The federal government views drivers that work exclusively for one employer - cab drivers are a good example of that. The cab companies do everything in their power to keep from having an employee, so what they do is they'll hire someone and rent them a car for $50 a day and maintain through that fee, they're an independent contractor. It's that type of avoidance of what the government views as employee obligations that's caught their attention of the government.

Recently, in California, the Attorney General has brought suit against several small trucking companies who retained individuals who they thought were independent contractors who the government of California contends are, in fact, employees.

The government has been looking for trucking companies that misclassifying drivers "independent contractors" when they should be classified as company drivers. The way this seems to be playing out is that motor carriers are hiring someone that they perceive to be an independent contractor, but the government is saying that person is an employee, meaning that the driver should be entitled to overtime and other benefits.

Regulations are coming into effect that will require drivers to be examined by an approved 3rd party doctor, not their family physician who may be more inclined to pass them due to their longstanding relationship.

Also, as for carriers not hiring drivers that meet the federally mandated health guidelines, but don't meet that carriers stricter guidelines, the courts have said that the carriers are within their rights to set these stricter guidelines.

When carriers are hiring drivers, companies should have their drivers meet certain physical standards. Lately, the press has been all over the trucking industry for what they perceive as having ill and ill-equipped drivers on the road. Drivers with health issues are a constant concern for with carriers, whether its sleep apnea, diabetes, or any other health issue that could affect that driver's productivity and safety levels.
As the industry moves forward, the pressure is going to continue on carriers to hire drivers who meet these stricter health standards. Some companies have gone so far as to refuse to hire drivers who don't meet their own strict health guidelines, even though they meet the regulations that the government has established.

Now that we are in the middle of a less robust economy, we're seeing more and more shippers that are bankrupt and as they this happens, we're seeing more and more collection actions brought against shippers by carriers trying to collect their freight charges.The problem arises because freight charges aren't being collected properly because it's been so long since anyone has had to enforce the billing regulations. Now that we're at a point in the economy where industries are struggling and bills aren't getting paid, it's becoming more important than ever to make sure you're following your tariffs and following the regulations as you attempt to collect those bills.

Oak Harbor is a company that recently won a double-payment case against Sears Roebuck. The courts enforced the double-payment rule, re-enforcing that it will be the shipper who takes the risk if they choose to deal with a broker.

Yes, you can go after the shipper for payment; that would be what's referred to as a double-payment situation. Generally speaking, the legal rule is that a shipper who goes through a broker or a third party logistics company in order to get its freight shipped, takes the risk that if they pay the broker and the broker absconds with the money without paying the carrier that actually delivered the goods, then that shipper could end up paying twice. When that happens, that's a traditional double-payment case.