The DriverFinder Network: 2014

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Training Regulations…Safety or Something Else

By Sandy Long

Back in the 1990’s Congress instructed the Department of Transportation to come up with training regulations for new entry-level truck drivers. The FMCSA, a division of the DOT looked into it and decided that the CDL process was adequate and no further training regulations were needed. Since then, advocacy groups, trucking organizations and others have pushed for the FMCSA to set standard training regulations to no avail. The FMCSA keeps whispering about this issue and even has done a few ‘listening sessions’ but there has been no real movement.

Since most of the focus for the new regulation is safety, many drivers who came into the business twenty or thirty years ago do not see the need. These drivers came into trucking during a time when there was less traffic, lighter freight and fewer regulations. Furthermore, the demographics of where drivers came from back then are different than today. Back then most drivers came from agriculture, the military or trucking families, they had some sort of background in heavy equipment usage; it was easier for them to just be ‘thrown the keys’ and told to go drive that truck with little or no training.

Of course mentioning safety sells so this is why safety is focused on as the need for strong training regulations. Most of the groups calling for training regulations cite safety as the main reason for the need of the new regulation. While to a degree they are right, there are other reasons more viable and sensible.

Trucking schools are expensive to go to, $3-10,000 for the course, only 2-4 weeks usually. Fraud abounds in the schools with many just in it for the money. Of course, one does not have to go to school to get a CDL, but to get hired by most companies, some sort of school is required. To fill this need, there are even some so-called schools that guarantee a CDL in 24 hours; one is basically renting a truck. In any trucking school situation, the dropout rate is approximately 50%. Even if the student drops out, the tuition is owed and will have to be paid by the student or company who pre-hired them, usually the student though.

Once the student goes out with a trainer for 2-8 weeks, the dropout rate is again approximately 50% due to lack of knowledge of the actual job of truck driving, poor trainers and not being able to adapt to the trucking lifestyle. If a student gets through the training time, again approximately 50% will quit trucking in the first year. Most of the new drivers are not taught regulations beyond what is required in the written tests for the CDL, little about safety either highway or personal and nothing at all about how to adapt to the lifestyle. Furthermore, the new driver knows nothing about the business side of trucking, how to communicate with the public and support staff and little if nothing beyond the pre-trip about the mechanics of their equipment. Basically they are thrown the keys and told to go drive the truck with just a little training at a high cost.

Stronger training regulations that equalize and standardize the training process for both schools and companies would assist the new driver in making the decision to become a driver from the onset easier and give them the structure to remain instead of dropping out throughout the first year and school. Stronger training regulations would also push out the unscrupulous schools that are just out to make a dollar. New drivers would have a better chance of being successful in their new profession and would make more productive drivers. Stronger training regulations would also hopefully set standards for trainers to have experience instead of the habit of having an inexperienced driver training a student, the baby teaching the baby so to speak.

With the current situation of not many looking to the trucking industry to enter as a career, stronger training regulations would start to make the trucking industry look like it does want professionals who are well trained instead of meat in the seat. Driver retention would be easier as new drivers would know how to cope with the job instead of just quitting so quickly or job jumping.

Finally, yes, with stronger training regulations things might be safer, though in my opinion that is not the main focus. With properly trained drivers, fewer breakdowns might occur, fewer mistakes in judgment might occur and a few less accidents might occur. However, no matter how well trained a driver is, stuff happens in the some cases, but at least with proper training, the new driver stands a chance to avoid bad situations thru training, not just luck.

Election Trivia

The 2000 election was not the first time a candidate won the popular vote but lost the election. It has happened four times in our nation’s history:

In 1824 Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but got less then 50% of the electoral votes. John Quincy Adams became the next president when he was picked by the House of Representatives.
In 1876 Samuel Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election when Rutherford B. Hayes got 185 electoral votes to Tilden’s 184.
In 1888 Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election when Benjamin Harrison got 233 electoral votes to Cleveland’s 168.
In 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George Bush. In the most highly contested election in modern history, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount of ballots, giving Bush the state’s 25 electoral votes for a total of 271 to Gore’s 255.

Grover Cleveland was elected president (1884) then lost his re-election campaign (1888) and came back again to win the presidency for a second time. (1892)

Barack Obama is the nation’s 44rd president but in reality there have only been 43 presidents. Grover Cleveland is counted twice as our 22nd and 24th president because he was elected for two nonconsecutive terms.

Only 12 U.S. Presidents have been elected to office for two terms and served those two terms. Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to office four terms prior to the Twenty-second Amendment.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution has only three requirements for a president. (1) Must be at least 35 years old, (2) have lived in the United States at least 14 years, and (3) be a natural-born citizen.

John Kennedy is the youngest elected U.S. President at 43.Ronald Reagan is the oldest elected U.S. President at 73. (second term)

The only President and Vice President to never be elected to the office was Gerald Ford. He became vice president when Spiro Agnew resigned and became president when Nixon resigned.

The tallest U.S. President was Abraham Lincoln at 6’4″The shortest U.S. President was James Madison at 5’4″

Percent wise – the 1992 election was the biggest turnout since 1972 with 61.3 percent off the voter age population heading to the polls.

James Buchanan is the only bachelor to be elected president.

Eight presidents have died in office.

William Henry Harrison (pneumonia)
Zachary Taylor (gastroenteritis)
Abraham Lincoln (assassin)
James Garfield (assassin)
William McKinley (assassin)
Warren Harding (heart attack)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (cerebral hemorrhage)
John F. Kennedy (assassin)

Ronald Reagan is the only divorced man to be elected president.

James Monroe received every electoral vote but one in the 1820 election. A New Hampshire delegate wanted George Washington to be the only president elected unanimously.

The U.S. Marine band has played at every presidential inauguration since 1801.

President John Tyler is believed to be the first to use “Hail to the Chief” as the official Presidential honors.

President Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe but took his stepfather’s last name when his mother remarried. He formally changed his name to William Jefferson Clinton when he was 15.

Victoria Woodhull became the first woman to run for President in 1872.

Jeanette Rankin of Montana became the first woman elected to Congress in 1916.

John Mercer Langston became the first elected black politician in the United States in 1855 when he was elected Town Clerk in Brownhelm, Ohio.

Twelve of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence were thirty-five years or younger.

Martin Van Buren was the first natural-born American to become president in 1837. Each of the seven previous presidents were born as British subjects.Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution states; Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

“I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Source: http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/presidential-election-facts

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Recruiting Gen Y Truck Drivers

My Comments: This article is meant for driver recruiters but if drivers have an opinion please post it!

By Marge Bailey

Online Resources that do not offer click traffic reporting in real time are hard to analyze. The burden of tracking click throughs is put upon the recruiting end. While DriverFinder Network's job posting package includes click traffic reporting, unless a company has in place a dedicated call line for each online resource they use it's impossible to track calls that are generated by a web source (other than Adwords and other PPC services that offer a dedicated phone # with tracking). Resource sites that generate the click traffic get dropped in many cases due to many prospects call rather than click through to the company web site. The decision to drop an online resource if a phone # is posted but no tracking is used on phone calls might do a great injustice to those resources and lose a good candidate generator for the company.

To blame unqualified candidates who apply on the advertising resource that's generating great page view traffic is in my experience these last 20 years ridiculous. That's like blaming a red light for people who don't stop! As long the red light is doing it's job it's up to the people behind the wheel of the vehicles to stop. Needless to say the burden of attracting and hiring qualified candidates is squarely on the shoulders of the recruiters, the job incentives, equipment, home time, the companies' reputation, etc. A good resource should not be held responsible for hires. Only for generating the traffic views of trucking industry candidates and not for how many apply and/or are hired.

As a recruiter I had an entire year to battle with the odds against me for getting qualified drivers that I could sign on to a mega company with a not so great reputation with drivers; i.e. low driver pay and 60 mph trucks to mention the top two (that was 2 decades ago). I had to go through 15 to 20 candidates to get one hire and I was considered an above average recruiter. Nothing has changed much in today's environment.

The challenges are still pretty much the same but with so many old hands retiring and unfortunately dying off, Gen Y has to fill their seats. This is a daunting challenge but it helps to always be truthful with the candidates! People who don't know any better will buy into whatever a recruiter is selling but with the Internet very few show up for an interview who haven't researched trucking to the bone.

It's been determined that most people today come into truck driving as a last resort. It may be as high as 70% that don't make the cut for various reasons. Bottom line is the last 2 generations find that sitting behind a computer makes them a good income and is a much more respected line of work. The medical field is wide open and pays better than driving. I could go on and on but it's not necessary as we all know that Gen Y (41 million of'em) would rather not drive a big rig unless forced to due to the economy.

There are still company website navigation issues that create annoyances for job seekers but that can be discussed in a different thread if anyone wants my opinion ;>)

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Ladies & Gents, What is Normal?

What is accepted as NORMAL by the entire world for the gender of a truck driver? You guessed it!
MEN. Women comprise approximately 6% of the male driver pool for over the road commercial truck operators. In today's so called liberal society, should this be the norm?

Now I admit this is true; the stance some have chosen to relentlessly pursue (who are certainly the minority) has morphed into a witch hunt. What accomplishments this small vigilante group can take credit for I haven't a clue other than they have used the information highway for airing their grievances led by a ex-newbie female driver who knows how to work the online and real world media to their advantage. Bashing and name calling will get attention but the end results 99% of the time is negative and presents to the world at large their skewed point of view with a modicum of truth laced with false accusations, sensationalism and self appointed whistle blowers who seek justice.

On the other hand there is one organization, Women in Trucking, made up of high profile board members and a supportive driver member community, including male drivers, that truly is making a difference for women behind the wheel in a positive way. The unique difference is this well respected organization helps create actual solutions without stooping to vigilante tactics.

WIT's goal of facilitating an exchange of ideas and attitude change developed between the 'powers that be' and male and female truck drivers not only results in solutions but highlights individual accomplishments of women in the trucking industry through their online My Stories found Here, honor awards and positive media coverage.
Women in Trucking has created a pathway to meaningful and lasting change reaching those who are genuinely sincere about their mission and goals.

All parties involved are brought together to discuss and reason out certain issues to find lasting solutions; i.e. ergonomic driver seat, encouraging female trainers for female students, to strengthen the legacy of education in trucking and the list goes on. While not a political group that addresses political issues, WIT is certainly paving the way for uniting the employers, customers and employees of trucking in order to promote positive change, improve working relationships and encourage women to become a part of the industry as a female professional driver.

Welcome to NORMAL.

Please post your comments!

Marge Bailey/CEO/Founder
Founding WIT Board Member
The DriverFinder Network
LadyTruckDrivers.com

Monday, August 11, 2014

Where Have All the Truckers Gone?

Aug 10, 2014 New York Times Article:

Swift Transportation’s 20,000 workers haul goods in almost 14,000 big-rig trucks that travel the interstates and back roads of the United States every day. The company’s performance is closely tied to the nation’s economy, which has been looking increasingly sunny lately.

So it was surprising last month when Swift’s stock plummeted nearly 18 percent in a single day. The tumble came for an odd reason. It wasn’t because there was too little business — but rather, too much.

“We were constrained by the challenging driver market,” the company said in its quarterly earnings announcement. “Our driver turnover and unseated truck count were higher than anticipated.”

In other words, Swift had plenty of customers wanting to ship goods. But in a time of elevated unemployment, it somehow couldn’t find enough drivers to take those goods from Point A to Point B. How is that possible? The reasons for that conundrum tell us a great deal about what has been ailing American workers and why a full-throated economic recovery has been so slow in coming.

Trucker Pay Has Fallen When Adjusted for Inflation

The industry complains of shortages of truck drivers, but in real terms tractor-trailer drivers made less in 2013 than they did a decade earlier.

Consider this: The American Trucking Associations has estimated that there was a shortage of 30,000 qualified drivers earlier this year, a number on track to rise to 200,000 over the next decade. Trucking companies are turning down business for want of workers.

Yet the idea that there is a huge shortage of truck drivers flies in the face of a jobless rate of more than 6 percent, not to mention Economics 101. The most basic of economic theories would suggest that when supply isn’t enough to meet demand, it’s because the price — in this case, truckers’ wages — is too low. Raise wages, and an ample supply of workers should follow.

But corporate America has become so parsimonious about paying workers outside the executive suite that meaningful wage increases may seem an unacceptable affront. In this environment, it may be easier to say “There is a shortage of skilled workers” than “We aren’t paying our workers enough,” even if, in economic terms, those come down to the same thing.

The numbers are revealing: Even as trucking companies and their trade association bemoan the driver shortage, truckers — or as the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls them, heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers — were paid 6 percent less, on average, in 2013 than a decade earlier, adjusted for inflation. It takes a peculiar form of logic to cut pay steadily and then be shocked that fewer people want to do the job.

Millions of able-bodied Americans need work, yet there aren’t enough middle-income jobs for them. That is especially the case for men without advanced educations, who have seen their wages depressed over the last few decades. Trucking would seem to be an excellent option.

It’s not an ideal job for everyone. There is no question that trucking is hard work, necessitating long hours and longer stretches away from family. But that’s why it is well compensated, at least in comparison to other jobs not requiring college degrees. The average pay for a long-haul trucker is just shy of $50,000, according to the A.T.A., and an experienced trucker with a good safety record can make significantly more than that. The work typically offers lavish benefits that are increasingly rare for nonunion blue-collar employees.

The job can be learned fairly quickly. In some industries, companies complain of shortages of workers for jobs that require years of advanced training, like certain engineering specialties. Trucking is not one of those industries, however.

A person can get a commercial driver’s license after a course that can be as brief as six weeks of intensive study. Moreover, there were actually fewer truckers working last year (1.585 million) than five years earlier (1.673 million). Some of the missing workers could presumably be coaxed back into the industry if the money were right.

To be sure, the trucker-shortage picture is more complex than this, notes Bob Costello, the A.T.A.’s chief economist. He says these complications make a straightforward story of truckers simply being underpaid not quite fair.

For example, new safety requirements mean that individual truckers drive fewer miles than a decade ago: An average long-haul truck can now cover 8,000 miles a month, down from almost 11,000 in 2007, according to the trade association. This helps account for downward wage pressure. And the trucking companies themselves are typically working on thin profit margins and serving customers on long-term contracts, which means that if they simply raised pay sharply to recruit more truckers, they could end up losing money.

But every industry has its special challenges, and the trucker shortage — and falling inflation-adjusted wages over the last decade — are part of a bigger story.

The reasons are the subject of endless debate, and you can pick the one you prefer to emphasize: technological change, globalization or a decline of union power. But wages of workers without advanced skills have been under downward pressure in the United States and across the developed world over the last generation. The deep recession and slow recovery have only made the trend more pronounced.

That has led to a mind-set in which executives sometimes think of line workers as merely resources to be tapped at the lowest price. Companies have been able to keep wages low: It’s hard to demand a raise when your colleagues are being laid off or there is a long line of job seekers. Some corporations may have come to view this as a natural state of affairs.

By now, wage income is as low a percentage of gross domestic product as it has been since 1947, while corporate profits are at postwar highs. These are two sides of the same coin. Money that once accrued to workers now goes to shareholders.

Yet there are some indications that this state of affairs may not last: The shortage of truckers is one piece of evidence that the balance of power is shifting. In recent earnings calls, executives from companies as varied as JetBlue and the Dr Pepper Snapple Group have expressed worry about rising wage pressures.

The trucker shortage is already resulting in higher wages in parts of that industry. There have been $2,000 signing bonuses from companies looking to poach truckers and, as Kevin P. Knight of Knight Transportation mentioned in that trucking company’s latest earnings call, per-mile pay increases have been working out to 5 to 10 percent jumps in driver pay.

Executives may bemoan higher pay for workers because it could cut profit margins. But after a generation in which the median American household has seen flat to declining inflation-adjusted income, wage increases are a welcome corrective. When workers begin to have more leverage in salary negotiations, it is a sign of an improving economy, not a liability that businesses should be complaining about.

Monday, June 23, 2014

About Anne Ferro

We’re not there yet.

A recent article about FMCSA Administrator, Anne Ferro, prompted numerous responses, but they weren’t all about the issue itself. Instead, the topic turned to gender and how the reader felt that Ms. Ferro was not qualified to head the administration because she is a woman.

I checked my calendar and it IS 2014, isn’t it? Can’t we get beyond the issue of gender? Apparently, we’re not there yet. Mr. Smith (obviously a pseudo name) claims “women getting into politics and other issues … are guiding us down, down, down.”

When a female posted a response, Mr. Smith responded with an attack, “Another dumb statement from a female trying to protect females.” This was met with agreement from another (male) commenter who responded with, “typical feminist overstatement. Any criticism of a woman is evil and any criticism of a man is warranted.”

While I agree that anonymous remarks on a website have no credibility, they do reinforce the need for Women In Trucking Association to continue our mission to encourage and support the women in this industry.

I would like to acknowledge that gender does not create a bias in our work place anymore; however, we’re not there yet.

I have a voice message on my phone that I keep to remind me that there are still many men who feel that women have no place in the trucking industry. While these guys are a very small minority, they are often very vocal about their opinions. The caller was very upset to discover that there is an organization that exists to increase the presence of women in the trucking industry.

“I don’t know why you have this d*amn Women In Trucking crap. I’ve never met more ruder people,” the caller claimed. He continued, “I don’t know what kind of organization, or what kind of crap this is, but if’s a place for uncaring, rude a** women drivers to get together to have fun, I hope you all enjoy yourselves.”

This driver was angry and it was apparent in his message that he felt ALL women were rude. No, we’re not there yet.

An email from another (male) driver claimed that, “women are playing where men are trying to make a living.” Does he really believe that the women in this industry aren’t here for work related reasons?

Ask most female drivers how their peers treat them and many of them will tell you that they have heard the comment, “you should be at home, barefoot and pregnant.” Really?

I can appreciate the fact that many of these men feel threatened by strong, capable women, but to make that statement out loud is disheartening.

Drivers at trade shows who encourage us and support our efforts often approach us. Most of these men WANT more women in the industry and feel that their female peers are capable and often tell me they do a better job then men. Thank you, guys, for your positive attitude.

I got a little insight into the reason some drivers have an issue with women behind the wheel. A male revealed his concern that as a macho guy who could maneuver 80,000 pounds behind a big engine, his ego was deflated whenever he saw a woman doing the same thing. Really?

To those few, vocal, angry male drivers who want women to disappear, we wish you the best and ask that you keep your comments to yourself. Stay off the CB and ask your sister or mom to look at your postings on websites before you make them public.

Let’s take the issue of gender out of the debate so we can move forward and increase the visibility and the presence of women in the trucking industry. We are working hard to attract more women to our workforce, but it’s still a very male dominated environment.

We’re not there yet.

Ellen Voie

WomenInTrucking.org

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

What Constitutes Sexual Harassment?

Source: www.expeditersonline.com

When one thinks of sexual harassment, one automatically thinks of a man harassing a woman in some way. This patently would be wrong thinking; there are many instances of women sexually harassing men, women harassing other women and men harassing other men.

What constitutes sexual harassment? From the EEOC: “Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following:

· The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex.

· The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee.

· The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.

· Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim.

· The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome.”

While some actions are clearly delineated under the law, other actions are more ambiguous and fall under ‘what makes one uncomfortable’. For instance, touching another person in an inappropriate manner is clearly sexual harassment. Telling an off color joke may make someone uncomfortable, or it may not, so might be sexual harassment. The unclear sections of the sexual harassment laws is what makes sexual harassment cases so hard to both prove and prosecute, and the misunderstanding of the law leads to unnecessary claims. To assist in dealing with ambiguous harassment, the person being harassed is to tell the person doing the harassing behavior to stop; then if it continues, it becomes sexual harassment and should be reported.

It is hard to imagine for most how a male could be sexually harassed, but with more women obtaining positions of power, the instance of sexual harassment towards males has increased. Furthermore, the issue of male on male sexual harassment is also on the rise. It is because sexual harassment has more to do with intimidation than sex, the harassment is used to hurt someone or exert power over them.

From 1992 to 2008 the numbers of males reporting sexual harassment claims to the EEOC had doubled from 8% to 16%. "While some people may think sexual harassment of male employees is a joke, the issue is real," says David Grinberg, spokesperson for the EEOC. "We are seeing more of it, and such conduct has serious legal consequences for employers."

Whether the actual instance of sexual harassment towards males has increased or just more males are reporting them is a moot point. Many think that the focus on sexual harassment towards women has opened the eyes of many males to sexual harassment leading to hostile work environments and encouraged them to start speaking out.

There are a few stories that arise occasionally of male on male sexual harassment within trucking. D was a married over the road driver who was delivering produce to a market on the east coast. He had spoken with a male/male team on the dock earlier. He was walking into his trailer when the team came up behind him and shoved him up against the produce boxes and tried to disrobe him while making obscene comments. He fought back and they ran off. He ran out, they were gone. While this bordered on assault, D did not think they meant him any real harm; they just wanted to harass him.

B’s story is clear-cut sexual harassment; that of someone with the power to determine career advancement demanding sex for B to further his career. B was a student out with his trainer. His trainer kept talking about his sexual exploits. Finally, after B asked him to please clean up his conversations, the trainer told B that he would have to perform an act to be passed into getting his own truck. Luckily, B had recorded the trainer when he said this so had proof to take to the company. The trainer was terminated and B was assigned a different trainer.

No matter what gender is involved in sexual harassment, the hardest thing to do is prove that the sexual harassment occurred; many cases are he said/she said. As in the case of B, he was able to record the harassment, which is one way to garner proof. Another is to document everything that is said. To do this one needs a notebook to record time, date, location and what was said. There should be no open lines in between instances or occurrences.

Sexual harassment can create more than just a hostile environment; it can drive people from their current jobs or careers. Many people just quit without reporting the event due to fear of reprisals, others are terminated for not submitting.

J was a dispatcher, the only male in the office of a small company outside of the owner. The women he worked with enjoyed sharing ‘male bashing’ jokes and cartoons on the computers and would include him in the sendings. He tried at first to ignore what was going on, but became increasingly uncomfortable. He did ask the women to stop sending him the jokes and such but they did not stop. J finally just quit and found another job. When asked why he did not report the harassment, he replied, “I was embarrassed, did not think anyone would take me seriously and I did not want it on my record.”

Avoiding sexual harassment takes people treating others in the workplace with respect no matter the gender. Also, it takes understanding what sexual harassment is in context with the job and being able to define the difference between someone being attracted to you or using their position to harass you. Document the harassment if it occurs and do report it if necessary, it will make the workplace better for everyone.

Monday, April 21, 2014

QUALIFICATIONS OF DRIVERS AND LONGER COMBINATION VEHICLE (LCV) DRIVER INSTRUCTORS

< 390 | 392 >

Source: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/391.23
§391.23: Investigation and inquiries.

(a) Except as provided in subpart G of this part, each motor carrier shall make the following investigations and inquiries with respect to each driver it employs, other than a person who has been a regularly employed driver of the motor carrier for a continuous period which began before January 1, 1971:
(1) An inquiry to each State where the driver held or holds a motor vehicle operator's license or permit during the preceding 3 years to obtain that driver's motor vehicle record.
(2) An investigation of the driver's safety performance history with Department of Transportation regulated employers during the preceding three years.
(b) A copy of the motor vehicle record(s) obtained in response to the inquiry or inquiries to each State required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be placed in the driver qualification file within 30 days of the date the driver's employment begins and be retained in compliance with § 391.51. If no motor vehicle record is received from the State or States required to submit this response, the motor carrier must document a good faith effort to obtain such information, and certify that no record exists for that driver in that State or States. The inquiry to the State driver licensing agency or agencies must be made in the form and manner each agency prescribes.
(c)(1) Replies to the investigations of the driver's safety performance history required by paragraph (a)(2) of this section, or documentation of good faith efforts to obtain the investigation data, must be placed in the driver investigation history file, after October 29, 2004, within 30 days of the date the driver's employment begins. Any period of time required to exercise the driver's due process rights to review the information received, request a previous employer to correct or include a rebuttal, is separate and apart from this 30-day requirement to document investigation of the driver safety performance history data.
(2) The investigation may consist of personal interviews, telephone interviews, letters, or any other method for investigating that the carrier deems appropriate. Each motor carrier must make a written record with respect to each previous employer contacted, or good faith efforts to do so. The record must include the previous employer's name and address, the date the previous employer was contacted, or the attempts made, and the information received about the driver from the previous employer. Failures to contact a previous employer, or of them to provide the required safety performance history information, must be documented. The record must be maintained pursuant to § 391.53.
(3) Prospective employers should report failures of previous employers to respond to an investigation to the FMCSA following procedures specified at § 386.12 of this chapter and keep a copy of such reports in the Driver Investigation file as part of documenting a good faith effort to obtain the required information.
(4) Exception. For drivers with no previous employment experience working for a DOT regulated employer during the preceding three years, documentation that no investigation was possible must be placed in the driver history investigation file, after October 29, 2004, within the required 30 days of the date the driver's employment begins.
(d) The prospective motor carrier must investigate, at a minimum, the information listed in this paragraph from all previous employers of the applicant that employed the driver to operate a CMV within the previous three years. The investigation request must contain specific contact information on where the previous motor carrier employers should send the information requested.
(1) General driver identification and employment verification information.
(2) The data elements as specified in § 390.15(b)(1) of this chapter for accidents involving the driver that occurred in the three-year period preceding the date of the employment application.
(i) Any accidents as defined by § 390.5 of this chapter.
(ii) Any accidents the previous employer may wish to provide that are retained pursuant to § 390.15(b)(2), or pursuant to the employer's internal policies for retaining more detailed minor accident information.
(e) In addition to the investigations required by paragraph (d) of this section, the prospective motor carrier employers must investigate the information listed below in this paragraph from all previous DOT regulated employers that employed the driver within the previous three years from the date of the employment application, in a safety-sensitive function that required alcohol and controlled substance testing specified by 49 CFR part 40.
(1) Whether, within the previous three years, the driver had violated the alcohol and controlled substances prohibitions under subpart B of part 382 of this chapter, or 49 CFR part 40.
(2) Whether the driver failed to undertake or complete a rehabilitation program prescribed by a substance abuse professional (SAP) pursuant to § 382.605 of this chapter, or 49 CFR part 40, subpart O. If the previous employer does not know this information (e.g., an employer that terminated an employee who tested positive on a drug test), the prospective motor carrier must obtain documentation of the driver's successful completion of the SAP's referral directly from the driver.
(3) For a driver who had successfully completed a SAP's rehabilitation referral, and remained in the employ of the referring employer, information on whether the driver had the following testing violations subsequent to completion of a § 382.605 or 49 CFR part 40, subpart O referral:
(i) Alcohol tests with a result of 0.04 or higher alcohol concentration;
(ii) Verified positive drug tests;
(iii) Refusals to be tested (including verified adulterated or substituted drug test results).
(f) A prospective motor carrier employer must provide to the previous employer the driver's written consent meeting the requirements of § 40.321(b) for the release of the information in paragraph (e) of this section. If the driver refuses to provide this written consent, the prospective motor carrier employer must not permit the driver to operate a commercial motor vehicle for that motor carrier.
(g) After October 29, 2004, previous employers must:
(1) Respond to each request for the DOT defined information in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section within 30 days after the request is received. If there is no safety performance history information to report for that driver, previous motor carrier employers are nonetheless required to send a response confirming the non-existence of any such data, including the driver identification information and dates of employment.
(2) Take all precautions reasonably necessary to ensure the accuracy of the records.
(3) Provide specific contact information in case a driver chooses to contact the previous employer regarding correction or rebuttal of the data.
(4) Keep a record of each request and the response for one year, including the date, the party to whom it was released, and a summary identifying what was provided.
(5) Exception. Until May 1, 2006, carriers need only provide information for accidents that occurred after April 29, 2003.
(h) The release of information under this section may take any form that reasonably ensures confidentiality, including letter, facsimile, or e-mail. The previous employer and its agents and insurers must take all precautions reasonably necessary to protect the driver safety performance history records from disclosure to any person not directly involved in forwarding the records, except the previous employer's insurer, except that the previous employer may not provide any alcohol or controlled substances information to the previous employer's insurer.
(i)(1) The prospective employer must expressly notify drivers with Department of Transportation regulated employment during the preceding three years—via the application form or other written document prior to any hiring decision—that he or she has the following rights regarding the investigative information that will be provided to the prospective employer pursuant to paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section:
(i) The right to review information provided by previous employers;
(ii) The right to have errors in the information corrected by the previous employer and for that previous employer to re-send the corrected information to the prospective employer;
(iii) The right to have a rebuttal statement attached to the alleged erroneous information, if the previous employer and the driver cannot agree on the accuracy of the information.
(2) Drivers who have previous Department of Transportation regulated employment history in the preceding three years, and wish to review previous employer-provided investigative information must submit a written request to the prospective employer, which may be done at any time, including when applying, or as late as 30 days after being employed or being notified of denial of employment. The prospective employer must provide this information to the applicant within five (5) business days of receiving the written request. If the prospective employer has not yet received the requested information from the previous employer(s), then the five-business days deadline will begin when the prospective employer receives the requested safety performance history information. If the driver has not arranged to pick up or receive the requested records within thirty (30) days of the prospective employer making them available, the prospective motor carrier may consider the driver to have waived his/her request to review the records.
(j)(1) Drivers wishing to request correction of erroneous information in records received pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section must send the request for the correction to the previous employer that provided the records to the prospective employer.
(2) After October 29, 2004, the previous employer must either correct and forward the information to the prospective motor carrier employer, or notify the driver within 15 days of receiving a driver's request to correct the data that it does not agree to correct the data. If the previous employer corrects and forwards the data as requested, that employer must also retain the corrected information as part of the driver's safety performance history record and provide it to subsequent prospective employers when requests for this information are received. If the previous employer corrects the data and forwards it to the prospective motor carrier employer, there is no need to notify the driver.
(3) Drivers wishing to rebut information in records received pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section must send the rebuttal to the previous employer with instructions to include the rebuttal in that driver's safety performance history.
(4) After October 29, 2004, within five business days of receiving a rebuttal from a driver, the previous employer must:
(i) Forward a copy of the rebuttal to the prospective motor carrier employer;
(ii) Append the rebuttal to the driver's information in the carrier's appropriate file, to be included as part of the response for any subsequent investigating prospective employers for the duration of the three-year data retention requirement.
(5) The driver may submit a rebuttal initially without a request for correction, or subsequent to a request for correction.
(6) The driver may report failures of previous employers to correct information or include the driver's rebuttal as part of the safety performance information, to the FMCSA following procedures specified at § 386.12.
(k)(1) The prospective motor carrier employer must use the information described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section only as part of deciding whether to hire the driver.
(2) The prospective motor carrier employer, its agents and insurers must take all precautions reasonably necessary to protect the records from disclosure to any person not directly involved in deciding whether to hire the driver. The prospective motor carrier employer may not provide any alcohol or controlled substances information to the prospective motor carrier employer's insurer.
(l)(1) No action or proceeding for defamation, invasion of privacy, or interference with a contract that is based on the furnishing or use of information in accordance with this section may be brought against—
(i) A motor carrier investigating the information, described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, of an individual under consideration for employment as a commercial motor vehicle driver,
(ii) A person who has provided such information; or
(iii) The agents or insurers of a person described in paragraph (l)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, except insurers are not granted a limitation on liability for any alcohol and controlled substance information.
(2) The protections in paragraph (l)(1) of this section do not apply to persons who knowingly furnish false information, or who are not in compliance with the procedures specified for these investigations.
(m)(1) The motor carrier must obtain an original or copy of the medical examiner's certificate issued in accordance with § 391.43, and any medical variance on which the certification is based, and, beginning on or after May 21, 2014, verify the driver was certified by a medical examiner listed on the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners as of the date of issuance of the medical examiner's certificate, and place the records in the driver qualification file, before allowing the driver to operate a CMV.
(2) Exception. For drivers required to have a commercial driver's license under part 383 of this chapter:
(i) Beginning January 30, 2014, using the CDLIS motor vehicle record obtained from the current licensing State, the motor carrier must verify and document in the driver qualification file the following information before allowing the driver to operate a CMV:
(A) The type of operation the driver self-certified that he or she will perform in accordance with §§ 383.71(a)(1)(ii) and 383.71(g) of this chapter.
(B) Beginning on or after May 21, 2014, that the driver was certified by a medical examiner listed on the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners as of the date of medical examiner's certificate issuance.
(C) Exception. If the driver provided the motor carrier with a copy of the current medical examiner's certificate that was submitted to the State in accordance with § 383.73(a)(5) of this chapter, the motor carrier may use a copy of that medical examiner's certificate as proof of the driver's medical certification for up to 15 days after the date it was issued.
(ii) Until January 30, 2014, if a driver operating in non-excepted, interstate commerce has no medical certification status information on the CDLIS MVR obtained from the current State driver licensing agency, the employing motor carrier may accept a medical examiner's certificate issued to that driver, and place a copy of it in the driver qualification file before allowing the driver to operate a CMV in interstate commerce.

Citation: [35 FR 6460, Apr. 22, 1970, as amended at 35 FR 17420, Nov. 13, 1970; 69 FR 16720, Mar. 30, 2004; 72 FR 55703, Oct. 1, 2007; 73 FR 73126, Dec. 1, 2008; 75 FR 28502, May 21, 2010; 76 FR 70663, Nov. 15, 2011; 77 FR 24130, Apr. 20, 2012]

Last updated: March 27, 2014