Q: What's the difference between mechanics, and politics? A: You can always find a tool to fix something that is broken in mechanics!
The FMCSA has finalized their regulation on coercion, which pretty much leaves the driver still stuck between a rock, and a hard place. They have put the onus on the driver to provide the necessary information needed to build a case for coercion. I don't have the answer as to how they would prove it otherwise, but I do know that we already have section 392.3 ILL and Fatigued in the FMCSR, so the coercion rule only provides a definition of what is coercion, and the amount of penalty for anyone that attempts to coerce drivers into driving illegally. In all actuallity it's a pretty good rule, and helps to strenghthen 392.3. The problem is there is no guarantee that the new rule will prevent coercion, because it's the driver's word against someone else's.
Based on past experience most companies are intimidated by the FMCSA, and will back down from a driver if they become threatening to report an incident of coercion to the FMCSA. There is also § 396.7: Unsafe operations forbidden, (a) General. A motor vehicle shall not be operated in such a condition as to likely cause an accident or a breakdown of the vehicle. I have personally been threatened that I may be fired for refusing to drive a vehicle that I deemed unsafe to drive, in which case I promptly informed the dispatcher that I would be more than happy to take the matter up with the FMCSA if he would like to fire me for my actions. He suddenly became very quiet, and decided that he didn't want to discuss the matter any longer. I went home, and took the day off, when I showed up for work the following day no one said a word to me about it. My point is that we drivers need to understand that we need the support of the FMCSA on certain matters, and that gives us authority in the work place when it comes to the safe operation of a CMV, but we need to handle the matter tactfully, and with respect.
How we communicate with others is an important aspect in the function of our job. Many times it's not what you are saying as much as how you are saying it. This is where I criticize the FMCSA. People (drivers) want to belong to something, they want to be a part of something great, and when they are included in every aspect of the job that they are expected to do, then society will function at a much smoother pace. Trucking companies are guilty of excluding drivers from their policy making as well. People don't want to be owned like slaves, and when they have a say in the matter then they are more inclined to agree with, or accept the final decisions. The FMCSA has excluded truck drivers from the legislative process that dictates our lives, and livlyhood. They rule by force, and they don't communicate with the trucking community with anything other than threats, and negative actions. Words have meaning, and that gives them power. The means for drivers to empower themselves with those that lord over us is by establishing a stronger vocabulary, and know how to speak in an influential manner. Knowing how to properly have diologue with others will make a great difference in how you are percieved by others, especially the ones that you percieve to hold authority over you. There is a book written by George J. Thompson, and Jerry B. Jenkins called "Verbal Judo, The Gentle Art of Persuassion" that I would like for every driver to read. This book goes into detail about the mistakes we make when communicating with others, and how to avoid them. George J. Thompson also has a website that you may be interested in. I like the "Five Universal Truths of Verbal Judo" on his homepage.
ALL cultures want to be treated with Dignity and Respect ALL people would rather be asked than told what to do ALL people want to know why they are asked or told to do something ALL people would rather have options than threats ALL people want a second chance to make matters right
As for the new coercion rule, on a scale of 1-10 I would rate it as a 5, because it gives strenghth to the existing rules 392.3, and 396.7. The rule doesn't do what it was required to do, it still leaves the driver in the precarious situation of providing proof, and turning against the very people in which they are providing a service to in exchange for compensation. The FMCSA has failed to recognize that some States are a "Work At Will" State. Any trucking companiy based out of those states doesn't legally need to have a reason to fire a driver, therefore if a driver turns in a company today, that company may bide some time and fire the driver, and claim that they no longer needed that drivers services. That pretty much counteracts the FMCSA's claim to "Whistle Blower Protection." Furthermore, what's to stop a company from starving out a driver to get them to quit the job? Then what's to prevent a driver from being blackballed in the industry as a whistle blower? Also what's to prevent a less scrupulous driver from abusing a company by making false claims to the FMCSA out of animosity?
Like I said before it's bittersweet, because drivers need to have an ability to say no when they can't safely drive a CMV, and the FMCSA is the authority that can give it to them, but the FMCSA has not thought it out entirely. They only did what they needed to do in order to push their mandate through for the use of electronic logging devices.