Mexican Trucks Begin Crossing Border Saturday

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Mexican trucks are notorious for not having front brakes so do we stop them all and dismantle their front brakes and inspect them everytime they cross the border?

And let us not forget that mexican drivers are also known to use drugs while driving which opens another pandoras box.

See it is not as easy you make it sound
And American drivers are never known to have used drugs?

There are ways to deal with it, make them have a certificate of road worthiness (not sure what its called there but here its called an MOT) from an American garage once a year.

Lots of people in this thread seem intent on stopping Mexican trucks rather than bringing them up to American standards.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by Flyer]




posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Attention all.

This thread is about the Mexican Trucks being allowed to cross the U.S. border. Not for attacking each other and calling names. Do that somewhere else. Not here.

Take a look at the Terms & Conditions of the site.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by shots
 


Actually they're not going by the word of the truck driver. They're physically inspecting the trucks as they come across the border. The whole thing is that they're only making them repair major violations that can be fixed easily. They're not stopping the truck from coming over the border, because as of today they can only travel 25 miles to the drop yard, and then back to the border. As long as they meet some very loose minimum standards then they're allowed to enter.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Its not just bringing them up to standards.

There is the issue of what happens to the U.S. drivers jobs. How can a company compete with a state owned low wage company that doesn't have all the regulations the U.S. companies have to follow?

If they are to be allowed in, and they meet standards, why not put tariffs in place to level the playing field?



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
As someone whos in the business has already said, there arent enough Americans available to do the jobs so thats not an issue.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   
One of the things that everyone has to realize is that they will NOT be taking jobs from the major companies. They are ONLY being allowed to travel from the border to a distribution center. They will NOT be going from the distribution center to any stores or any other receivers. That will be up to the US companies.

Flyers, one of the big things is that they're letting this go forward with a lot of holes in the program. I would have no problem with it if Mexico had similar HOS rules (as Canada does), they followed a VERY similar DOT program, and they were going to fall under all DOT rules and regulations including a similar licensing program. They're rushing this through and it's going to kill a bunch of people. If they waited a year or two and implemented those things with Mexico then I would welcome this program. Instead they're pushing them through now, just to have it started and it's going to end badly.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
And American drivers are never known to have used drugs?



Of course they do but that is not the point. American drivers are subject to No Notice Drug testing while Mexcian drivers are not.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
As someone whos in the business has already said, there arent enough Americans available to do the jobs so thats not an issue.



That is a darned lie there are plenty of Americans available, they just expect to get paid a decent wage while the Mexican drivers will accept half the wages that Americans will. Like it has already been noted the playing field needs to be leveled in more ways then one.

[edit on 8/31/2007 by shots]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   
New developments on this issue.


DOT has delayed allowing them on US highways

www.abovepolitics.com...



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by shots
 


Uhm, no there AREN'T enough Americans available as truck drivers. We're looking at something on the order of 550,000 retiring over the next 10 years, and that's not counting ones who voluntarily quit, are killed, injured and can't drive anymore etc. People think truck driving is easy, well I can't tell you it's damn hard. Most people can't handle being out on the road weeks at a time, and living in your truck 24/7. I've seen a lot of people come through gung ho to be out on the road convinced they were going to enjoy it, only to see them a couple of weeks later coming back through with their stuff on the way home because they couldn't handle it. It has nothing to do with wages, because a truck driver makes damn good money after they get a little experience under their belt. I know people that have been doing this for two years that pull in between 80-100,000 a year, but it's damn hard to be away from home weeks at a time, come home for three days and have a pile of mail and bills waiting for you and knowing that in a couple of days you're right back out there.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
One of the things that everyone has to realize is that they will NOT be taking jobs from the major companies. They are ONLY being allowed to travel from the border to a distribution center. They will NOT be going from the distribution center to any stores or any other receivers. That will be up to the US companies.



Hold on there Zap I think you have it wrong if they allow the trucks those trucks will no longer have to stop at those distribution centers they can go all the way to Canda if they want if they allow this change.

Also I note that you mentioned elsewhere US truckers are not allowed to strike???? Can you cite the law and statue that says they cannot all strike I find that hard to believe.

You see if railroads can strike it would only be logical that truckers could strike as a unit as well. That is why the Taft Hartley law/act was passed so if needed the president could declare a cooling off period however that does not prevent them from stirking all at once as far as I know that is why I ask.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
So what does going to Canada have to do with taking jobs from the big companies? It's the same thing. They're going from ports in Mexico to a DC. If anything it would HELP the big companies. We have dozens of drivers that can't go into Canada as it is right now just in my company alone.

ETA: I'm still looking for the specific law that prevents a trucker strike, however, one of the catches in us striking is that we're not employed by the company itself. We're employed by a subcompany that is hired by the company. If we go on strike then the company we're contracted by can claim breach of contract on our part and fire us all, and there's nothing we can do about it.

EATA: I don't have the exact law, but since we're technically in a time of war, and truck drivers are required to transport vital military supplies we are not allowed to strike. If we weren't at war then we could have a nationwide strike, but since we ARE at war, if they wanted to they could legally make a claim of treason and throw all the striking truck drivers in jail for it.


[edit on 8/31/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Anybody that love this nation our nation and its sovereignty needs to stand up and stop this madness and take over of our highways by another foreign nation and the pushers behind this North American Union.

This the beginning of the end of American sovereignty, the end of our currency and the death to our constitution.

Say no to the North American Union and the say no to the corporate elite that wants to made slaves of all of us so they can keep making profits.

This has been done as usual without the American people consent and at the expenses of our nations and its hard working citizens.

!!!!!!!Wake up Americans our nation is in danger.!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
OMG.

Marge, this is going to be a shock to you. You better sit down.

Get your calendar out and mark the date because....


I Agree With You!


Can you believe it?


Although you still went overboard with the melodrama a bit.







[edit on 8/31/07 by makeitso]


apc

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
EATA: I don't have the exact law, but since we're technically in a time of war, and truck drivers are required to transport vital military supplies we are not allowed to strike. If we weren't at war then we could have a nationwide strike, but since we ARE at war, if they wanted to they could legally make a claim of treason and throw all the striking truck drivers in jail for it.


Would this condition rely on a formal declaration of war? As such a declaration has not occurred?



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
The claim can be made that it requires a formal declaration, however, by the time you get a lawyer, get into court, get it thrown out how much good does that do the average trucker? Between loss of work from not driving and probably being fired, the cost of hiring a lawyer, the court costs, etc it's not going to make any difference if you win or not.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   




Not to mention the massive fear that ooozes out of so many posts.....the terrorists are coming to get us, the terrorists are coming to get us! Your Government has killed far more people than terrorists have in the last decade. For so many people on here who say they dont believe what they hear in the news their sure as hell are a lot of people who have bought into the underlying message being presented to you by news outlets and your government - FEAR EVERYTHING, even if there is not enough supporting evidence to do so.


It is not that I am actually afraid of terrorists. It is the hyprocracy of the whole thing. This president sent us into war over terrorism. Invading two countries and now discussing a third.Losing a lot of soldiers and even more Iraqis. Then he throws the borders wide open.

No only that, this media has been so quiet about it, it actually makes me frightened. We are quickly losing control.

It is just so nuts I don't even have words for it. And Americans need to ditch the apathy and start getting vocal. STart paying attention!!!



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
ETA: I'm still looking for the specific law that prevents a trucker strike, however, one of the catches in us striking is that we're not employed by the company itself. We're employed by a subcompany that is hired by the company. If we go on strike then the company we're contracted by can claim breach of contract on our part and fire us all, and there's nothing we can do about it.

EATA: I don't have the exact law, but since we're technically in a time of war, and truck drivers are required to transport vital military supplies we are not allowed to strike. If we weren't at war then we could have a nationwide strike, but since we ARE at war, if they wanted to they could legally make a claim of treason and throw all the striking truck drivers in jail for it.



First no one is talking subcontractors here so I do not know how/why you want to bring them in. I am talking about major long haul companies not independents, as you seem to think. Also allow me to point out that even subcontraotors do strike from time to time or have you missed those stories. Independent truckers strike

U.S. Ports Face Trucker Rallies/Strike

Pfft no formal war was declared therefore what you may think applies does not in this case. Trucking firms can strike if they are unionized and yes that could mean all AFL truckers at once if they wanted and there is little that anyone can do because there is no law forbidding them to strike.

Now should a strike endanger the US, in one way or another then and only then can the president put the Taft Hartley act into place for a ninety or it could be 80 day cooling off period. After that period if there is no resolution they can start the strike all over until it again endangers the US then again the president can demand another cooling off period but to say they are subject to the laws of treason is completely wrong in this case.




[edit on 8/31/2007 by shots]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Flyer, I notice that you are not American but you seem to think you know a bunch about how things should be done here. Please, prey tell, do tell me how you know so much?



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   
And as I was pointing out the drivers for MAJOR COMPANIES (I AM one so I think that I have SOME idea of what the hell I'm talking about here) ARE the subcontractors. I drive for a company, but I am PAID by another company. I can't drive for any other company but the one that contracted me. The company that pays me oversees ALL the drivers for the major companies.

The truckers that I know that drive for the major long haul companies are NOT unionized. No one has EVER approached me about joining a union, or anything else about a union and I've been with them for a year. Independents and Owner Ops have a union, but at least in MY company we don't.





top topics
 
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join