How People Voted
 |
 |
68% For, 32% Against
Take Action
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 5977, The TRUCC Act
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
Comparing original version (created by webmaster) with revision saved on June 9, 2008, 19:31:09 (webmaster):
H.R. 5977 would amend title 49, United States Code, to require a motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder that collects a fuel surcharge to disclose and pay the fuel surcharge to the person responsible for bearing the cost of the fuel.
== Detailed Summary ==
<summary>
(LogTrust in to editReliable Understanding of Consumer Costs Act or the wikiTRUCC Act - Amends federal transportation law to require certain fuel costs disclosures and befuel costs reimbursements by a motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder providing or arranging transportation or service using fuel for which it does not bear the firstcost.
Requires such a motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder to: (1) reimburse persons (truckers) that do bear fuel costs for any such costs they have paid; and (2) give such persons a written list that identifies any freight charge, brokerage fee or commission, fuel surcharge or adjustment, and any other charges.
Prohibits any person from causing a motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder to providepresent false or misleading information on a detailed summary ofdocument or in an oral representation about the actual rate, charge, or allowance to any party to the bill!)transaction or transportation.
</summary>
<!--Leave in the 'summary' tags if you want the latest summary from the Congressional Research Service automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. -->
== Status of the Legislation ==
<status>
(Log inLatest Major Action: 5/6/2008: Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to edit the wikiHouse Committee on Transportation and be the first to update the status of the bill!)Infrastructure.
</status>
<!-- Leave in the 'status' tags if you want the latest reported status from THOMAS automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. -->
== Points in Favor ==
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
<!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! -->
== Points Against ==
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
<!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! -->
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Bruce
June 2, 2008, 9:15am (report abuse)If I am reading this proposed bill correctly - they are basically requesting full disclosure of profits on a transaction. If so, what an absurd request. If this passes, will we then be able to request this of all other transactions? Is this only being proposed of this industry because of rising fuel costs? Not a reasonable request in my opinion.
trucker
June 3, 2008, 8:05pm (report abuse)Bruce you may have a good point, however the plight that cost bearers experience are that the rate to move freight has not changed in response to the increase in fuel spikes. Yes, we can implement fuel surcharge with existing customers. However they are not going to be our customers if we increase the rate to pay outbound and inbound costs. It appears that Brokers are claiming a flat rate and keeping the fuel surcharge they collect. So when an operator goes out with a load and delivers that load. He either takes a load at a rate that would not cover his expenses to even get back home or to make the point that this rate won't do refuses to move it. Then there is an even greater loss. Eventually, he or she is out of business. There is a 5 of 6% commission on real estate brokers and some kind of transparency should be applied to freight brokers.
jsb
June 5, 2008, 4:09pm (report abuse)If this bill passes it is the end of capitalism as we know it! Trucking companies don't have to take cheap freight. I can't even book loads for less than $2.00 per mile anymore. What a load of BS!
Have fun trying to get back home after all the brokers are out of business!
We're gonna do things they say can't be done
June 10, 2008, 2:30pm (report abuse)I am all for this bill. I have trucks of my own. It is not fair that you brokers are keeping most of the fuel surcharge, you did not pay for the fuel. I can care less what you charge for the load, but don't keep the fsc. Alot of trucking companies think they are funny, now that the fuel prices are so high they can shut down alot of their company trucks and use o/o's and not have to pay for fuel, repairs,drivers,or anything else.And then want to keep most of the fsc, that is not fair in anyway that you look at it. And for your comment jsb have fun finding drivers when fuel reachs 6-7 dollars a gallon and you want to keep half the fsc they will not be able to afford it, and there for will go out of buisness and so won't the rest of you selfish people who think they can steal other peoples money.
Gerry
June 13, 2008, 8:32am (report abuse)many companies guarantee fuel reimbursement to independents through mileage contracts (including fuel pay for deadhead) and hope to collect enough from their shippers to cover this guarantee. Shippers don't pay for deadhead either. Many companies feel its unfair to put the owner operator in the middle of having to haul for shippers/brokers who don't pay their fair share. By forcing a passthrough will cause companies to cancel guarantees to drivers and drivers will be left with 100$ pass through but will get zero relief for shippers who pay nothing! A real bad deal!
Von
June 14, 2008, 3:17pm (report abuse)A broker that keeps the fsc, is nothing less than a thief!! You all are not paying for the fuel or hauling the load, what in your thought process tells you, thst you are entitled to any our the FSC?
5Mouths2Feed
June 14, 2008, 9:33pm (report abuse)Anyone that takes any part of the FSC other than the person it is intended for is already breaking the law. The FSC has only one purpose. Capitalism falls into the frieght rate category not the FSC. If you oppose this then you are a thief and should be held accountable for your actions
Ian
June 26, 2008, 11:22am (report abuse)Brokers aren't the problem here, The companies you work for aren't passing the fuel surcharges on to drivers.
You don't have to haul cheap freight!!
This is a great start to a socialism!!
wrongway
June 27, 2008, 4:49pm (report abuse)I support this bill i could care less how much the broker makes on the line haul the problem is with the flat rate is there is no fuel surcharge posted so therefore the companies that have trucks leased on are not treating us fairly on the break down once the company starts taking a hit on the line haul rate then they will start saying no to the brokers and therefore the brokers will demand more money from the shippers s
mort
July 22, 2008, 10:31am (report abuse)The money needs to go to the trucks. If you was in any other profession you wouldn't want someone taking some of your pay just because they could get away with it. Just say no to cheap frieght is great but how do you then try to pay your bills. Some of you people act as if a truck driver has enough that they can just sit back and do nothing.
mort
July 22, 2008, 10:33am (report abuse)If the brokers are keeping the fss then they most ceertainly are the problem
Transportation Services Consumer
August 12, 2008, 8:20pm (report abuse)If the problem is that fuel surcharges aren't being passed on to the carrier, then a bill should be proposed to address that problem. This bill goes too far in calling for total transparency of a broker's transaction. This is not good for the trucker, this is not good for the broker, and it is not good for the consumer. Yes transportation brokers profitting from FSC is a bad thing, however passing bad legislation is a worse thing, and that is what HR 5977 is.
Paul
August 19, 2008, 1:27pm (report abuse)This bill is not the answer. This is OOIDA's way of trying to put brokers out of business. And its a bad move.
Mort, no one from a brokerage office is forcing carriers to haul loads at a specific rate. You can Always say no, its too cheap and either negotaite or move on to another broker and another load.
This bill is far to big brother. If this bill passes you will see rates drop even further as carriers who also broker freight will be capturing rate data and dropping rates to put others out of business to gain market share.
This is a free enterprise economy. This bill is wrong.
If you really want to raise rates have a nationwide strike. All trucks park for 3 days. Every broker I know supports this it helps the greater good of us all.
Without the transportation industry our country stops. Strike and bring the rates up for us all.
Frederick (SilverSurfer) Schaffner
August 24, 2008, 10:08am (report abuse)There apparently seems to be some miss-understanding to this issue. The fuel surcharge was created after the '73 trucker strike. This legislated the person paying the fuel bill was to receive the fuel surcharge, only it was neglected to protect the person paying the fuel bill with transparency to ensure they weren't getting robbed. These TRUCC bills corrects that mistake from '73.
This is an issue of companies and brokers keeping a portion, or all, of a charge which is dedicated to the person paying the fuel cost. Fuel surcharge is not a freight rate. It's tacked onto the bill based upon fuel price variances. Brokers don't pay the fuel costs, which is what the surcharge is for, and the law states the surcharge portion of the freight bill goes to the person paying the fuel costs.
I vote for passage of these bills. It's time to protect professional drivers...the backbone of our economy.
Safe Trails and God Bless,
www.theamericandriver.com
tired2
October 27, 2008, 8:16pm (report abuse)FOR PAUL "unbridled free-market capitalism without regulation is a disaster, since no regulation means that lying, cheating, and fraud will become "how business is done" sounds like a text book description of the freight brokering industry
Mr Oakleaf
December 11, 2008, 10:19pm (report abuse)Boy it sure is funny how all of the brokers and agents are crying about this bill saying its bad and they dont take too much of the pie they are worthless thiefs and always cry the blues we make no money we had to cut the rates .. WHAT A BUNCH OF BS i pray this bill passes and puts every one of you scumbags out of a lob and them the trucker can deal directly with the companys thru load boards therefore they get a cheaper rate and the trucker gets more of the pie and the brkers loose out...The brokers have broken this business tampa fl
tired2
December 28, 2008, 5:23pm (report abuse)Mr Oakleaf,
If brokers had nothing to hide they wouldnt be against transparency,now that freight has become thin,they have just cut an even bigger slice of the pie for themselves.I have a feeling their days of screwing the truckers are numbered and they know it.Transparency and a set percentage of the freight bill for their fee could end all of this non-sense. Congress could end this ignorance real quick and simple with legislation forcing that and stiff penalties for non compliance.Larger bonds of 100,000 minimum should be mandatory as 3-4 loads can easily exhaust the current requirements.