Mexico truckers protest new Texas inspections, halt trade at border bridges
texastribune.org
texastribune.org
> One trucker told the news outlet that prior to Abbott’s order, he made two crossings into the U.S. a day. Now, he’d be lucky to have one or two a week given the long delays at the bridges.
People express concerns that those jobs could get automated away, but I don't necessarily share those worries. Most of those people working those jobs are near retirement age, and we'll have a real problem filling up those positions in the coming years, at least in this region. Barely any young people want to work such jobs.
https://tucson.com/news/national/walmart-boosts-trucker-pay-...
- unloading pallets, some over 1.5k lbs in weight. When they’re stuck, the truck driver is responsible for getting them out, and that’s that. Not every small biz has a forklift lol.
- you drop off your load in a warehouse and nobody is there to receive it/unclear directions/your pickup directions suck. You spend the next hour walking around a warehouse searching for someone to sign for you.
- backing up to a dock and interrupting traffic = outraged commuters who get ridiculously upset
- unloading broken pallet loads by hand.
I couldn’t and wouldn’t do it.
Not to say that it doesn’t suck being a truck driver, but most of my experience has been that if the load cannot be unloaded by the receiver, the shipment is taken back and the driver is still paid for the attempt.
Go find a builder class, you'll learn a lot and have a good time, even if you decide not to go forward with it.
I don't know when this all shifted in the past twenty years but it feels like the teamsters union (both here and in Mexico) needs to step up their game.
If the statistics are accurate, and my math isn't too horrible, in the US, something around 47% (679,127) of drivers (1,441,014) are owner operators. I'm not sure how many of that 679k are leasing from the company they drive for, but it's certainly not 100%. Drivers are not paying for their own maintenance when they don't lease/own the trucks.
I am well aware that outrageous BS is very possible in the trucking industry, having seen it and been subjected to it myself. It's not new, even if it has recently come to light for people outside the industry.
What I tried to show is that the drivers who are paying for their own maintenance on vehicles leased from the company they drive for is smaller than "generally". I don't know of any articles that show those numbers so I tried to show other statistics that would imply it. I thought the way that the comment I replied to could be perceived was unfair.
Drivers also generally pay their own vehicle maintenance, often on trucks their renting from the company that "hired" them.
47% of owner truckers are owner operators and 100% of them are paying for maintenance. Some of the remainder are leasing from the company they work for and also paying for maintenance which is what’s pushing things over 50%.
—edit—
Should add lease operators almost always do this so they have a warranty on the truck because things get really expensive really fast when they don’t.
Those are included in the 47% owner/operators.
Edit:
Well, the page linked with the statistics doesn't mention it specifically, but I'm not sure why a lease purchase owner/operator would not be included in that number.
The other option was for the employer to own the truck. They might then lease the truck to their employee but the difference is the lease automatically ends if their fired.
Company drivers pay for nothing related to the truck unless they’re really, really gullible and are working for some super shady outfit.
The upside is if you lease a truck you keep most of money from the freight fees and if there’s a warranty your cost are not too outrageous.
Source: I drive for an owner/operator leased on to one of the big carriers and due to the way they have the computers set up I can see what the truck gets paid per load.
There’s different types of regulation. The in-state truckers in labor friendly states get a decent deal.
2. How much would it impact the costs of goods to pay truckers an hourly wage during these downtimes?
Abbott is using the inspections as a political bargaining chip to regain title 42 expulsions.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-12/top-texas...
Under no circumstances would one expect that Greg Abbott would do so, as he is wholly driven by a sandman's ideology.
And most trucks destined for California from Mexico will just enter the US in California, so delays on the Texas border will not play as big a role in California as it does in Texas.
Please read my brief comment before calling me short sighted.
2. Labor cost is the largest portion of trucking costs. This would double or quadruple those costs if the idea is to make the trucker whole for Abbot’s temper tantrum.
FTFY. Why would you used different denominators, this isn't an algebra test, it makes communication harder for no reason.
The labor to maintenance/insurance/etc. ratio seems to track pretty accurately. So maybe I should have said 3/6, 2/6 and 1/6 respectively (since the other responder wanted the same denominator).
It’s a stunt by the Texas state government, just like the activation and fleecing of Texas National Guardsmen on low paying state duty doing a whole lot of nothing.
It sounds good on talk radio though.
2. That's never going to happen because it has never happened before.
If they're claiming it's to make sure the trucks are safe enough to drive on Texas roads, it's a little different. The truckers, presumably, are allowed in the country, but they can't use any of the roads in Texas. That's the same effect, but a much more grey area. That would probably have to wind its way through the court. I'm also not sure how federal highway vs Texan maintained road would play into that.
If you're driving commercially you are subject to a lot of federal and state regulations, including vehicle and paperwork inspections. Abbott is clearly exploiting that to effectively deny freedom of movement, yes, and the judiciary isn't that stupid.
He knows he'll eventually lose a court case either from affected businesses or the feds - but in the meantime he gets "stuck it to the libtards" points with his constituents. It'll probably take at least a few days to get an emergency order, he'll fight that, and he'll probably waste millions taking it to the supreme court, all the while braying about "state's rights."
BTW - as far as the courts are concerned you only truly have freedom of movement on foot. They've consistently maintained driving is a privilege, not a right - which is why police have to clear a very low bar to stop and detain you.
Commercial bus, rail, and air travel? Even more of a 'privilege', which is why we have to submit to the pat-downs, microwave scans, anal probings, and having our luggage rifled through/stolen.
What I've been told by Uber drivers is that there have previously been significant military operations in the area related to combating cartels who desire to completely control border traffic.
So although the idea of searching everything or whatever they are doing is totally impractical and could result in many drivers not being able to make rent, the extensive smuggling may make things a little more complicated and difficult than people realize.
But it seems like if they try to search everything it is going to end up basically killing off some drivers and totally unrealistic.
My gut says that Abbott knows this, but he just needs to string the legal process out 'til election day so he doesn't care.
That is the reasoning behind the affordable health care act on existing without government mandated levels of health insurance e. Your existence as a human affects commerce, and therefore is penalizable.
And the stupid 16th amendment. That's caused just as many problems as the commerce clause.
Ability to have income taxes, without the states objecting?
Or is your criticism that some states should pay more income tax than others?
Your existence can be taxed directly under the original constitution; that doesn't need the reinterpreted commerce clause.
> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
That qualifier -- "without apportionment among the states" -- allows income taxes that aren't head taxes. Head taxes were already allowed. Nothing to do with any interpretation of the commerce clause.
Generally, no, and not in usurpation of Federal law. That's what the Commerce Clause literally says -- regulating foreign trade is a Federal role.
They or Congress can sue the Federal executive in Federal court.
How does it work the other way around? Does the federal court sue Texas?
If the federal government is doing a poor job, the remedy is to vote the bastards out, not subsume a federal obligation. This was made even clearer after the Civil War, because States had attempted to use such authority to disregard federal law regarding anti-foreign-competition tariffs.
Ultimately Texas benefits greatly from Mexican trade, so even by the dim bulb standard set by modern Texan officials, this is a really stupid measure.
States have very little control of their borders, either interstate or international or internal with Indian reservations, and that which they do have is what they are granted by Congress, to which the Constitution grants authority “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
Yeah, but actual cross-border trade being an exclusive federal authority isn't one of the squinty bits.
> To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
But fair point, Commerce Clause also has a less well known international aspect, but court cases have indicated that the states do have some ability to control that trade.
It is a testament to the resilience of ordinary Texans (and the Mexicans right across the border) that the state continues to do so well economically.
I care.
I’m personally impacted by the shipment delays. I currently await more than $250,000 worth of product ordered from Mexico, so questioning my motives with false equivalencies isn’t going to get anywhere.
I think that's the part you need to expand on, because even if I knew 10 people who crossed the border for that stuff, I wouldn't really care that much.
So what makes you care so much, are there visible, arguably tractable second order effects resulting from this that I wouldn't be able to deny if I lived in Texas? And they're so bad to the Texan state that I'd too want this surveyed and enforced at all cost?
To be honest, I probably need to be schooled on the whole thing. Generally, when there's issues at a local level, my gut reaction is I probably just don't understand the problem. But I'll also probably start by asking naive questions.
My first question is, it seems that yes there are lots of people trying to smuggle drugs or illegally enter the US for... Maybe working under the radar? Escaping Mexico?
And I can believe that it is a hard job to prevent this.
But it also seems to me like we made up the problem, why are we wanting to prevent the drugs and migrants in the first place?
For the drugs, seems we might as well manufacture them ourselves, make them in the US, label them properly, dispense correct dosers, list out side effects and risks, and tax their sales.
If people can get them through other channels, the demand for the Mexican one will reduce and that seems like it would naturally cause the smuggling to decrease. Or maybe, it wouldn't be smuggling anymore, just another import they self-declare and we tax, just like avocados.
For migrants, I'm curious what they're looking for. Are they running away from danger and trying to find safety? Are they looking for work? And why don't we want them? We're worried they resort to crime and theft? We don't have jobs for them? They bring anti-democratic values with them and promote things that we worry would eventually destroy our democracy and take away our freedom?
I think if any of those were true for migrants, I could see it being a harder problem. I'm not sure they are true though. But say they do lead to crime, violence, loss of democracy, loss of employment, and loss of freedom. If that's the case, it's definitely going to be challenging to stop so many people from entering such a big border. I get that. I guess I'm just missing that first link, do they cause all that trouble? Or are we just making up the problem?
So much of state politics is currently Republicans dog whistling made up issues to their base rather than any kind of evidence based policy.
> We began by asking eligible voters how “convincing” they found a dog-whistle message lifted from Republican talking points. Among other elements, the message condemned “illegal immigration from places overrun with drugs and criminal gangs” and called for “fully funding the police, so our communities are not threatened by people who refuse to follow our laws.”
> Almost three out of five white respondents judged the message convincing. More surprising, exactly the same percentage of African-Americans agreed, as did an even higher percentage of Latinos.
I guess it’s easy not to care about this stuff if you didn’t literally flee your homeland to get away from it.
Yes, you can get results from push-polling with heavily loaded wording and unsubstantiated, hyperbolic claims like "overrun with drugs and criminal gangs" and correlating police funding to public safety.
Yes, that's different from evidence-based policy.
Yes, the Texas state governement has enacted a program of disenfranchisement.
I’m not “trolling.” In the last few years folks have become too comfortable calling policies “racist” or “dog whistling” without being confident that minorities actually perceive them that way. I think this is itself racist and manipulative—a way of fluffing apparent support for progressive policies by vaguely invoking minorities—and needs to be called out as such.
Cross-border criminal activity is a real concern that affects real people. There’s a reason majority Hispanic communities along the border have flipped Republican in the last couple of years. Right now Abbott is leading Beto among Hispanics in reputable polls: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2022/01/29/abbott-r.... Waving your hands and calling these concerns racist “dog whistles” is not only lazy but disrespectful to a distinct community with its own interests and often nuanced positions.
You have a point with immigration! But you overplay your hand with the defund stuff. Democratic candidates who run on "defund" lose their primary elections everywhere except a tiny number of ultra-blue uncompetitive districts.
It’s not just the Twitter elite doing that—it’s a lot of folks who don’t necessarily want to defund the police, but just wanted an opportunity to call republicans racist. But the end result is that we went about a year invoking minorities to attack policies that the minorities themselves supported, which is gross. The underlying practice needs to stop.
That the primary system elevates fringe candidates is, yes, a problem. But those candidates lose.
Like I said, we have an exceptionally mobilized defund movement in Oak Park, with demonstrations, proposed ordinances, and candidate slates. They got slaughtered. We're a single-party municipality; being outed as in any way sympathetic to Republicans is fatal here. It came to nothing: liberals don't want to defund the police.
Faced with that, Democrats in 2020 did not treat the idea as "fringe." The put up the BLM signs on their yards and didn't say a word against the activists promoting defund. Aside from Joe Biden, prominent Democrats equivocated when confronted directly: Elizabeth Warren responded to a question about "defund" by saying "it's not the term I would use." That's not how you describe what you think is a "fringe" idea.
Perfect time to shift blame upwards following the already ongoing shipping and supply problems. Endless aggressive expansion of the starve the beast tactic is bound to reach its limits eventually, and all that's left is outright attacking it.
Inventing a problem and proposing awful solutions is a proven election strategy.
First, Mexicans face extreme violence form Mexicans, not Americans. They flee to America largely to avoid that, and to have some hope of prosperity, which is afforded to them by the millions.
Second, responsible border control is a foundation of stability when disparate nations share a border. Open borders between a state which is to some extent run by hyper violent cartels, and where there is a normal civil situation on the other, is only going to lead to disaster.
Finally, there really should be border controls going in the other direction as well. In the US->Mexico direction, there's nary any control.
There are all sorts of ways to facilitate a proper customs union, keep traffic moving, and make sure everything is in order - it just takes a bit of political will.