Why doesn't the Union stay the Hell out of it..

[Benny Hill]

If the exact same unjust rule is put in to place by our government three times and is then struck down in court twice, how is it anyone's fault for trying to get it struck down a third time? The court system has more information about this issue than any of us do. If the judge's felt it was an unlawful order then why should anyone question the IBT or anyone else for fighting a battle in the court system against something they believe to be unjust? Why don't either the pro or anti abortion sides just give up, why don't one of the major political parties just give in to the other side, why don't the religious right give in to the liberal left? Why don't the Non-Union drivers join the IBT? The answer is obvious, if you feel your side is right you fight to win against the other side of thinking. The IBT and other groups feel, as the court has ruled, that this "rule" is unjust and as any American's right to do so they continue to fight against unjust government intervention concerning this issue. Are you asking the IBT to give up their right to be American and bow to government suppression?

A federal appeals court struck down the 11-hour rule twice, saying the government did not adequately explain its reasoning for adding the hour. The Bush administration reinstated the rule each time.


Why only bring up the IBT in this discussion? There are four other groups concerned for the publics safety funding this issue too?

Suing to get the rule thrown out were Public Citizen, Parents Against Tired Truckers, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

This issue is simple, President Bush sided with the ATA and other business groups in allowing the 60 year rule to be changed to help the company's get more driving time from the drivers. Some drivers like this rule that adds an extra hour of driving time and some drivers don't. Just like any major issue it went to the courts and was then overturned. The same unjust rule with no changes was then put back in place and overturned a second time. Then after the rule was put back in place a third time and about to be overturned a third time, the government now says they give up and they'll change it. You should be asking why the Bush administration and the court system allowed this unjust rule to continue so long after knowing it was an unjust rule and why they kept pushing an unjust and illegal rule upon the American truck driver? Why try to single out the IBT and not anyone else? Why not ask how much money it cost the ATA and other groups to buy this unjust rule? Why didn't the company's spend the money they wasted on getting an unjust rule put in to place on helping to grow their business and help the economy?

IMO, this whole issue comes down to greed and KD can tell everyone what the Bible says about greed. Hard working men and women are one thing but pushing the HOS rules a little to far is something else.

Feds might shorten time truckers are allowed on road | Columbus Dispatch Politics

[wizzard]

What is it about the rule that is considered 'unjust'?

[Starkravinloon]

You know,I'm coming in here blind,I think..We added 1 hour driving time and added 2 hour rest time..What makes this unjust to the old rule..I've been driving for 31 years, O/O and in the freight industry..On the new rule, I have gotten more rest,more home time and less fatigue now,than I have since I've started driving..And didn't the FHSB,release the figures here a while back that showed that "tired truck driver" accidents have demenished in the last 2 years..I'll try to locate the summary sheet from their results..Just had to send a comment or two,to try to understand the Teamsters motivation,to be behind this issue..Thanks Benny for the info..

[Benny Hill]

Originally Posted by wizzard

What is it about the rule that is considered 'unjust'?

My use of the word "unjust" is in reference to a rule being put in to place by a political administration and then being challenged in a court of law. After this said rule is set aside in a court of law the same political administration put the same exact rule back in to place again, with no changes. The rule was challenged a second time and again set aside but the same political administration put the same exact rule in to affect a third time. Before the court was allowed to possibly set the rule aside a third time the current political administration asked to be given a chance to correct the rule. It's very simple, some people like the rule and some people don't. When there is a difference of opinion about an issue you send it to the courts to rule upon. Just because someone is for an issue or against an issue it doesn't make the issue right or wrong. The bottom line is the court ruled the HOS rule wasn't correct and threw it out but it was put right back in to use without any changes, the political administration shouldn't have did that a second or third time and the court's shouldn't have allowed it to happen either after ruling against the HOS rule. We can all agree to disagree on this issue but the law of the land has the final say no matter what anyone on TB has to say. This is already a mute point, this is just another attempt to attack the IBT, IMO. The IBT or anyone else, as an American, has the right to file a lawsuit about anything that is found to have merit. If there was no merit to this case it would never have been allowed to continue through the court system. I'll answer any questions about this issue that I can but just because someone doesn't like the result's of a legal lawsuit, that's no reason to be upset with only one of five plaintiff's in that issue's litigation, is it?

[Benny Hill]

Originally Posted by Starkravinloon

Just had to send a comment or two,to try to understand the Teamsters motivation,to be behind this issue..Thanks Benny for the info..

No problem, I'm only referring to the lawsuit and right of any American or group to file a lawsuit against the government dealing with any issue that they disagree with. If a court hadn't ruled against the HOS rule and set it aside this thread might be fueled by anger Teamsters...asking why it was changed and why the ATA can't keep out of this issue themselves, it's been fine for 60 years so why change it now....My answers would be the same only I would place ATA in where I'm placing IBT. Don't get upset with me guys, I'm only attempting to answer your questions and debate/discuss this issue with you in a civil manor. Stark your welcome and thank you for your post. I can see both sides to this issue, they both have merit but it's in the politicians and court's hands now. Let's wait and see what happens in the next few months?

[Starkravinloon]

So it's all because the Bush dudes went over the court's head and re-instated the rule..I can see where people would have a problem with that part of it..But why do you want to change something that is working..1 more hour driving time,2 more hours rest time..I fail to see the danger here..Maybe I'm missing a valid point here..You know there have been cases where the Justice Department have been driven to make descisions on lobbists pressure,regardless of what the law says..Anyone want to bring up one of those cases..If this issue would be considered unconstitutional,then I would be behind this 100%..But we all know,that the current administration is not concerned about constitutional rights. And there might be an arguement,and justly so,that the Bush dudes weren't concerned about it either..All of this boils down to adults not being responsible for their own actions..These companies have ways to monitor how much driving time you have done and how much rest "you should have gotten"..Before it's all over,there will be auto-shutdowns put on all trucks to make sure "the babies" get their proper rest..I know there are trucks already in production,and some on the road,with these experimental devises in them..How much do you think this will cost our companies to provide another service for their employees,because they cannot seem to manage their own lives,IMO.. Thanks Benny..