pressure being brought upon the Clinton administration by the Teamsters and would abstain from exploring the protectionist motivations of the unions, none of which have to do with safety, as has been alleged.
The panel rejected the US defense to the claim of national treatment violation, holding the United States was obligated to treat US and Mexican truckers performing similar functions in the same way. Each Mexican trucking license application must be reviewed on its own merits, just as were US national applications. The panel said that if harmonization of regulatory systems was required as a precondition of national treatment, this would undermine the concept of national treatment. Regarding the MFN claim, the panel said that the United States was obligated to provide equivalent treatment to cross-border trucking from Canada and Mexico, and that the United States had not done this.
In this paragraph, the panel summarily rejected the US claims that they had the right to deny Mexico access to the US because of what they consider an inferior regulatory environment. Applications by Mexican carriers must be considered on their own merits, as are US and Canadian applications. HARMONIZATION of REGULATORY SYSTEMS is what OOIDA maintains must occur before the US must allow Mexican trucks access. The panel soundly rejected this idea. It further stated in the last sentence, that the US is obligated to provide EQUIVALENT TREATMENT. This has not been done and the US remains in violation of their obligations.
The US invoked Art. XX (b) GATT analogue of NAFTA to justify failure to provide national and MFN treatment. Regarding the burden of proof, the panel said that, as a general matter, a party alleging an inconsistency with the NAFTA generally has the burden of proof to establish it. It says that the party invoking an exception also has the burden of proof to establish its entitlement. Thus, the US had the burden to show its restrictions on Mexican trucking were ‘necessary’. The panel invoked, inter alia, the WTO appellate body decision in United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products ([12 October 1998] WT/DS58/AB/R) to support its holding that the US could have pursued less trade restrictive conduct
This paragraph deals with the burden of proof and who is responsible for providing it. The US failed to provide that proof and the panel ruled the US could have pursued less restrictive conduct.
In response to Mexico’s claim that the US had failed to permit non-discriminatory national and MFN investment, the US argued that since there was no demonstrated Mexican interest in investing in US trucking, Mexico could not demonstrate violations. The panel said that under WTO law it is not necessary to demonstrate ‘actual’ trade effects—ie nullification or impairment. An imbalance in competitive conditions is adequate
This is pretty self explanatory, but to take it one step further. If you consider the Mexican carriers who have invested in US through establishment of subsidiaries in the US, since this ruling was rendered, Mexico’s claim is further substantiated and the US has no defense for it’s non compliance.
The panel concluded by emphasizing that it was not holding that the United States should lower its trucking safety standards, but rather that it must allow Mexican truckers to demonstrate compliance with them.
This final paragraph both supports OOIDA’s statement that the US should not lower our standards, a position I support. As you can see though, it says absolutely nothing in this paragraph or the others, that Mexico must establish regulatory standards identical to ours before the US is obligated to allow them access as OOIDA continues to maintain. Instead, it states firmly that the US MUST ALLOW MEXICO TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH OUT RULES. During the 18 month cross border demonstration program, Mexico showed that not only could they comply, but their compliance and safety standards exceeded those of comparable US and Canadian trucks.
CONTROVERSY OVER EOBR’s IN MEXICAN TRUCKS
As we’ve talked before, the controversy over requiring EOBR’s or Electronic Onboard Recorders in Mexican trucks continues to heat up and with good cause.
I have two problems with it. First being requiring the recorders, period, and secondly, having the FMCSA paying for them, although I understand why they plan to do so.
It gives them ownership of the data and real time access to the data which in the end, will debunk they claims of OOIDA, the TEAMSTERS and others that Mexican drivers work 20 hour days 7 days a week.
But under the provisions of NAFTA, as we saw in the breakdown of the Arbitration Panels decision, it is supposed to be equal treament for US, Canadian and Mexican trucks. Not one set of rules for US and Canadians and a third more stringent set for Mexicans, but equal. All three countries play by and comply with the rules of the country they are operating in.
Requiring Mexican carriers, 85% of whom already have Qualcomm tracking and communication systems in their fleets, violates this provision. Equal and comparative treatment. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ironically, Teamster, OOIDA and other “stakeholders” pushed for this provision, and now the same ones are opposed to it.
FMCSA can require it, in violation once again of NAFTA and require Mexico to pay for it. However, without similar legislation or regulation requiring US and Canadian trucks to have the same systems, FMCSA would have no right to access the data except during safety audits. We can’t have it both ways.
I’m hoping that this is a “throwaway” point for negotiation. Otherwise, it is likely to hasten the installation of these same devices in US trucks, something the CTA (Canadian Trucking Association) is already pushing for.
To sum it up folks. Follow OOIDA’s “Call to Action” and call your Senator’s and Congressmen and whine about how the 4,000,000 US CDL holders are incapable of competing with a 100 or so Mexican carriers or truckers. Be sure to tell them about all the illegals and drugs and terrorist and all the other objects of the oppostions fantasies that will be coming into this country, although there is no evidence of it. And in the end, cross border trucking with Mexico will become a reality. It must or the next round of tariff’s with be even more devastating than the last.
An FMCSA inspector conducts a Level I compliance inspection on a truck belonging to Transportes Olympic in 2007 prior to the initiation of the successful Mexican Pilot Truck Program
In a joint presser today, President Obama and President Calderon jointly announced agreement on a renewed program allowing Mexican carriers access to the United States as agreed under the 1994 NAFTA agreement.
[pullquote]“The deal to end the dispute “is built on the highest safety standards that will authorize both Mexican and U.S. long-haul carriers to engage in cross-border operations under Nafta,”[/pullquote]
The plan will allow for half of those tariffs to be lifted immediately. It will establish a reciprocal, phased-in pilot program that allows Mexican trucks to operate inside the U.S. provided they comply with a series of safety, driver-skills and language tests monitored by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Unfortunately, Mexico has stated anything less than full access will be unacceptable. A new pilot program could fall under this category.
Reaction from opponents of Mexican trucks and Mexico in general, was swift and as expected, but largely irrelevant.
Teamsters President James P. Hoffa issued this statement containing nothing new and nothing unexpected and everything totally irrelevant as has been the case with Hoffa and the Teamsters for years regarding this issue.
[pullquote]“The Bush-era pilot program was a failure that shouldn’t be repeated,” Hoffa said.[/pullquote]
“We continue to have serious reservations about DOT’s ability to guarantee the safety of Mexican trucks. Mexican trucks simply don’t meet the same standards as U.S. trucks. Medical and physical standards for Mexican trucking firms are lower than for U.S. companies. And how can Mexico enforce highway safety laws when it can’t even control drug cartels?
Perhaps it’s time for Hoffa to go find his daddy and spend some quality time with him.
OOIDA on the other hand is “outraged” with cross-border trucking plan.
Read more
It’s only a concept document at this point, but it has opponents of Mexico and Mexican trucking in full propaganda mode.
The results of the former Cross Border Pilot Program proved that that the claims of the Teamsters, OOIDA and public safety groups were baseless and utterly false, but with this new round, that’s not stopping them.
Once again they’ve enlisted Phyllis Schafly, an anti-feminist, anti-ERA conspiracy whackjob to carry the torch for them and thoroughly distort the issue. In her column today in TOWN HALL she writes.
Read more
In todays Detroit News, Teamster’s President and amateur comedian James P. Hoffa has a column titled “Mexican trucks don’t belong on U.S. highways”
As has been the case over the past 15 years that he’s been objecting to Mexican trucking, his claims have absolutely no basis in fact. Now, he continues to engage in fear mongering seeking to push all the right buttons
using current events, that have nothing to do with allowing Mexican trucks to operate in this country.
He uses the tired old debunked information about the former pilot program saying;
“The Bush administration had already tried such a program and failed. Though the Bush program cost taxpayers $500 million, U.S. officials still weren’t able to verify that all Mexican trucks were checked when they crossed the border. Hardly any Mexican trucks ended up driving beyond the border zone — about three a day.”
Read more
Loading ...
Readers Reponses