Mexico Trucker Online Articles

More reasons to call or write your Congress Critter to oppose Mexican Trucks

We all need a good laugh some of the time, and the Teamster or OOIDA member who takes their “Calls to Action” to heart has struck again.

We posted an example of his idiocy last weekend and he’s struck again, once again proving why following the direction of OOIDA and others is a guarantee that the Mexican trucks will be rolling soon.

Here’s the letter posted in its entirety from CONGRESS.ORG. We’ve highlighted the parts that proves the writer ain’t got a clue or is simply being a mouthpiece for one of the groups who has been spreading the misinformation about Mexican trucks.

Subject: MEXICAN TRUCKERS ON OUR U.S. HIGHWAYS

To: Sen. Rob Portman

April 6, 2011

Sen. Portman:

As you know, the North American Free Trade Agreement was enacted in January of 1994 by a simple majority in Congress, calling for a free flow of people and commerce across our common borders with Mexico and Canada.

Since that time, we have experienced a clash of cultures that is anything but positive at the hands of illegal migrants. I recently wrote you about the higher percentage rate of Latinos who drunk drive, drag race, murder and rape compared to White (more than double that of white people), Native American and Black U.S. citizens. These figures probably suggest that Latinos, legal and illegal, represent the most dangerous drivers on the road. So what’s in store for us with Mexican truck drivers on our highways which usually bumper to bumper as our population increases by three million every year? Our U.S. Treasury is broke and our infrastructure is crumbling. More trucks? Get real!

And now thanks to the NAFTA agreement we are to be exposed to drunken Mexican truckers and their substandard trucks on our highways because Obama has no regard for the people of this nation or U.S. truckers who stand to lose their jobs.

George W. Bush initiated a trial period during which Mexican truckers could enter this nation, but were made to stay within an area only 25 miles north of our southern border. But then it was determined that Mexican trucks and their drivers were unsafe for our highways.

Mexican Pres. Filipe Calderon whined recently to President Obama about this “injustice,” pointing to the NAFTA agreement and the “free flow of people and commerce” flowing among the three nations. But we have to believe that Calderon believes NAFTA applies only to The U.S. and Canada because the people of this nation are not permitted entry into Mexico without an up-to-date Visa and we surely can’t go there to take jobs at U.S. industries that moved there because Mexico protects them for its own people. And it has the nerve to call us “Protectionists.”

Calderon calls NAFTA a binding treaty, which it is not. It is simply an agreement that passed Congress with a simple majority, not a 2/3 majority. So the United States should not be bound to that one-way street agreement in any way, especially since Mexico isn’t keeping up its end of the agreement.

We are still a sovereign nation. The people of this nation did not vote for NAFTA; nor have we ceded our country to Mexico and Canada. And if we must fight a war to protect our rights, brother will we.

So Obama tries to smooth our feathers by saying that Mexico must allow U.S. trucks into Mexico; but who would want to risk life and limb, subjecting themselves to highway robbers, murderers who behead their victims and let us not forget Montezuma’s Revenge. (This fool has Montezuma Revenge of the mouth)

According to Obama, all Mexican truckers must learn English and adhere to the same stringent standards required of U.S. truckers-all tongue in cheek of course. Even if Obama were sincere, we don’t have the manpower at our border to check each and every Mexican truck and trucker entering this nation carrying drugs and more illegal migrants.

Mexican truckers won’t learn English, and new signs in Spanish across this nation to accommodate them are too expensive and out of the question. Our debt is so heavy now that the dollar promises to crash any day, taking all of us–including you–with it.

Mexican truckers will not be required to carry liability insurance, keep their trucks in top running order or pay road taxes to pay for the wear and tear on our highways their trucks cause, as must our own truckers. Consequently, they will be able to truck in this country more cheaply than our own people and will soon destroy the U.S. trucking industry, causing the loss of thousands more jobs. How much longer must the American people be made to carry the burden of the NAFTA experiment?

Senator Portman are you going to acquiesce to all this or are you going to do what your constituents elected you to do–protect the people of this nation, our jobs and our industries by keeping Mexican trucks off our highways.

Illegal aliens can’t take your job from you as easily as they take ours; but they can kill members of your family with their trucks. Someone is going to die at the hands of Mexican truck drivers and it very well could be one of your friends, a member of your family or you, God forbid. Even the POTUS riding on U.S. highways in his sleek limousine will not be safe. No Mexican trucks on our highways and byways. Allowing them just opens up another can of worms.

Fredericktown , OH

Yep! With ignoramus racist peckerwoods like this and those that made similar comments during the comments for 07-28005, the former pilot program, we don’t have anything to worry about.

Can’t blame him for not signing his name. Ignorance such as his should remain anonymous.

Amidst the hysteria of OOIDA, in reality, it’s much ado about nothing

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”

OOIDA continues to defraud and mislead American truckers on cross border trucking issue

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.

EOBR’s and Mexican Trucks

Example of an EOBR to be required on Mexican trucks operating in the US

One of the requirements in the Concept Document for the new Mexican truck program released that is causing a stir and that quite frankly, I vehemently disagree with is the requirement that all Mexican trucks be equipped with Electronic Onboard Recorders or EOBR’s, which in the US is a contentious issue in it’s own right.

Part of the controversy is the idea that FMCSA would pay for these devices to be installed in the Mexican trucks so they would have real time access to the data and would in fact “own” all data collected. Sounds good on the surface as that would prove once and for all that Mexican drivers do not drive 19 hours a day 7 days a week as opponents such as OOIDA and the Teamsters claim.

Under NAFTA, the United States was supposed to treat Canada and Mexico equally,, requiring the same of both countries. Canada, with their more liberal hours of service rules, and their frequent acknowledged violation of our cabotage laws is not being required to have the EOBR’s.

Brian Straight,managing editor of Fleet Owner gets right to the point of this requirement that has so many people up in arms. Not over the requirement that the Mexican carriers, where 85% of the fleets already have Qualcomm communication systems, have EOBR’s, but that money from the Highway Trust fund be used to pay for them.

Brian writes:

I wonder if this provision was put in by the Administration to show Mexico that we were doing everything we could to comply with the requirements of NAFTA, while at the same time creating an out for the public and Congress……..

This revelation seems a lot like a poison pill designed to torpedo the program before it can be resurrected. According to reports, the reason the U.S. wants to pay for the EOBRs is so that the government “owns” the data the devices collect. Until someone can provide a valid reason as to why the government needs to own this data, I question why this is important……….
[pullquote]A spokesperson for the Texas Dept. of Public Safety told the Texas Tribune in January that the resumption of the program would not increase drug trafficking or any other illegal activity coming across the border.[/pullquote]
And if the government feels this data is that vital, might it then want to “own” the data recorded by these devices once they are installed on all U.S.-based trucks? Maybe we’ll be told it’s a national security issue – it will prevent drug trafficking, human smuggling, illegals from entering the country. Doubtful. The proposed trucking program would require EOBRs for Mexican trucks inside the U.S. The government owning the data is not going to prevent any of these things from taking place. Maybe the government just wants to know where these trucks are at all times. Talk about trust issues……….

And it seems to be working. Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) firmly in the pocket of the labor unions released this statement:

“As I have said before, three issues must be addressed in the cross-border trucking program: safety, security and job loss,” DeFazio said. “I appreciate the Administration’s attempt to address the very serious safety and security concerns surrounding Mexican trucks, and I am glad we are beginning to address the extortionate Mexican tariffs unfairly slapped on American goods. However, taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for the Mexican trucking industry to comply with American safety standards. It is outrageous that we would spend tax dollars to pay for equipment on Mexican trucks; equipment which either the Mexican government or the Mexican carriers themselves should be required to pay. I also question the authority to grant Mexican carriers permanent authority to operate on American roads and highways before a pilot program is complete and the results evaluated.”

Well Petey boy! The tariff’s are legal and in no way extortionate, put there because of your kowtowing to Union interests and opposing our legal commitment to NAFTA. Congress does not have to approve the deal since both countries have come to an agreement over how best to resolve the standoff.

But most of us share your concern about taxpayer money being used to fund this requirement, which is nowhere to be found in the original NAFTA agreement nor the arbitration board agreement of the 90′s.

Ironically, Teamsters and OOIDA pushed for this requirement in stakeholder meetings with Secretary Ray LaHood last year, and now that it is close to becoming a reality, they are in opposition to their own proposal.

In the meantime, US Trade Representative Ron Kirk has stated a final agreement should be “weeks, if not days, away”.

And an editorial in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram puts the whole thing in a better perspective:

The United States has been in violation of NAFTA long enough. It is time for Congress to remove any roadblocks and approve the deal agreed on by the two heads of state.
Such a move would add a significant boost to the U.S. economy while eliminating much of the growing frustration and unnecessary hardship caused by this provincial prohibition.
[pullquote]As for the American unions that continue to protest, what are they afraid of? Surely they aren’t saying they can’t compete with their fellow truckers from Mexico.[/pullquote]

Our compliance with NAFTA would in no way impact union LTL drivers nor warehouse workers as the border states are right to work states and the majority of companies are non union, although one imagines Hoffa would pee his panties to change that.

Presidents Obama & Calderon reach agreement on access for Mexican Trucks

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

SA Express News Editorial – Take action on truck program – End a self-defeating trade war with Mexico over NAFTA provision

Let’s see if I’ve got this right. James P. Hoffa of the Teamsters and Todd Spencer of OOIDA are correct in their opinions of Mexican trucks and 1400 plus trade associations, newspaper editors and business groups are wrong? And the aforementioned duo “speak” for the “majority” of Americans? I think not.

The San Antonio Express News editorial board offered their opinion on the issue this morning.

Read more

Mexican Trucks Issue – When the truth runs counter to your agenda

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

Comedian James P. Hoffa – Mexican trucks don’t belong on U.S. highways

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