Mexico Trucker Online Articles

Mother’s Day massacre in Cadereyta N.L leaves 49 dead. Toll could rise in coming days.

Mother's day dawns and with it, the discovery of 49 bodies dumped at the entrance to San Juan NL

Sunday morning, Mother’s Day in the US, 49 bodies, most decapitated, some missing limbs and others in an advanced state of decomposition, were found on a highway east of Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, according to various news sources.

The grisly find was made at Kilometer 47 on Mexico Federal Highway 40,which leads to Reynosa, Tamaulipas. Police were dispatched to the area based on a telephone call. Mexican Policia Federal agents were the first on the scene and found several black garbage bags containing the remains of 49 individuals. The actual location is 10 kilometers east of Cadereyta, near the village of San Juan. Cadereyta itself is about seven kilometers east of Monterrey.

It is being reported that six women and 43 men were among the dead. Some reports have said a narcomanta was left at the scene but had been removed, reportedly said “100 percent Zetas”

At this point in time, authorities still don’t know who the victims are and rumors are flying. Some are saying that the victims were migrants heading to the United States because some of the victims had the facial features of individuals from South America. The report also said the narcomanta had the symbol of Los Zetas only, probably the letter Z, suggesting Los Zetas likely committed the crime.

Jorge Domene, spokesman for the Nuevo Leon state Secretaria de Seguridad Pública (SSP)

Jorge Domene, spokesman for the Nuevo Leon state Secretaria de Seguridad Pública (SSP), also that some of the victims had gang tattoos, suggesting the deaths were a settling of accounts between gangs. He also said that most of the victims had been killed two days prior to their discovery. Due to the arrangement of the bodies, it appears the bodies were transported and dumped by a large dump truck in the early dawn hours when traffic was light.

Mexico Highway 40 is the “free road” used by motorist and truckers that want to avoid the toll road between Monterrey and Reynosa.

Let’s keep in mind as we explore this story, that very little official information is forthcoming from the agencies investigating this crime due to the blackout on releases from government agencies during the 90 days prior to the voting July 1, for Mexico’s next President. However, due to the nature of this crime, the large number of victims, some in government are ignoring the mandate of Article 41, and speaking out, such as Jorge DOmene. Last night, the government of Mexico announced a $30,000,000.00 mxn reward for information leading to the capture of those responsible. In US dollars, that comes to $2,201,446.12. (Hell for that amount of money, I’d turn my own mother in and give them a map showing where she’s buried.)

Anyone having information on this crime and possible claim the reward can do so by calling 01 800 831 3196 or by email  denunciapgr@pgr.gob.mx 

People are assuming that members of Los Zetas are responsible for this because of grafitti featuring the letter “Z” found on the gateway into the city and the narco banners which were removed. Others are saying the victims are in fact members of Los Zetas, murdered by the Sinoloa TCO. And some are also saying it could be retaliation against the government for their recent arrest of Marco Jesus Hernandez Rodriguez aka Jesus Ruiz Marcos Rodriguez, nicknamed “El Chilango”, jefe of sicarios (boss of Zetas’s assassins), who is credited with masterminding the kidnapping, torture and killing at least four Mexican Marines on April 18, 2012. For those of you who are not aware, Mexican Marines are the baddest of the bad in this country, and like our Special Forces troops, they take care of their own.

Personally, I think the scenario that this was a planned statement by Los Zetas for Mother’s Day is more believable as reported by Borderland Beat.

It just makes sense. Whatever it is, it’s a scouring of the gene pool from the bottom up.

There’s several reasons I’m writing this on a blog that generally has to do with trucking. First of all, James P. Hoffa’s Teamsters are using this as yet another reason that Mexican trucks should not be allowed into the US. Although no American’s were involved nor truckers, either Mexican or US, the truth doesn’t matter to Hoffa in the least.

In an article titled “49 more reasons not to open the border to Mexican trucks” an unidentified Teamster, thought to be Hoffa himself writes;

Trade deals are supposed to be two-way streets. The U.S. is supposed to give Mexican truckers access to our highways, Mexico is supposed to give U.S. truckers access to its highways.

But if the Mexican government can’t guarantee the safety of U.S. citizens, then Mexico isn’t giving the U.S. equal access to its highways. Mexico isn’t living up to its part of the deal.

The good news is that only a handful of Mexican carriers are allowed to travel beyond the border zone as part of the second cross-border trucking pilot program. And even fewer trucks are actually using our highways.

How sad is it that people like James P. Hoffa feel the need to use the deaths of 49 individual human beings to continue to push their isolationist agenda.

Units from Mexico Federal Police seal of crime scene where 49 bodies were discovered outside of Cadereyta, Nuevo Leon

The second and perhaps most important reason, for me anyhow, is that this story is being picked up internationally, and some in the mainstream media, thousands of miles from Mexico continue to portray Mexico as a crime ridden wild west 24/7 shootout which of course it’s not. Only a small fractions of Mexico’s municipalites (counties) have been effected by the ongoing was between the TCO’s (Trans-National Criminal Organizations) And civilians for the most part, are not the targets. Most of the victims in this period of violence have been found to have some connection, however minor to the bad guys.

A heightened presence of military units is seen in Cadereyta after the Mother's Day massacre that claimed 49 lives

People in the locales where the violence has been occurring continue with their lives as usual. What else is there to do. In Cadereyta, where the latest occurred, people haven’t lost faith in the military or the belief that their city and country will return to the safety it has known in the past.

One day after the slaughter which shocked this town and the nation, the main square of Cadereyta lived another day.

The park opposite the town hall was full of people, couples with their children enjoying a snack from street vendors or just talking.

Street vendors, clothing store owners, elderly people and even the street sweepers talk of the fear they feel about the violence.

Still others said nothing, just calmly observing the movement of people and vehicles around the main square of Cadereyta.

Because of this latest incident and others, the army has stepped up its presence in and around Cadereyta, with military patrols more frequently patroling the outskirts of the city.

And on Monday, the military took up positions opposite the town hall and around the square, watching and giving the citizens a feeling of security with their presence

Some of the troops got down from from their units and entered some of the businesses to interact with the owners and make purchases. Just another day as life continues in Mexico as it has for a 1000 years.

1 million truck violations cited at border crossing? The rest of the story

The rest of the story emerges about the El Paso times story we wrote about earlier this week, concerning the thousands of violations reported by Texas DPS inspectors at two commercial crossings in El Paso Texas.

While we have some concerns about the number of violations reported over 4.5 years, the Times story claims 1.2 million inspections were done at the Zaragosa and Bridge of the Americas in El Paso, we could only find 811,574 inspections reported on the FMCSA NAFTA STATISTICS pages.

Some have suggested that the numbers are flawed considering the man hours that would need to be expended to come up with this number of inspections in the time frame indicated. That’s possible but highly improbable considering the methods used and the manpower on site.

Section 350(c) required, among other things, state inspection/weigh stations be established at all commercial crossing along the southern border, to monitor and inspect incoming Mexican trucks, especially those participating in the 2007 cross border program. The defunding of that program by the Obama administration as political payback to the Teamsters, however, did  not defund these inspection facilities. Contrary to what opponents of cross border trucking and Mexican trucks would have you believe, 100% of the trucks crossing our southern border are INSPECTED at these facilities. 350(c) mandates that these stations to be in operation during the hours the commercial crossing are open.

In El Paso, The Zaragosa bridge is open Monday – Friday 0600 to Midnight, or 18 hours. On Saturday, they are open from 0800 to 1600 and closed on Sunday.

The Bridge of the Americas hours of operation is Monday – Friday, 0600-1800 or 12 hours. Saturday hours are 0600-1400, closed on Sundays.

The hours the inspection stations where this data was supposedly gleaned from are required under law, to maintain the same schedule.

The Texas DPS commercial vehicle inspectors perform inspections under the CVSA North American Inspection Standards, although Texas being Texas, has been known to put additional, more stringent, some would say “anal” requirements to their inspections.

There are six levels of CVSA inspections, although Levels I-III are pertinent to this discussion.

• LEVEL I   North American Standard Inspection
• LEVEL II  Walk-Around Driver/Vehicle Inspection
• LEVEL III Driver/Credential Inspection
• LEVEL IV Special Inspections
• LEVEL V Vehicle-Only Inspection

[pullquote]“The number of violations for the trucks from Mexico is in line with U.S. industry standards.They are either no worse than U.S. trucks and better in some cases.”- Rep. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso[/pullquote]

“This report confirms what we have been saying for years – Mexican trucking companies and their fleets are not held to the same stringent safety standards as American carriers. Until they meet every safety, training and environmental standard that our trucking companies meet, we should not allow these unsafe Mexican trucks to drive freely through our country.”

R-i-i-i-ight.

Unfortunately, Pickett is exhibiting the same cluelessness about the dangers of Mexican trucks as the U.S. Department of Transportation, which wants to open the borders to them in a month or two.

The Teamsters will see about that.

“They are either no worse than U.S. trucks or better in some cases,”

1 million truck violations cited at border crossing? The story behind the story

Federal and Texas DPS inspectors at Brownsville POE

Today’s El Paso Times has a piece out titled “1 Million Truck Violations Cited at Border Crossing”by Diana Washington who has in the past been a reputable reporter on things concerning the US/Mexico border in El Paso. But the story is misleading and just the sort of thing we expect OOIDA to jump on first thing tomorrow morning. So let’s defuse this bomb before they have a chance to use it.

The story reads in full;

Texas state inspectors in El Paso have found thousands of safety violations in trucks coming from Mexico, including bad brakes, flat tires, axle problems and defective lights, statistics show.

Between fiscal years 2007 and the first six months of 2011, the state conducted 1.2 million inspections at state facilities by the Bridge of Americas and the Zaragoza International Bridge. The state fiscal year runs from Sept. 1 to Aug. 31.

During that period, officers found a million violations, and placed 31,519 trucks and 625 drivers out of service. Many trucks had multiple violations.

Why that’s just terrible folks, isn’t it? Based on that, we should ban all Mexican trucks from the US, Canadian too if you want to be fair about it. But how do those number break down?

The fiscal year runs from October until September 30 of the following year so in the case of this report we would be looking at,

• 54 fiscal months
• 216 fiscal weeks
• 1620 fiscal days (give or take a day or two)

OOIDA & Teamster demand Obama to “protect the trees”

Say it ain’t so people! James P. Hoffa and his Teamsters, and Todd Spencer with his minority of American truckers are aligning themselves with the left wing enviro-wackos in a last desperate attempt to stop fewer than 100 late model Mexican trucks from entering the country?

Politics and nativist protectionism make strange bedfellows sometimes as the latest press release from the Teamsters points out.

In comments submitted to the Department of Transportation (DOT), the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Sierra Club raised frivolous and baseless concerns with what they claim is the failure of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to adequately assess the environmental impacts associated with the upcoming U.S.-Mexico cross-border trucking pilot program.

Hoffa erroneously claims:

“With this assessment, the FMSCA is recklessly ignoring the true environmental impact Mexican trucks will have if permitted to travel without restrictions throughout our country. We contend that the FMSCA has violated the National Environmental Policy Act by not addressing the full, cumulative effects on our environment prior to starting the cross-border pilot program.”

The “assessment” he is referring to is the  announcement last month of the availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) that evaluates the
potential environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of its United States-Mexico cross-border long- haul trucking pilot program in the FEDERAL REGISTER.

But Hoffa and his Teamsters as well as Spencer and OOIDA are blowing smoke up the asses of the American public and US truckers. They’re bringing up an issue that was resolved years ago by the Supreme Court of the United States.

It started back in 2002 when Public Citizen sued the FMCSA claiming an environmental impact study was required before any effort could be made to open the southern border to Mexican trucks as required under our NAFTA obligations.

At that time, FMCSA prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA), but they did not prepare and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as PUBLIC CITIZEN claimed was required by the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).

The EA focused mainly on the environmental impact from doing more inspections, not on the impact from more trucks driving the roads.

Public Citizen sued to stop the possibility of cross border trucking until an EIS was prepared.Public Citizen argued that the increased number of trucks on US roads was liable to have a significant environmental impact, and therefore an EIS was required. There claim was that more than 30,000 older polluting trucks burning high sulphur diesel would have an impact on our environment.

The trial court found in favor of the defendent, FMCSA. The Trial Court found that although the FMCSA pilot program would result in more trucks, FMCSA did not have control over those trucks and therefore did not have to account for them in an EIS. Public Citizen went shopping and appealed to the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, reversing the trial court. The Appellate Court found that the EA was deficient because it failed to give adequate consideration to the overall environmental impact from the Mexican trucks. Of course, FMCSA appealed, all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

The case was argued before the Supreme Court on April 21, 2004 with a unanimous verdict being rendered on June 7, 2004.

The US Supreme Court held that the FMCSA had no control of the trucks once the regulations governing the pilot program were passed, and would therefore be unable to act on the findings of an EIS even if it did conduct one.
FMCSA has no statutory authority to impose or enforce emissions controls or to establish environmental requirements unrelated to motor carrier safety.

The Court also found that the passage of the regulations was not sufficiently responsible for the increased pollution caused by the trucks to warrant an EIS.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the Courts most conservative Judge wrote the opinion which you can read here.

Now in their desperation to keep a handful of late model, closely monitored Mexican trucks from entering this country, they ally themselves with the tree huggers. They ignore the more than 30,000 Mexican rigs that access the United States daily, some with authority to run anywhere in the country they desire.

Take OOIDA for instance. They’re always preaching against more government regulations and fighting CARB, the California Air Resources Board, which has some of the most stringent environmental rules in the country (and rules that Mexican trucks follow daily). A good example of that is OOIDA’s statement in opposition to new fuel economy rules for big trucks.

OOIDA says;

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) called the administration’s announcement today for greenhouse gas emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks a flawed, one-size-fits-all rule. The new rule ignores input from small-business trucking, overlooks less expensive options to achieve EPA goals of reduced emissions, and will ultimately increase new truck costs.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a first-ever rulemaking for new large tractor-trailer trucks that requires trucks to achieve up to approximately 20 percent reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by model year 2018.

“By totally ignoring the impact on small-business trucking, the EPA has demonstrated yet another example of our wretchedly broken regulatory process,” said Joe Rajkovacz, Director of Regulatory Affairs for OOIDA.  “Congress should take action when they return in September to rein in the bureaucracy and push forward regulatory reform legislation that has already been introduced.”

Notice the hypocrisy and desperation? They oppose the new mileage standards and are demanding the Administration to stand down from all the excessive regulations they’re putting on us, a position I totally agree with, yet in the next breath, they demand more regulations against a few Mexican trucks.

In an article published on August 12, 2011 titled FMCSA’s environmental assessment of cross-border program falls short, OOIDA claims,

Currently, Mexican emission standards for diesel-powered truck engines are only aligned with U.S. EPA emissions standards for six criteria pollutants through the 2003 model year. This means that newer engines for Mexican trucks need not comply with the more stringent U.S. emissions standards that came into play in 2004 through 2010.

The comments point out that since Mexico has not aligned its diesel engine emissions standards to U.S. EPA 2004 standards, the differences can be stark – as much as 20 times the nitrogen oxides and 10 times the particulate matter, based on using diesel with a sulfur content of 500 parts per million.

The ability to add additional fuel tanks makes it possible for trucks from Mexico to fill up with the low-sulfur diesel available in Mexico and never have to fuel up while in the states – polluting at a higher level than corresponding U.S. trucks.

OOIDA’s comments propose two options to FMCSA to ensure a minimal environmental impact the cross-border program may have.

The first, would be to only allow trucks that meet U.S. EPA model year emissions standards for the year in which the engine was manufactured. We don’t have a problem with that and indeed, that is stated in the proposal for the new cross border program. Guess that part went over their heads at OOIDA.

The second is ridiculous and nothing in the section of NAFTA regulating cross border trucking, nor int he arbitration panel ruling requires this.  OOIDA’s idea would force trucks arriving from Mexico either to have ULSD fuel purchased in Mexico on board or to have possibly to one-fourth tank or less of fuel not meeting the U.S. ULSD standard – so they could purchase compliant fuel once crossing the border.

Even if Mexican trucks were using diesel fuel consisting of 5000 ppm of sulfur, the environmental impact of less than 100 trucks would be absolute zero.

This is simply another method by the opponents to throw up more roadblocks to our compliance with our international obligations. Fortunately, they’ll lose this fight too.

OOIDA asks “Is it racist to oppose the Mexican cross-border program?”

Mexican truckers take pride in their rides such as this Kenworth photographed in Laredo Texas. This is what opponents refer to as "dangerous", "sub standard Mexican junk"

That’s the question being posed on the Landline Now Media blog by Sandi Soendker, and it’s a valid question.

The obvious answer to the question is of course, no. However, in their absence of a credible argument opposing the cross border trucking program with Mexico, OOIDA and other opponents are knowingly and willfully preying on the ignorance and prejudices of their members and the public at large, to turn opinion against Mexican truckers.

So far once we can agree with OOIDA when Soendker writes;

If American truckers are opposed to cross-border trucking with Mexico, are they racists? If they are concerned with issues like safety, jobs, national security, fair treatment – is that racism? Concerns for other issues like immigration, customs, reduced tax revenue for roads, lack of clear enforcement – is that racism? Of course it isn’t.

The safety issue has been debunked. Mexican trucks and their drivers have been shown to be as safe, and in most cases safer, than their US and Canadian cousins.
[pullquote]

A Good Example of the drivel from Mark Reddig

The countdown has started to the opening day of cross-border trucking with Mexico.

And even as that date approaches, efforts by OOIDA to stop the program dead in its tracks continue as well.

Truckers and others are also hitting the phone lines, calling members of Congress, federal officials and more, trying to get the message across to a Congress bullied and bruised from the heavy-handed lobbying of the ATA, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (an organization that clearly doesn’t deserve the name,) and the huge multinational companies that crave the cheap labor south of the border.

For some folks, it’s all a bit much. They are tired of having to fight this battle over and over, tired of the fact that even when Congress votes 411-3 to stop this idea, that the friends of big business keep bringing it back again and again, like some kind of monster in an old horror film that – no matter how many times you shoot it – just keeps shambling forward.

But this battle is too important. And those people should not be rewarded for their attempts to thwart the will of the American People, and of Congress.

We need to flood Capitol Hill with phone calls, letters, faxes and emails.

You’re likely to receive a response, but it very well may not say what you’d like to hear.

Don’t let it get you down or dissuade you from continuing this fight.
I recently called all three of the folks who represent me in Congress – my representative and both of my senators.

I received, in return, form letters. That’s not a big surprise.

However, what was a big surprise to me is that the members’ letters indicated that at least one of them is accepting this drivel from DOT that they’ve fixed all the problems and we’re good to move ahead with this.

Believe me, I will call and correct that error. I hope all of you will join me.

[/pullquote]
Absent any proof, opponents continue to scare the hell out of Americans into thinking that 100 or so Mexican trucks will put tens of thousands of US truckers out of business and into the welfare line.

Ridiculous when you consider Canada has 37,000 or more trucks with free access to the US, and they have not cost us jobs. Landline Now host Mark Reddig doesn’t miss an opportunity to warn US truckers that 100 Mexican trucks will “destroy” the US trucking industry. And because of ignorance, bigotry and prejudice, people believe such an incredulous lie.

When they refer to “national security”, they want you to believe that terrorists are lining up to hitch a ride on the first Mexican trucks to cross the border while ignoring the fact that their are more than 25,000 Mexican drayage trucks who cross the border daily. They also pointedly ignore the fact that to our north, across one of the longest unsecured borders in the world, is the largest population of people from the middle east, the so called “New Canadians”, who can cross our border at will. And with a Canadian commercial license, they can do so in a big rig.

They talk of “fair treatment” which is nothing more than equal access. Many people don’t know that after we slammed the door in the face of the Mexicans in 2009, they continued to allow American carriers total access to their country. Four US carriers continue that access today.

OODA President Jim Johnston stood at a stakeholders meeting in 2009 before Secretary Ray LaHood and when asked about Canadians breaking our cabotage laws, shrugged his shoulders and said “It happens” and in the next breath insisted Mexican carriers should be barred because they “might” be inclined to break cabotage, notwithstanding the fact that if a Mexican breaks our cabotage laws, he is also violating his H2b visa and can have it cancelled and himself deported.

On the other end of the debate, we welcome pieces of crap such as this old FLD Freightliner from Canada into this country and onto our roads, without the least bit of worry about the safety and mechanical condition of the rig

They’ll have you believe that the Mexican carriers who will enroll in the program will be waiting to carry drugs and illegals into this country. 100 of the most closely monitored, strictly controlled trucks on our roads, while ignoring the report of the one of the largest cocaine busts in Nevada history, on a Canadian truck, a story which only garnered a mention on LandlineNow. Had it been a Mexican truck, all hell would have broken loose over at OOIDA.

OOIDA and other opponents have stooped as low as to turn to acknowledged hate groups such as FAIR, to spread their agenda against Mexico and their trucking industry, while keeping a safe distance from the results of their efforts. Using the hatred and bigotry of these fringe nutcases to get their message out. Disgusting!

Another Mexican Kenworth (KenMex) in Laredo Texas. How different is this from what you're driving?

So is it racist to oppose cross border trucking with Mexico? Not in the least if you have a valid reason and proof to back up your position. But to use the ignorance, prejudice and bigotry of some to promote hatred and violence against the Mexican truckers is decidedly racist.

Mexican Labor Law and the Mexican Cross Border Trucking Debate

Mexican truckers such as these are covered under Mexican Labor Law which dictates HOS, benefits, employee rights etc. Photo- Guillermo Arias/Associated Press

Much of the misinformation coming from opponents of cross border trucking with Mexico seems to be coming from ignorance of the country rather than deliberate attempts to misinform the public, I’d like to think, at least where the regulatory structure in Mexico is concerned.

Two of those issues that have been forcibly pushed on the public is lack of Hours of Service Regulations in Mexico and what some perceive as a “weak” or non existent regulations for the Mexican trucking industry. Regulations of the trucking industry in Mexico is neither of those.

The differences are enormous as trucking journalist Tim Brady points out in his article REGULATING TRUCKERS.

Brady writes;

Mexican Truckers’ regulations are consequence regulations. If a Mexican trucker makes a mistake–consequences: the Mexican government will take away his ability to operate a commercial vehicle for a period of time. If he causes an injury in a preventable accident–he will lose that privilege for the rest of his life; if there is a fatality–the trucker goes to jail for years. Mexican truckers are required to have work visas to drive in the US; the cost and time it takes to get one in itself becomes a deterrent for being unsafe.

In contrast, the U.S. babysits its truckers and attempts to micromanage every 15 minutes of a trucker’s life through the Hours of Service, EOBRS etc. It is a different view of how to manage the safety of truckers.

MEXICAN LABOR LAW AS IT APPLIES TO THE MEXICAN TRUCKER
Unlike in the United States, Mexican employee rights are constitutionally guaranteed. Mexican labor law has its foundation in Article 123 of the Mexican Constitution, and is implemented through a number of Federal laws, including, the Federal Labor Law (Ley Federal del Trabajo), the law regulating the National Housing Fund for Workers (Ley del Instituto del Fondo Nacional de la Vivienda para los Trabajadores), the Social Security Law (Ley del Seguro Social) and others. The Federal Labor Law, was first adopted in 1931, and amended in 1970.

For those interested, the Labor Laws of Mexico can be downloaded HERE. Rules specific to the Mexican trucking industry are found in Chapter 6 on page 50 titled “Trabajo de Autotransportes”.

Let’s take a look at the law that covers the commercial driver in Mexico.

Article 256 .- The relationship between truck drivers, drivers, operators, collectors and other workers serving trucking board public service of passenger, cargo or mixed, or urban outsiders, such as buses, trucks or cars, and owners or licensees of the vehicles are working relationships and are subject to the provisions of this chapter.

The stipulation in any way misrepresented the provisions above, produces no
legal effect, nor prevent the exercise of rights arising from services rendered.

Article 257 .- The salary is fixed per day, per trip or by ticket sales or by circuit or kilometers routes and will consist of a fixed amount, or a premium income or the amount that exceeds
a given income or in two or more of these forms, under no circumstances be less than the minimum wage.

When the salary is fixed per trip, workers are entitled to a proportionate increase in case
to extend or delay the normal term of the journey because they do not attributable.

Wages can not be reduced by shortening the journey, whatever the cause.

In urban transport or circuit, (intercity bus drivers) workers are entitled to be paid the salary in the case of service interruption due to causes beyond their control. It violates the principle of equal pay provision stipulating the different wages for equal work, if it is provided in lines or services of different categories.

Article 258 .- In determining the salary of days off will be increased to perceive the
work in the week, with a sixteen hundred sixty-six.

Article 259 .- In determining the amount of the salary of holidays and
compensation are subject to the provisions in the second paragraph of Article 89.

Article 260 .- The owner of the vehicle and the licensee or permit holder are jointly
responsible for the obligations arising from labor relations and law.

Article 261 .- It is forbidden to workers:

I. The use of alcoholic beverages during the service and the twelve hours before
beginning work;

II. Use narcotics narcotics or drugs in or outside their working hours without a doctors prescription. Before starting the service, the employee must bring the matter to the attention of the employer andpresent the prescription signed by the physician, and,

III. Receive freight or passage out of the places mentioned by the company for such purposes.

Article 262 .- The workers have special obligations as follows:
I. Treat them with courtesy and dedication passage and cargo with caution;

II. Undergo periodic medical examinations prescribed by law and other rules
work;
III. Caring for the proper functioning of the vehicles and inform the employer of any faults observed;

IV. Make the journey emergency repairs to enable their knowledge,
tool and parts available to them. If you can not make repairs, but the vehicle
can continue to run, drive to the nearest village or to the place fixed for
repair, and

V. Observe traffic regulations and the technical specifications prescribed by national authorities or the employer.

Article 263 .- The employer has the following specific duties:

I. In the long haul transport, will pay for accommodation and meals for workers
when trip is prolonged or delayed for reasons that is not attributable to them;

II. Make repairs to ensure the smooth operation of the vehicle and the safety of
workers, consumers and the general public;

III. Provide vehicles and spare parts essential tool for repairs
emergency and

VI. Observe all traffic regulations on operating conditions and
vehicle safety.

Article 264 .- The special causes of termination of employment relations:

I. Refusal to make the trip contract or its termination without cause. be considered
in any case cause the fact that the vehicle meets the safety
essential to safeguard the lives of workers, users and the public in general;

II. And reiterated the significant decrease of revenues, unless circumstances
justified.

Amazing isn’t it? In the United States, we are considered unskilled labor by the US Department of Labor, and have no specific protections other than those spelled out under OSHA, and various employment laws, which in most cases provide protection for the employer rather than the employee. So let’s recap what we’ve learned.

• ARTICLE 256 establishes the purpose of the chapter and those who are covered by this segment of the law.
• ARTICLE 257 establishes how the driver is paid and restricts deductions, protects pay in event something occurs beyond the control of the driver.
• ARTICLE 258 establishes the salary and the work week which we’ll discuss further in this article
• ARTICLE 259 establishes the salary to be paid for holidays and weekends as we’ll discuss later
•  ARTICLE 260 establishes that the owner or license holder of the vehicle is responsible for compliance with the applicable provisions of this law
• ARTICLE 261 Prohibits workers from (1) using alcohol during working hours or for 12 hours prior to reporting for duty, similar to the US rules from FMCSA, (2) Prohibits the driver from using drugs inside or outside of work unless prescribed by a physician, again, similar to US FMCSA rules. and (3) prohibits drivers from accepting hauling freight or passengers outside of their normal duties,  ie: bootleg freight or contraband.
• ARTICLE 262 establishes the workers obligations to their jobs and to their employer.  Notice how these codified requirements meet or exceed the regulatory standards under FMCSA rules.  (1) Courtesy towards their passengers and care for their cargo as applicable. (2)  Submit to medical examinations as required by their employers, Federal Police for cause and to obtain their Mexican CDL under the rules of the SCT (Secretariat of Communications and Transport), (3) Pre-trip inspections of their vehicles and reporting of problems found to their employers. (4) Make emergency repairs to their vehicle with parts and tools available, and if not able to do so, and the vehicle can safely make it, take it to the nearest place for repairs. (5) Observe all traffic regulations, State, Federal and Municipal and follow all orders of the employer.
• ARTICLE 263 codifies the responsibility of the employer towards the employer. (1) The employer is required by law to pay for the truckers hotel and provide a per diem for the driver when out overnight. (2) Keep the vehicle in safe and compliant working order to protect the employee and the general public. (3) Provide repair services to keep the vehicles road worthy. (4) Compliance with all applicable Federal, State and Municipal regulations. In other words, cannot force or require the worker to break the law.
• ARTICLE 264 establishes the reasons an employer can terminate an employee for cause. Remember, in the US, unless you’re union, you work at the pleasure of your employer and can be terminated for any reason or no reason. (1)  Refusal to accept a trip assignment, abandoning a truck or load before delivery if the vehicle is safe and complies with all applicable rules, laws and regulations. (2) Who the hell knows what that means

An employer may terminate an employee’s employment without liability only upon completion of the project,
upon expiration of the specified term of employment, or for cause as defined in Article 47 of the Federal Labor Law.

Article 47 lists 15 causes for termination:

1.  the employee provides false references regarding her abilities, skills and qualifications for the job;
2.  the employee is found guilty in the course of her employment of a dishonest or dishonorable action, violence, threats or ill-treatment towards the employer or any member of the employer’s family or top management or managerial personnel of the work place, except in cases of provocation or self defense.
3.  the employee is guilty of any acts mentioned in the proceeding items towards any co-workers
4.  the employee is guilty, outside of the work place, of any acts mentioned in item 2 above towards the employer, any member of the employer’s family or the top management or managerial personnel, in the said acts are of such a serious nature as to render the fulfillment of the labor contract impossible;
5.  the employee intentionally causes material damage to the buildings, machinery, tools, raw materials or other items in work place
6.  the employee causes damage of a serious nature, acting without malicious intent, but with negligence which is the sole cause of the damage
7. the employee negligently or carelessly endangers the safety of the work place or persons therein
8.  the employee is guilty of immoral conduct in the work place;
9.  the employee reveals trade secrets or communicates matters of a private or proprietary nature to the determent of the business;
10.  the employee is absent for more than three times in a period of thirty days without the employer’s permission or without sufficient excuse
11.  the employee refuses to obey the employer or her representatives without sufficient reason in matters connected with the services the employee has agreed to provide
12.  the employee refuses to adopt preventive measures to follow the procedures put in force for prevention of accidents or disease
13.  the employee attends work intoxicated or under the influence of a narcotic or harmful drug, unless she has a medical prescription, in which case, she must inform the employer of her prescription and submit a certificate signed by a doctor;
14.  an executory judgment sentencing the employee to a term of imprisonment preventing her from fulfilling her obligations under the labor relationship is issued
15.  other grounds similar to those specified in the preceding paragraphs, if such grounds are of equal gravity and entail similar consequences.

In the event of termination for cause, the employer must give written notice to the employee of the date of the termination of her contract and the reasons for termination. Failure to provide written notice of the reasons for termination shall be sufficient grounds to consider that the termination was not justified.

So even in the event of termination for cause in Mexico, both parties rights are protected, if the law is followed. But let’s say a trucker in Mexico is fired because his employer is having a bad day or for some of the reasons we get fired in the US, in other words, unjustified termination. If a US driver is fired, what rights does he have and what recourse against the employer? None that I am aware of. We serve at the pleasure of our employers.

However, in Mexico, ah, Mexico, that third world country to our south, with no rules or regulations, provides relief for the employee who thinks he has been wrongfully terminated and the onus of proof is on the employer.

Mexico has a Conciliation and Arbitration Board, which is an administrative agency charged with resolving labor disputes. An employee may file a complaint with the Conciliation and Arbitration Board demanding reinstatement or damages within two months of their discharge. The employer has the burden of proving that the employee was terminated for cause pursuant to Article 47 of the Federal labor law. If the employer fails to meets its burden of proof, the Conciliation and Arbitration Board may determine the termination was without justification and award appropriate relief to the wronged employee.

In the event that the Conciliation and Arbitration Board determines that the employer terminated the employee without justification, the employee has the right pursuant to Article 48 of the
Federal Labor Code to:

•  Reinstatement of her job; or
•  Compensation in the form of three months’ wages based upon integrated compensation (i.e., as discussed above, all compensation, including benefits, that the employee can prove she received from the employer during the previous 2 years.

Article 49 of the Federal Labor Law provides that employers are not obligated to reinstate an employee, and the employee may not seek reinstatement, in cases in which: (1) the employee has not been employed with the business for at least one year; (2) the employee is an executive employee; (3) the reinstatement, given all of the circumstances, would be impossible; (4) if the employee rendered domestic services; or (5) if the employee worked part time.

Article 49 requires that if the employee requests reinstatement and is entitled to reinstatement, but the employer refuses to reinstate, then, in addition to the three months’ compensation described in (b) above, the employer must also pay the indemnifications spelled out in Article 50 of the Federal Labor Law as follows:

•  An amount equal to the total integrated compensation payable for one-half of the entire employment period if the employment was for less than one year, or an amount equal to six months’ integrated  compensation for the first year of service, plus twenty days’ wages for each additional year of service;

• If the term of employment was indeterminate, then the compensation shall be twenty days’ wages for each year of service; Furthermore, in any event, the employer shall also pay the entire amount of integrated compensation due to the employee from the date of dismissal to the date on which the compensation is paid.

Finally, Article 162 of the Federal Labor Law mandates that the employer still has to pay a worker dismissed with or without cause, as well as an employee who resigns with fifteen years or more seniority, a seniority premium equal to twelve days’ salary for each year of service rendered. The seniority premium may not, however, be greater than two times the minimum salary then in effect in the economic zone where the employer is located.

MEXICAN TRUCKERS PAY IN MEXICO NOT WHAT YOU THINK

Another objection to the Mexican trucks in the US, is that Mexican truckers are not paid at a rate, equal to a US driver. Well, neither or the Canadians. However, in Mexico, driving a truck is a skilled profession and the truckers are well regarded by the populace. With weekly pay or salary in Mexico averaging $150.00 for a 46 hour week, a Mexican trucker earning $.15cpm and driving 2500 miles a week is earning a salary well above average. But in addition to basic wages, Mexican labor law, again codified thus requiring compliance by the employer.

Social Security (IMSS). Employers must  register employees with the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS) within five days of their hire date.  Employers must contribute a minimum of 17.42 percent of each worker’s salary, depending on the risk-factor of the job, into the social security fund. Employees and their dependents are entitled to IMSS benefits, including the following:

• Retirement Benefits. Retirement is at age 60, with at least 1,250 weekly contributions. The benefit is calculated based upon a multiple of the minimum wage.
• Survivor Benefits. Employees must purchase a life annuity with survivor benefits from a private insurance carrier using funds in their pension accounts.
• Disability Pension. Employees must purchase an annuity with survivor’s benefits from funds in their pension accounts.
• Medical Coverage. Mexican employees may use IMSS medical facilities for essentially all of their health care needs. The benefits provide coverage for a period of 52 weeks, which may be extended if the employee is still contributing to the plan.
• Sickness Compensation. Employees are entitled to 100% of their earnings for up to 72 weeks. After 72 weeks, disability benefits take effect.
• Maternity. Pregnant employees are entitled to 100% of their weekly wages for up to 6 weeks before and 6 weeks after delivery.
• Funeral Grants. Eligible employees are entitled to a payment equal to up to 2 months of minimum wage.
• Day Care. Eligible employees are entitled to have their children ages 43 days to 4 years cared in day care facilities free of charge to the employee.
• Retirement Fund (SAR). Employers must contribute 2% of up to 25 times the annual minimum wage into the retirement fund. Employees may, but are not required to, contribute to the fund. The benefit is payable upon the employee’s death, disability, or reaching retirement age. The benefits are paid out for a maximum of 20 years.
• Workers’ Housing Fund (INFONAVIT). Employers must contribute 5% of the employee’s earnings to the Workers’ Housing Fund. The funds are then placed into individual employee accounts to be used as a source of money for the employee to purchase a house, or as a source for low interest loans for the same purpose. If not used, the funds are paid to the employee uponr etirement, death or disability.

Additional benefits mandated by law include:

• Christmas Bonus (Aguinaldo). Employers must pay employees who have been in their service for at least one year, a year end bonus equal to at least 15 days’ wages before December 20th of
  each year. By practice, the aguinaldo may be equal to 20 or 30 days wages. Employees who have worked for less than one year are entitled to a pro-rated aguinaldo equal to the portion of the year during which they have worked.
• Vacation Premium. Employers must pay a vacation premium to employees equal to 25% of the wages payable during the vacation period.
• Vacation. Employees employed for more than one year are entitled to at least 6 days paid vacation. Vacation leave is increased 2 days for each additional year up to a maximum of 12 days. Additionally, for every 5 years of service, 2 additional days must be added
• Legal Holidays. Mexico has 7 paid legal holidays including: January 1 (New Year’s Day), February 5 (Constitution Day), March 21 (Benito Juarez Day), May 1 (Labor Day), September 16
  (Independence Day), November 20 (Revolution Day), December 25 (Christmas). In addition to those already mentioned, every 6th year when a new president is sworn into office, employees receive
  a paid day off on December 1 (Inauguration Day).
• Profit Sharing. After the first year of business (there is an exemption for the first year of business), employers must pay employees an amount equal to 10 percent of the profits of the
  employer. This amount is to be paid annually. Certain executive and confidential/trust employees are not entitled to the profit sharing.

HOURS OF SERVICE IN MEXICO

One of the strongest objections opponents of cross border trucking have made is that Mexico has no hours of service regulation to control the hours their truckers operate. In the United States, HOS rules are established by the rulemaking process within FMCSA. In Mexico, Hours of Service rules for truckers are established by Constitutional mandate.

But the mandate is not specific to truckers, but to all workers, as shown above.  Hours of Service for truckers are set under Mexico’s Labor Laws, not the SCT, Mexico’s equivalent to the FMCSA.

Mexican labor law establishes the Work week, work day and other factors, which apply to the trucking industry as all other segments of the labor population.

The Work Week. The federal Labor Law of Mexico sets forth a maximum of 48 hours per week as the amount of hours a laborer can work without going overtime. Even so, most companies only run the work week at 40 to 45 hours

The Work Day. For every 6 days of work ( Monday through Saturday ), employees are entitled to one day of rest with full pay. In other words, you are working 6 days but being paid for 7, under the law.

Work Shifts. There are 3 work shifts, consisting of the day shift ( eight hours ), the night shift ( seven hours ) and the mixed shift ( 7 1/2 hours ). The mixed shift is part day shift and part night shift. Those hours that are worked over these periods are considered to be overtime ( paid as such – double the hourly rate ) and can not go over 9 hours per week. THIS IS THE PROVISION THAT ALSO COVERS MEXICO’S COMMERCIAL DRIVERS AND THUS IS A DEFACTO HOS LAW.

Upper Left: Mobil Medical Unit – Upper Right: Initial Exam – Lower Left – Part of Medical exam for LFC qualifications – Lower Right – Application line at Federal Testing Center

In a draft submitted to the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee in September of 2010, a committee which Todd Spencer, Executive vice president of OOIDA is a member and surely has seen this memo, The SCT of Mexico shared a review of Mexican fatigued drivers.  The SCT found:

• Only 38% drive between 5 and 8 hours a day
• 62% drive more than 9 hours a day
• 42% and 45% of passenger bus and truck drivers drive 9-12 hours a day and 0.7% are involved in fatal accidents

I’ll close this with a modified quote from the esteemed trucking journalist Tim Brady from his article referenced above:

the side of the trucking industry who believe every trucker is an irresponsible adolescent who needs to be baby-sat every hour and mile they drive. And the side that’s drunk the Kool-Aid that says just because a country doesn’t regulate their truckers in the same micro-management manner the US does, they must be unsafe and dangerous. This lacks logic and common sense. Anyone knows the more you try and control any segment of the population, the more you will either dumb down the quality of those individuals – or they will revolt.

Perhaps there should be some revolt against those who have engaged in a deliberate campaign to smear the Mexican trucking industry and instill irrational fear into their members on a subject they no nothing about to satisfy their own self interests.

OOIDA concedes defeat – Mexican trucks to roll in August or September

Safe, fully inspected Mexican trucks such as this one would be allowed access to US under the proposed Pilot Program with Mexico

In an interview with Mark Reddig on Land Line Now Friday, Laura O’Neil of OOIDA’s Washington office conceded there is not much left to do to prevent the Mexican Cross Border Pilot Program from beginning next month.

O’Neil, saying that OOIDA continues to look for any roadblock they can throw up to stop the program, conceded that with the August recess upon us, the debate over the debt ceiling increase and the fact that their is not much interest in Congress in stopping the program, that they are out of options. She did suggest that members approach their representatives in their home districts and whine and complain about EOBR’s and those “dirty old polluting” Mexican trucks, the latter that has been thoroughly debunked.

O’Neil did say however that when the trucks start to roll, that OOIDA will be watching very closely for anything they can use to try once again to hamper or sabotage the program as they have in the past. Their bogus claims about Trinity Industries, is the first example that comes to mind.

MEXICAN TRUCKS TO ROLL IN AUGUST/SEPTEMBER

Mexican trucks will begin shipping long-haul freight far into U.S. territory at the end of August or in early September the Mexican government said.

“We hope that by the end of August or early September the first company can enter with full rights,” Economy Secretary Bruno Ferrari told reporters in Washington after a three-day visit that ended Thursday and included meetings with U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk.

That first company, based in Monterrey, will be joined later by another 20 that had requested the right to transport cargo on U.S. roads before Washington barred access to Mexican trucks in 1995, Ferrari said, adding that those other firms could begin shipping freight deep inside the United States “before year’s end,”

Mexico expects other companies that are now submitting their paperwork for the program to be able to enter the United States within 18 months after the application date, as stipulated in the bilateral accord signed on July 6.

Ferrari said he was optimistic about the Cross Border Freight Truck Program deal and hailed the fact that the applications that Mexican trucking firms submitted two decades ago for access to U.S. roads remain valid.

“In the talks we stressed that we didn’t want a new program, but just to give effect to the previous one, which was not interrupted for reasons in Mexico but rather due to problems in this country (the United States),” the secretary said.

“I think there’ll be a lot of interest from Mexican companies,” the secretary said, noting that trucks transport roughly $275 billion worth of annual cargo shipments between the two countries, or 70 percent of the total.

Mexico’s Communications and Transportation Secretariat estimates that the new agreement will expedite the 4.5 million annual truck crossings, generating some $675 million in cost savings.

NEW PROGRAM IS A BIG NON ISSUE

“The new agreement will probably not open us any more to criminal enterprise than we are now,” said David McIntyre, a homeland security expert and vice president for academics at National Graduate School of Quality Management. “But we have a big problem with criminal enterprise right now.”

U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat who serves on the House Homeland Security Committee and whose district includes Laredo port of entry, said that when the Bush administration tried a pilot program for the cross-border trucks, only a few carriers participated.

“If anybody expects huge lines of Mexican trucks to come in across the border revving their engines, that’s not going to happen that way,” Cuellar said. “It’s expensive for a lot of those trucking companies … because they have to meet so many requirements on this side.”

James Clark, director of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce’s Mexico Business Center, said security concerns are unfounded because U.S. and Mexican trucks get the same degree of scrutiny and inspection.

Clark rejected concerns that Mexican drivers won’t understand English, noting that language proficiency has long been required to drive a truck in the United States.
“Aeromexico pilots speak Spanish, too, but they land planes at LAX,” he said.

Efforts by OOIDA and their allies in Congress seem to be going nowhere, Rep. Peter DeFazio’s HR-2407, which would limit the program to 3 years, has garnered only 14 co-sponsors and is not made it out of committee.

OOIDA’s lawsuit attempting to stop the program, which on the surface, appears without any merit, has not been given a hearing date by the DC Court of Appeals.

And perhaps more telling, The TEAMSTERS and their ineffectual leader, James P. Hoffa, have made no moves to interfere this time as they did back in 2007.

FMCSA refuses demand by OOIDA to delay cross border program with Mexico

You'll soon being seeing safe, modern Mexican rigs driven by professional drivers on US highways as the US finally complies with it's obligations under NAFTA

It’s all procedural, but FMCSA has refused demands by the Owner Operators Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) to halt implementation of the Cross Border Pilot Program pending resolution of the frivolous and baseless lawsuit filed against the agency earlier this month.

OOIDA’s legal counsel, Paul Cullen Sr. with The Cullen Law Firm, sent a letter to FMCSA on July 8 asking the agency to consent to stay the program pending resolution of the petition for review.

FMCSA’s counsel denied the request on July 13.

Under rules of procedure, OOIDA was  required to ask FMCSA for the stay because a party to such an appeal, (OOIDA) cannot ask the court for a stay unless it first asks the agency (FMCSA) and is turned down.

On July 6, OOIDA filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. OOIDA is demanding that the court  review the program and to “enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or determine the validity of the implementation of this program.”

OOIDA claims that “implementation of the pilot program is arbitrary, capricious and abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law.”

This is just another of OOIDA’s attempts to mislead the public and prevent the United States from complying with their obligations under NAFTA.

Implementation of the cross border program will finally put us in compliance and cause Mexico to lift the legal retaliatory tariff’s put on more than 90 US export good when the Obama administration defunded the previous pilot program. Those tariffs have cost Americans more than 25,000 jobs and 14% market share in the agriculture and manufacturing sectors.

OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencers admitted in a “Call to Action” that neither the lawsuit, nor a bill before Congress, HR-2407 , has a snowballs chance in hell of stopping the program.

In their desperation, OOIDA resorted to filing this lawsuit which on it’s face is “arbitrary, capricious and frivolous” inasmuch as the issues raised have already been resolved by the US Supreme Court in the case “PUBLIC CITIZEN v FMCSA”  In the unanimous decision, SCOTUS sided with the defendants.

The D.C appeals court is likely to rule against OOIDA in this lawsuit also.