Letters to the Editor: Fed Bailout; Training, Turnover
These Letters to the Editor appear in the Oct. 6 print edition of Transport Topics. Click here to subscribe today.
Fed Bailout
Do you see anything in “The Bailout Plan” that indicates whether there will be fines and prosecutions for board members, chief executive officers (i.e., the big guys who walk away with millions of dollars per year in bonuses and the people who worked the deals) and the oversight committees who monitor our financial markets (9-29, p. 2; click here for previous web story)? If they are going to play and take home millions of dollars or negotiate their pay of millions per year, they should have to pay, too.
The political contributions made by these institutions for lobbying also should come to the front, and that money should be taken away and put toward paying for this mess.
Unfortunately, I’m sure they didn’t cover any of these issues in the bailout plan. Working, tax-paying Americans are not going to be happy about this bailout if they don’t.
Our board works closely with us and is very cautious — maybe because they don’t expect a bailout if we make a wrong move. We don’t want to hear about greed; we want to hear about prosecutions and fines to help clean up this mess.
If those who took home millions of dollars for mismanagement are not held accountable with consequences, how can taxpayers expect them to make ethical decisions in the future?
I am angry. We are all angry. And they are walking away with millions in their bank accounts. We want accountability and consequences for mismanagement, and simply losing a job is not enough.
They need to look back and work from five to seven years forward at the mismanagement of the failed institutions that hold our money, and they need to prosecute and fine.
Those involved in wrongdoing need to wear the badge of shame, just like the Tyco boys and Bernie Ebbers. If anyone can explain to me how they are different, bring it on.
Merry Nethery
Director of Marketing
On-Site Fuel Service Inc.
Brandon, Miss.
Training, Turnover
Effective training is the only way to end the high turnover rates in the truckload segment of the industry — and that includes training the trainers, who should be motivated to help new drivers succeed in the trucking industry.
There is enormous cost associated with the combination of poorly selected and poorly prepared entry-level drivers and in-truck trainers. The result is disgruntled workers who quickly leave and costs that have resulted in at least one major carrier deciding to abandon primary training altogether.
On the other hand, careful selection of entry-level drivers going into a training program, pairing them with highly trained and motivated trainers, would go a long way in reducing the turnover costs of primary training.
If you could have the perfect training department, what would it be like? Here is what I would do:
• Design training programs to promote longevity and driver retention by pairing entry-level drivers with trainers for eight weeks at a time. At least two different trainers would be involved, because a solo trainer might not cover all aspects of the job important to over-the-road drivers.
• Test trainee drivers on job knowledge at the end of the initial training period and before promoting them to the next step.
• After promotion, pair entry-level drivers for a year to promote the concept of two drivers in each truck and teach the drivers to rely on each other’s knowledge — but at the same time, have training specialists continue to monitor and mentor the new drivers.
• Put a lock on the “train the trainer” program, which is the anchor pin of any training regimen. Trainers should be the best the company has to offer and be well-trained themselves in their craft and in company policy.
The train-the-trainer course itself should be comprehensive and at least a week long.
One failure of training programs is that as new information is developed, the company’s existing, experienced trainers don’t receive updates.
The training department of a major truckload carrier I recently worked with was kept in a constant state of chaos because major changes to the train-the-trainer program weren’t passed on to the existing trainers. To avoid this calamity, an annual refresher with a stand-up instructor (as opposed to a computer-based program) should be mandated.
Finally, a carrier’s typical two-day orientation program for entry-level drivers should focus on such subjects as company policy, entry-level driver requirements, hours-of-service regulations, special technology used by the company, benefits and training required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Trying to add formal instructional components to an orientation is not productive and only adds to a new driver’s confusion.
Effective training is a process, and truckload carriers today need to understand the process and work with it to nurture the entry-level drivers they hire.
R. Thomas Dugan
Training Contractor
Springfield, Ohio
