Huffington Post: Should Mexican Trucks Be Allowed Throughout U.S.?

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-parker/should-mexican-trucks-be_b_277142.html

Steve Parker

Journalist/Broadcaster covering the auto industry and auto racing for 35 years.
Posted: September 4, 2009 03:52 AM

The recent release of a Transportation Departments inspector general's office government audit has brought to a head, once again, an issue which ignites deep feelings and loyalties in the best people.

One of the provisions of NAFTA is to allow drivers licensed in Mexico and big-rig trucks and buses registered there unfettered access to the US.

A pilot program to allow them on US highways began in September 2007 and ended in March 2009 when Congress cut off funding for it.

The claim by those opposing the rule is that the trucks are not inspected properly and regularly, at least to US standards, and that their sheer number will overwhelm already-overwrought border crossings.


An already-jammed US/Mexico border crossing

Those in favor say that it's only fair because US trucks have access to Mexico. There's also a sometimes-not-so thinly-veiled charge of racism tossed at the people against instituting the law. I know this to be true because more than a year ago we posted a blog piece saying those against the rule were making some good points; hence, according to comments from some visitors here, I was "racist."

Currently, trucks and buses from Mexico are limited to a radius of about 50 miles north of the border; at warehouses within that area, they drop-off their loads (or passengers) and they're picked-up by American-registered vehicles and taken to their destinations nationwide.

FULL story at link.

[Lorax7844]

1. No

[valerief]

2. Why? Are they having a problem getting heroin into the U.S. via the Dubai-owned ports? nt

[LakeSamish706]

3. Not without serious inspection by mechanics at the crossing....n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

4. I was always against NAFTA, still am against it and support limiting it in any way shape and form

possible (within the law)

[mitchtv]

5. All the big companies can go down there

and bypass American Teamsters. Simple

[madrchsod]

9. it`s not just the teamsters...

there`s thousands of independents that are out of work or just scrapping by. there`s thousands in driver training schools because there`s no factory jobs.

[Lasher]

11. The Longshoremen too, and maybe especially.

Big business wants to bypass US ports.

[mitchtv]

27. which bleeds over onto RR workers

being bypassed

[Lasher]

31. Yep.

That's one big motivation of 'free' trade in general: Bypass unions.

Happy labor day! FWIW, Blair Mountain is not far from where I live.

Lasher

[rwheeler31]

6. No it is so ugly out there now .

[madrchsod]

7. no....

they won`t be welcomed at to many truck stops in this nation.....

[senseandsensibility]

8. no

eom

[madville]

10. NAFTA, killing more American jobs, thanks Bill

n/t

[RB TexLa]

12. Yes, we and our neighbors have to share the same boat.

North America as one is a good goal and a good thing.

[pipoman]

21. 'cept Mexico refuses to fix the horrible

social and economic problems of their people in favor of massive corruption and oppression of the serfs. Blame is squarely directed at the US for all of the problems of Mexico and every North American summit results in US placation and acceptance of blame of the quasi-dictatorial Mexican government.

[zonkers]

13. Way to sketchy.

[NYC_SKP]

14. Hell No. nt

[Justitia]

15. No, this is a serious SAFETY issue - I'm in TX & have been hit by them.

They do not maintain their large vehicles like we do and frequently they are uninsured.

They carry dangerously packed loads, these trucks are a nightmare.

I've been hit multiple times not far from the border. If you saw these trucks, their average condition would scare the hell out of you.

I've lived in TX most of my life, I have zero problem with our Mexican neighbors to the south, but their vehicles scare the shit out of me!

[itsrobert]

63. I lived in El Paso and now San Diego

These trucks are unsafe and in real poor condition. Plus they pollute the air.

In El Paso, it's no longer news when one of these jack knifes on the I-10. People plan for them on their daily commutes.

[Edweird]

16. Another assault on Blue Collar America. It's disgusting.

[B Calm]

17. I never could understand why Canadian trucks are allowed. Kick

them both out!

[Joanne98]

18. NO!

[JonLP24]

19. As long as they are coming in

with bricks of marijuana.

Seriously if US trucks are allowed out then Mexico trucks should be allowed in. If it's legitimate business I don't have a problem with it.

[pampango]

20. "Inspector General affirms that Mexican trucks are as safe as U.S. vehicles"

DOT Issues Report on Mexican Truck Safety

http://farmfutures.com/story.aspx?s=31303&c=17

"A new report from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Inspector General affirms that Mexican trucks are as safe as U.S. vehicles and Mexican truck drivers have better safety records than their U.S. counterparts. The report, a - Follow-Up Audit on the Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement's Cross-Border Trucking Provisions - notes that in FY 2008, more than 220,000 inspections were performed on Mexican trucks by DOT's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

During those inspections only 1.2% of Mexican drivers were placed out of service for a violation, as compared to nearly 7% of U.S. drivers who were inspected. About 21.2% of Mexican trucks – compared to 21.8% of U.S. trucks – were placed out of service for safety reasons or because they had violated some other regulation.

Steve Mulder, a spokesman for the Alliance to Keep U.S. Jobs, says the obstacles to resolving the debate over Mexican truck safety – have been removed. He adds that the tariffs, which remain in place, were prompted by pure politicking in the United States, and the new DOT report makes it clear that Mexico has lived up to the United States' demands when it comes to truck safety.

The DOT IG's report: http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/NAFTA_Final_Report_Section_508_-_090209.pdf

"...further efforts are still needed to improve the consistency of information reported to the Mexican Conviction Database (MCDB) and to improve the capacity to perform safe and efficient bus inspections at border crossings.

First, states continue to inconsistently report traffic convictions incurred by holders of Mexican driver’s licenses to the MCDB. For example, New Mexico’s reporting of first quarter traffic convictions for calendar year (CY) 2008 was delayed until the second quarter of that year. Also, Missouri reported traffic convictions of Mexican drivers in non-commercial vehicles, while other states did not. Moreover, current traffic conviction reporting requirements and monitoring procedures make it difficult to account for the possibility that Mexican Federal commercial driver’s license (CDL) holders operating in the United States could also legally hold another Mexican-issued driver’s license. Inconsistent reporting or monitoring problems make the system vulnerable to incomplete information or delays. As a result, any conviction information that is not reported or delayed
could result in Mexican Federal CDL holders continuing to drive in the United States after incurring a disqualifying traffic offense.7

Second, performing safe and efficient bus inspections at border crossings continues to be a challenge for FMCSA. Buses are less likely to be subject to inspections at the southern border, especially at non-commercial crossings that are not staffed by inspectors or at crossings for which inspections do not occur during evenings and weekends. Further, at two non-commercial crossings, the bus inspection space provided by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) was unsafe due to the proximity to moving traffic, which may deter inspectors from performing certain inspections. These constraints lessen the impact border inspections have as a deterrent to unsafe buses entering the United States."

"In comparison to 1997, in FY 2008 the number of personnel inspecting Mexican vehicles and drivers is much greater and the ratio of Mexican trucks passing versus failing inspections is greater. In FY 2008, FMCSA and the states had 588 enforcement personnel at the border, including 243 Federal personnel. In addition, 78.8 percent of Mexican vehicles passed the safety inspection and 21.2 percent were removed from service because of safety violations. The 21.2 percent Mexican truck out-of-service rate is comparable to United States trucks at 21.8 percent."

About 7% of US truck drivers were "Placed Out of Service for License Violation" in FY 2008 while 1.2% of Mexican drivers were.

The gist of the DOT IG's report is that Mexican trucks and drivers are passing safety inspections at the same rate or higher than US trucks and drivers. The IG, however, recommends that complying with NAFTA commitments be further delayed because, after 15 years, our database of Mexican driving violation in the US is not adequate and we haven't assigned enough inspectors to the border to do an adequate job.

We seem to have found the best way to avoid complying with our commitment is to maintain an inadequate reporting system and not provide enough inspectors, both actions that we control not Mexico.[/b} If Mexico doesn't like, tough. We are bigger and stronger than you are.

[pipoman]

30. How many of thes 'Mexican trucks"

are formerly US trucks owned by US companies who moved to Mexico in anticipation of the NAFTA screw over?

[pampango]

33. I don't know, but it's apparent that keeping "Mexican trucks" and truckers out isn't a safety issue,

as often alleged. The DOT IG study shows this clearly. Once the smokescreen of "safety" is blown away, exactly how do we justify not living up to our word?

I know Obama wants to conduct international relations based on diplomacy, negotiations, and mutual agreement rather than the "cowboy" diplomacy of his predecessor who would ignore past agreements and believed the US could do whatever it wanted without regard to what the rest of the world feels about it. That's probably why he is trying to figure out a solution to this Mexican trucking issue, since he wants the reputation of someone who will live up to tough agreements (since most agreements has provisions that you like and some you don't like) once they're signed (and until they're modified) and not unilaterally walk away from provisions we later don't like.

[Romulox]

36. In other words, Obama already broke the UAW. Why not the Teamsters?

:hi:

[Ikonoklast]

38. Mexico has no national database, or standards for becoming a commercial driver.

There is no way for the Mexican federal government to know what a driver's record is, as that information isn't readily available nationwide, let alone mad eavailable to the U.S. government. Why should the U.S. lessen the standards only for Mexican drivers?


And if I wanted to, the next time I'm in Laredo and have an extra $1000, I can get a Mexican commmercial drivers' license from across the border, with my name and picture on it, and the damn thing looks better than the real ones Mexico issues.

And there would be no way to establish if it was legitimate or not, by U.S. OR Mexican authorities.

[pampango]

39. The Inspector General of the Department of Transportation is apparently

a little easier to convince of the concept that Mexicans might be competent at maintaining records than you are. The IG did not assess any responsibility to Mexico for the delay in resolving the issues delaying implementation. The IG placed that responsibility solely on the US.

"(5) Having a sufficiently accurate, accessible, and integrated information infrastructure and adequate telecommunications links. (Met the criteria—In place and being used.)

(7) Having sufficient databases to allow safety monitoring of Mexican carriers and drivers. (Substantially met the criteria. Databases are in place, but FMCSA needed to improve the consistency of Mexican traffic conviction reporting to the Mexican Conviction Database (formerly the 52nd State System))

(8) Having measures to effectively enforce and monitor Mexican carrier licensing. (Met the criteria—Enforcement rules were implemented and states have adopted out of service criteria.)"

All the above is from the IG's report (link in previous post). The IG doesn't seem to share your "but everything in Mexico is corrupt" philosophy.

Below is from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.

http://www.aamva.org/TechServices/AppServ/CDLIS/MexicanAccess.htm

"The FMCSA, AAMVA, and Mexico's General Directorship of Federal Motor Carrier Transportation (DGAF) established access to Mexican commercial driver records for CDLIS. Mexican Access is a combination of a bridge to Mexican commercial driver's license records and a file of convictions on Mexican commercial drivers. The CDLIS transactions supported by Mexican access are the Driver Status Request, Driver History Request, Report Out-of-State Conviction, Negate Out-of-State Conviction, Report Out-of-State Withdrawal, and Negate Out-of-State Withdrawal. FMCSA is responsible for managing the Mexican Access within the U.S."

"The Mexican Licencia Federal Information System (LIFIS) includes direct electronic connection among Mexico's field licensing offices and the headquarters office, central issuance of a more secure and tamper-proof Licencia Federal de Conductor (LFC) document, and real time data entry and information retrieval. The Mexican Access bridge serves as a portal between the CDLIS and LIFIS applications, mainly by reformatting queries and responses between the two systems, and by simultaneously providing language and equivalency translations. From the CDLIS point of view, the bridge provides access to commercial driver's license records in Mexico at the Mexican jurisdictions via LIFIS."

Sounds like Mexico has some idea of "what a driver's record is" after all. (I suppose you could always say "I don't care what the Inspector General of the DOT or the AAMVA says. What do they know? Mexicans can't possibly be as competent as they say they are. They're Mexicans!")

[pipoman]

40. We give notice of withdrawl

and quit placating and enabling the vast corruption of the Mexican government and oppression of the Mexican people. Bill promised us all that we could get out when ever we wanted. Since 80+% didn't want in to begin with and every aspect of every promise we were lied to about the NAFTA failed to come to pass, it is time for a demand to withdraw. If....If Mexico begins to take responsibility for it's own well being and cleans up it's shit, maybe we should agree to a mere suspension of the agreement if immediate wage, benefit and environmental reform are forthcoming. NAFTA was sold to US workers as a measure to bring the impoverished of Mexico to a parity with US workers. Instead it has been exactly what Perot promised, that is a giant sucking sound of US jobs and wages going south and nothing but impoverished Mexican people and cheap consumer goods coming back north...it is a race to the bottom. We hear a lot about the treason of *. Truth is, every piece of shit in Washington who signed onto this shitty agreement should be in prison right now...Dems and Thugs..

[pampango]

45. You're arguing that we should withdraw from NAFTA, but should we live up to its provisions

until we actually withdraw? Or should we just ignore the agreement since we really want to withdraw from it anyway? (Hey, Obama, try taking that legacy to your next negotiating session.) Should we also withdraw from the Canada-US free trade agreement that was superseded by NAFTA or is it really just Mexico that you're worried about?

Given your other posts, my guess is you would like us to withdraw from the WTO as well. How about the UN? It, too, it a multilateral international organization that to some extent infringes on our national sovereignty. That would bring some RW'ers on board the "dump international agreements" bandwagon since they don't like them much either. (The UN, Brenton Woods, and GATT and others were all "Democratic" international agreements largely disdained by repubs who still clung to the value of Smoot-Hawley-Hoover tariffs from 1930 that FDR campaigned against in 1932 and dismantled as president). Perhaps the UN is toothless enough that it can't really make us do anything, so it's OK. And what about Kyoto? Perhaps Bush was right to keep us out, since joining it would force us to be subject to rules that we would have agreed to with foreigners and which might harm some of our industries and cost us some jobs.

Perhaps we should withdraw from all of our international agreements and not negotiate any new ones. All these agreements have some parts that we like and some parts that we don't like, and it's no fun living up to the parts (like Mexican trucks) that we don't like.

It is interesting that some Americans, when in doubt, seek peace and prosperity by isolating themselves from their neighbors, while Europeans (through the EU) find peace and prosperity by integrating themselves with their neighbors (including ones that are poorer than Mexico, like Bulgaria and Romania) through free trade and open borders.

[pipoman]

47. I am all for trade with countries

which are working toward labor rights, wage parity with the US, and cooperation in raising the standard of living for working people. Mexico is doing none of these things. They are falling farther into class warfare and corruption. US companies are happily exploiting and paying Mexico to continue these practices. Many (if not most) Mexican immigrants dream of a day when they can return to their homeland and have some degree of prosperity. The US, through trade policy, has the ability to influence this. Instead we placate and enable the corrupt in Mexico to continue profiting on the backs of the impoverished.

The point is we should NEVER have entered into these agreements in the first place. We were forced, against the will of the people of the US, into these agreements by corrupt politicians on our own side. We were sold down the river by Democrats, the traditional labor party, who disregarded the wishes and will of labor in favor of bribes. I would have expected this from the Repubs, the Dems are who allowed this to go forward.

Please tell me the parts of NAFTA that 'we like'? Cheap products? We had those before NAFTA.

Please tell me how post NAFTA Mexican workers have moved even one inch toward a better lot in life as was promised by Bill Clinton and others who forced this down our throats against our will?

[pampango]

58. So Mexico's inclusion in NAFTA is the problem. Canada-US free trade is OK?

Perhaps free trade among the rich countries of the world (the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, perhaps Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore) would be something that Democrats could support? Kind of a RCFTA. Or just to hell with international agreements, raise the tariffs and let the chips fall where they may (kind of the 1930 approach)? Let Canada, Mexico, Europe, China, India and the others work out the rules the world getting along and trading with each other. Just leave us alone.

Does NAFTA have problems? You bet. Does the UN have problems? Think so. Does the WTO have problems? No doubt. Does Kyoto have problems? Better believe it. Do we dump them all? Maybe just go it alone with a few bilateral agreements with individual countries (coalitions of the willing)? I know one ex-president that would be happy with that scenario, but don't think that is Obama's style. He seems to believe in diplomacy, negotiations, and multilateral agreements as a way of resolving global problems; not exactly the style of our ex-president.

Does Obama have reservations about some of our international agreements? I'm sure he does and NAFTA may well be at the top of his list. All of us want him to address our own most important issues right now, but he may have decided that it was better not to put every issue on the table at the same time, e.g. help to the auto industry, health care reform, immigration reform, financial industry regulation, NAFTA renegotiation, DADT, and a million other issues. You and I may not agree with his prioritizing some of these issues and putting others on the back burner, but that doesn't mean that he has no initiatives planned for the future. (Maybe he can push NAFTA renegotiation and immigration reform together since they both are important issues with Mexico.)

I suspect if you ran the EU it would never have agreed to admit Romania and Bulgaria. The people in those countries are poorer than Mexicans and membership in the EU not only grants them free trade with the rest of Europe but open immigration borders as well. Imagine us doing that with Mexico. Not sure whether many progressives or the Beck/Limbaugh/Dobbs wing of the repub party would yell louder if that ever appeared at all likely to happen. (Fortunately for both groups it is inconceivable to most Americans and will not happen in my lifetime. A big difference between Europeans and Americans.)

[pipoman]

66. Did you not read my post?

What has Mexico done in the last 10 years to improve the working environment or life of it's workers? Anything? Anything what so ever? I didn't think so. Should we allow the corrupt Mexican government and ruling class to continue reaping the benefits of NAFTA with the population living in the same shit it always has? Should we force the US working middle class stoop to the level imposed on the working class of Mexico? This has been the problem with NAFTA from the very beginning. There is no requirement on Mexico to make lifestyle improvements for it's people. The only thing that has changed is that the wealthy have become more wealthy and US corporate shareholders have benefited on the backs of the poor in Mexico, while 100's of thousands of decent paying paying, economy contributing jobs have disappeared from US cities and towns along with the tax revenue they contributed. I am not about to sit by quietly any longer and wait for my lifestyle to plummet because of US entry into a predictable quagmire against the will of the vast majority of US voters...If you think your lifestyle is safe, regardless your lot in life, think again.

[pampango]

67. I read yours. Did you read mine?

You hate what the Mexican government and ruling class does to the Mexican people. (Agreed, though I don't agree that less trade will make the people richer and the ruling class poorer.) You also think that Mexico (1/3 the size of the US) will drag us down to their level. (Meanwhile our trade deficit with China is 4 times larger than with Mexico and China is 12 times larger than Mexico.)

You do realize that our trade deficit with Mexico last year was $64 billion, with Canada it was $78 billion. (And Canada is only 1/3 the size of Mexico) If you believe that trade deficits cost jobs, guess what? We lost more jobs to Canada than to Mexico. Where's the anti-Canada rant?

"If you think your lifestyle is safe, regardless your lot in life, think again." I have said nothing about thinking my lifestyle is safe. Repubs are the ones who say, "I've got mine and you're not getting it." Surely you don't read my posts to the effect that I'm saying "Hey, Mexicans! I've got mine and you're not getting it." If anything, your disdain for Mexico and Mexicans would indicate that you are the one who would be comfortable saying that.

Now that I've addressed some of your Mexico rants would you care to address points I made in previous posts? Or you can stick with the old "bash Mexico" theme, if that's all there is in your play book. (Maybe you can even get Joe Wilson to call be a liar. ;) He seems to be the type that would have little good to say about Mexico and Mexicans.)

[pipoman]

68. I don't agree that less trade will

help the Mexican people either. Status quo is robbing them. The NAFTA agreement enables the Mexican government to scoop the trade dollars and is doing nothing to help the Mexican people. If the US would withdraw only to re-enter when Mexico enacts true reform including wage and hour standards which will incrementally benefit the Mexican workers, Mexico would enact these measures. As long as we are giving with no return Mexican workers are destined to remain in poverty. Mexico can't be a good trading partner until the Mexican people can participate in the North American Economy. This is why the trade deficit with Canada is what it is...Canada is buying directly from Mexico the products formerly made in the US. Have some US jobs migrated north? Yes. Does Canada have protection for workers and a similar standard of living as the US? Yes.

I feel the same about MFTS with China and some members of the GATT/WTO, however China is incrementally improving the standard of living of Chinese workers. I feel that countries with the lowest standard of living must be making incremental improvement to be allowed to fully participate in these agreements. The theory here is exactly the same as Federal wage and hour laws. Why are they in place? Because if they weren't Kentucky could make their state far more desirable to employers than Ohio, that's why. It creates a parity and maintains the standard of living across state lines. This has been vital in maintaining the US standard of living and is what is lacking in the NAFTA agreement.

Out of my 10 full time employees I have 3 1st generation Mexican immigrant citizens of the US and one legal alien working for me. All 3 citizens came with no real job skills other than a desire to work hard. I have enrolled all 3 in a trade school and am helping them become skilled in a good field. All 3 know that they would have never had this opportunity in Mexico. All 4 workers long to return to their home towns in Mexico. As much as I would like to keep them on because of their work ethic and the skills they are learning, I would love for them to be able to return to their homes and families in Mexico, be able to educate their children and maintain the standard of living they enjoy in the US...won't happen until the Mexican government is forced (kicking and screaming) to begin improving the lot of the Mexican workers.

[Romulox]

37. Everybody's looking for a special exemption from "free trade"...

*My* job should be protected; *you* should compete. That's modern economic philosophy in a nutshell.

[trayfoot]

22. NO!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

23. Being Labor Day, I would like to add that this is also a union buster for the California dockworkers

Goods being shipped from China, unloaded in Mexico, and entering the US via Mexican shippers.

[pipoman]

24. The US should give notice of withdrawl

from NAFTA...it should never been signed to begin with. Of coarse Bill promised that all of the problems (objected to by over 80% of the US population who opposed the agreement prior to its acceptance) could and would be 'fixed' after we signed the initial agreement...obvious bullshit at the time and remains so today..

Let's take a look at one of Hillary's campaign commercials shall we?


Script for Clinton Radio Ad "Jobs"

Following is a script for “Jobs”

Man #1: “The economy in this state is terrible.”

Woman #1: “We need jobs very badly in Ohio.”

Man #2: “We need a leader who cares about the people.”

Announcer: She's fighting for America's middle class.

Man #1: “Hillary Clinton can and will turn this country and economy around.”

Man #2: “We've had steel mills here that have left. Casting plants that have left.”

Man #3: “These corporations are taking these jobs overseas.”

Woman #1: “Hillary has gone on record saying that NAFTA was a mistake.”

Man #1: “Hillary does have a plan to fix NAFTA. She wants to change it from free trade to fair trade.”

Man #3: “She wants to fix the problems.”

Announcer: She'll end 55 billion dollars in giveaways to corporate special

interests and invest it to rebuild the middle class, create jobs, expand student loans and cut taxes for working families.

Man #2: “She has the knowledge. She has the ability.”

Man #3: “Hillary Clinton has the will it takes to get up every morning and fight for working families here in the United States of America.”

Woman #1: “She's going to bring job back here to Ohio.”

Announcer: Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President.

Hillary Clinton: I'm Hillary Clinton, candidate for President, and I approved this message.



http://thepage.time.com/script-for-clinton-radio-ad-jobs/

[sam sarrha]

25. i lived in el paso when they started this, only 1 truck out of 20 passed safety, the next day there

was one inspector and they allowed all trucks to go by if he was busy

DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN, OUR TRUCKERS ARE OUT OF WORK AND LIVING AT THE POVERTY LEVEL WORKING 338 DAYS A YEAR 24/7.. NO FAMILY LIFE. TRUCKING IS THE 4TH MOST DANGEROUS JOB FOR HEART, DIABETES, HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, HIGH CHOLESTEROL, OBESITY, BACK PROBLEMS....

I DID IT I KNOW.. Swift has 22,000 drivers with 110% annual turnover, because they suck so bad, they're typical.. they run you east and if you want your 2 days off a month you have to jump truck then 2000 miles from home, and wait for another position to open.. you can work 24/7 for 3-4 months, in a stinking cab with some fuck'n asshole with feet like road kill, cause all the truck stop showers give you trench foot.. life in those trucks is criminal,

[senseandsensibility]

26. Thanks for spelling it out

Most people have no idea of what truck drivers (and many other workers) go through.

[Libertas1776]

28. Hell NO!

Haven't we screwed over the American worker enough already? Dump NAFTA!

[Dappleganger]

29. In support of American truckers here.

A big fat NO to any others.

[Better Believe It]

32. Since the head of the Teamsters Union, Hoffa, now says he's willing to bury the "public option" ....

I'd say more progressives and liberals would be inclined to support the free flow of Mexican owned trucking lines into the United States.

Mr. Hoffa sure knows how to win friends and influence people!

[Gin]

34. Hell No!

[Romulox]

35. Everybody supports "free trade" until it's THEIR ox that's gored.

Why the hell should I care if unionized stevedores unload, or well paid truck drivers transport, the cheap crap from China that I buy every day? :shrug:

[pipoman]

41. Short memory?

80%+ of US voters opposed the NAFTA and GATT agreements...You should care because your future depends on the prosperity of others. US truck drivers are known for their wealth the world over, huh? Either you are independently wealthy in which case I suggest you join your own kind at www.freerepublic.com, or you are a child in the lowest income bracket in which case you better hope that there is a middle class or you and your offspring are destined to poverty forever. What an idiotic crock of shit you wrote.

[Romulox]

43. We just had a "succesful" program that gave taxpayer money out to buy cars made in South Korea.

The top selling cars under C4C were mostly Japanese and Korean marks. Everybody applauded the well thought out plan. (Hooray "free trade"!)

But everybody starts humming "I'mma Yankee Doodle Dandee" when it's their livelihood on the line. Why should the people that make the goods on the truck "compete" with the third world, but not the guys driving the truck? Please explain to me why truck driver and IT worker are the only two jobs worth protecting in the USA, and everybody else has to "compete" in the global market.

'Cause I honestly don't get it.

(If you don't understand, my above question was meant to convey the above point, not to be taken seriously.)

[pipoman]

44. Every segment

needs the protection of consumers voting with their feet. Frankly, the "domestic" car makers screwed themselves and the workers by moving their operations to countries where the workers can't afford to drive the cars they are making. The loyalty of the US buyers can't be expected when much of the production isn't done with US labor. The management of the 'shrinking 3' automakers chose to take advantage of the NAFTA agreement and were huge supporters of it while the workers strongly opposed it...guess who won. Now if I am buying a new car which I never do), and wish to buy US content, I completely disregard the name plate in favor of the truth of the production along with reliability of the vehicle and the economy of the vehicle which leads many to Toyota, Honda, etc. A purchase of one of these makes isn't a vote against US workers, it is a reflection of poor business strategy of the 'mediocre 3' auto maker's management..the workers are the unfortunate beneficiaries of these decades of stupid, greedy decisions by management.

I am not aware of any real movement on the part of IT workers, it seems this is one area which has exported jobs the fastest and easiest.

The whole "compete in the global market' shit was the line used by Washington when they were explaining that they were going to commit the US to these treasonous agreements without regard for the majority of voters. I will never forget dems and thugs standing on te hill at news conferences all out of breath from tongue kissing each other telling the masses how important 'fast tracking' the NAFTA and GATT was. I really think that we, as voters and members of the party formerly known as 'the labor party', must demand our President, Congress, and Senate to fix this shit they dumped on us right fucking now...but alas, the realist in me knows that most dems are just sitting at home wondering why the economy isn't recovering and where the jobs went...this was the ultimate plan of the 'fast trackers'.

[Romulox]

51. So you're just being a "smart consumer" when YOU buy outsourced goods?

But when *I* used outsourced services, I'm a traitor to the working man? Do you see how hypocritical this sounds?

"The loyalty of the US buyers can't be expected when much of the production isn't done with US labor...A purchase of one of these makes isn't a vote against US workers, it is a reflection of poor business strategy of the 'mediocre 3' auto maker's management"

And the use of outsourced trucking is just an indictment of the business model of the trucking industry (sorry truck drivers!) Try as you might, you'll never come up with an argument that convinces people that their jobs must be sacrified to the "invisible hand" of global competition, but that your job should be sheltered and protected. The same arguments you apply to the auto industry go for your industry, too. :eyes: :hi:

[bridgit]

42. No. They operate on a whole different maintenance schedule and besides...

We have our own Teamsters

[A HERETIC I AM]

55. Out of curiosity, how many US Truck drivers do you think are Teamsters?

And what percentage of US/Mexico transborder freight is hauled by Union drivers on the US side?

Any idea at all?

[bridgit]

60. Not the point *at* all but to suggest that my husband is an OperEng...

and he refused to cross a Teamster picket line they put it up over a work stoppage specific to this very issue not 7 months ago so Teamsters are there and it serves some other point to ignore them you just have to care enough and be seen caring. My sense is that you'd do well to look for them yourself while making fewer excuses for global oligarchs including the Bush family vis-a-vis ticky-tacky little numbers designed to pull the eye from where it may well be better fixed for all you know in that I am loathe and I admit it to confuse a 'heretic' with an enabler of America's failure

[A HERETIC I AM]

62. Oh for crying out frickin loud. I asked a simple question.

I am in no way impugning your husband or Teamsters (I WAS a Teamster, BTW. Local 299, Detroit, Car Haul Division) in any way, shape or form. I simply asked if you had any idea how many of the US truck driver pool were Teamsters and how much cross border freight was hauled by them.

My sense is that you'd do well to look for them yourself while making fewer excuses for global oligarchs including the Bush family vis-a-vis ticky-tacky little numbers designed to pull the eye from where it may well be better fixed for all you know in that I am loathe and I admit it to confuse a 'heretic' with an enabler of America's failure

Seriously, WTF?!? :wtf: How the fuck am I making excuses for global oligarchs? What "tacky little numbers"?

YOU said "and besides, we have our own Teamsters".

Ok, fine. What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

The reason I asked those questions is because after reading numerous threads on this subject over the last year, it's apparent many DU'rs seem to think that much, if not most of the freight moved across the border from Mexico is moved by union drives here in the US. Some posters give the impression they think most freight is moved by union drivers. You bringing up the Teamsters in your post gives me the impression you share that opinion.

Unfortunately, that is NOT the case. I personally think that EVERY truck driver in this country should be union, but I'm not likely to see that in my lifetime.

Just because I asked a simple question or state a verifiable fact you may not like, it does not make me a member of the opposition.

If I made an erroneous assumption of your understanding of the US driver pool based on your complete non-sequiter mention of the Teamsters Union, then I apologize.

[bridgit]

64. That is more easily absorable...you *used* to be a Teamster

"ticky-tacky"? Ticky-tacky little numbers like the ones you sought are not per se "non-squirter", they can be less than ad hominem but it is more to the point ticky-tacky little numbers they have no per se home either, not as applied here. Either way they are able to be stuck in between cracks like prayers in the wailing wall while someone else fashions them into "How many UAW members?" "How many steel workers?" "How many manufacturing jobs do you think America really wants back?" "Why is there air?", etc, not unlike a child having discovered the power of "Why?" http://www.jbhunt.com

[A HERETIC I AM]

65. Wow. Now I know how Barney Frank felt the other day. n/t

[theHandpuppet]

46. NO!

No, No and NO WAY!!!

[Mystayya]

48. Not until they follow the same safety and pay standards

Otherwise you will have very sleepy and/or drugged up drivers, driving barely roadworthy vehicles able to completely undercut American Drivers.

No, NO, NO.

[lib2DaBone]

49. NAFTA Gave Us The Shafta.... Just say NO to Mexican Trucks

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE57R36W20090828?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews

Whirlpool to shut U.S. plant, cut about 1,100 jobs


Whirlpool Corp (WHR.N) plans to shut a plant in Evansville, Indiana and move some production to Mexico next year, a change that will eliminate about 1.6 percent of the world's biggest appliance maker's workforce.

"Given the industry downturn, Whirlpool has to move production to larger, newer, more efficient plants... Those happen to be in Mexico in the refrigeration category," Cowen and Co analyst Laura Champine said.

----------------------------------------

How is it that the "newer" "Larger" more efficient plants are all in Mexico and China? WTF?

[Craftsman]

50. NO!!!

[architect359]

52. All that being said, what about the Canadians?

Are Canadian truckers allowed into the U.S.? How far do they or can they go inside our country? Are we imposing that 50 mile (or so) buffer zone to our northern neighbors as well, as we do to our southern neighbors?

Or for that matter, what about U.S. truckers going into both countries? What are our limitations in either countries? Do we have the same restrictions?

Kind of off topic a bit but what about taxes to help maintain the roads - well at least, within the existing buffer zones? Do all three countries pay taxes into the other respective countries' coffers to maintain roadwork and such that these trucks travel on? All of the countries ought to, I would think, if this cross border endevour is to continue. The farther these trucks go, then more taxes ought to be levied against the trucks' countries i.e. more roads being used, right?

[A HERETIC I AM]

59. Canadian trucks are allowed to drive to any delivery point in the lower 48...

just as American trucks are allowed to deliver anywhere in Canada.

One point many people seem to miss in this entire conversation is what is known as "Cabotage", meaning the ability to carry goods from one point to another inside the same country. If I am an American Trucker working for an American firm, and I deliver a load of goods picked up in Indiana going to London, Ontario, I can not then pick up a load in Toronto and deliver it to Montreal. The same applies to Canadian drivers delivering in the US.

American Truckers do NOT have it in Canada and Canadian truckers do NOT have it in the US.

The same applies to Airlines. You can not take a British Airways flight from LA to New York or an Air Canada flight from Phoenix to Detroit. You can't take a British Airways flight from Detroit to Montreal, even though they might land there on the way to Heathrow. (They used to, anyway. I flew from Detroit to London several times in the '90's and that's what the flight did - stopped in either Toronto or Montreal. American boarded passengers could not deplane in either Canadian city, however.)

Nothing that I have read about the cross border agreements with Mexico allows cabotage for Mexican trucking companies delivering in the US or American companies delivering in Mexico.

[OhioChick]

53. Hell No. n/t

[MrsBrady]

54. as a Teamster wife...i say not just NO, but HELL NO! n/t

[snooper2]

56. I like the 50 mile rule...

at least then I can continue to get cheap rag weed :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

No need for them to deliver that any further North, our southern drug dealers need the profits :)

[chrisa]

57. Yes.

How are US truckers any better? This also has protectionist overtones.

[proteus_lives]

61. Hell no!