Should Trucks From Mexican Companies Be Allowed Free Access To USA Highways?

[Robson]

Poll question: Should Trucks From Mexican Companies Be Allowed Free Access To USA Highways?

Should trucks of Mexican companies be allowed free access to American highways?

OK....forget about Mexican trucks that will be driven by drivers without regulated CDLs and forget about companies that are held accountable only under Mexican law.

The core problem is it's already dangerous enough with trucks from US companies, that do have drug testing and insurance and are susceptible to US laws that are already dangerous on our over crowded highways. Our US trucks are often overweight, drivers tailgate and yet they are rarely held accountable in an accident. That's what we US drivers already face with US truck drivers that speak and read English and are accountable in US courts.

It will only get worse with Mexican companies taking over our US highways. If you truly believe that more trucks driven by Mexicans that have a questionnable background, minimal English ability for signs and communication ability, with neither "Commercial Drivers Licenses" nor drug tests, and have trucks and equipment that are most certainly in worse mechanical condition.

BTW US companies are still restricted from driving on Mexican highways.

[youngdem]

1. NO....It is a public safety and union busting issue

First, Mexican trucks are less well maintained and they have poorer requirements for driving time per day and other safety measures.

Secondly, Bush's advocacy of this is mainly because truck drivers are 'well paid' and they wish to bust the teamsters, so they want foreign truckers.

Soon, they will be hauling loads inside the US originating inside the US.

America's middle class is dying a death of a thousand cuts.

[Robson]

10. That's what the Democratic party should be about

The Democratic Party was once all about making life and the economy better for all Americans. The Party was a powerful populist force in the country in those days. Somewhere between 1965 and 1975 that primary mission became muddled and the Party lost power.

[youngdem]

22. Yep....That's when they realized that to have true continuous power,

they had to divide their contributions between the parties, effectively creating one party rule...the corporate party.

[hogwyld]

61. Great point!

Unfortunately, I can hardly tell the difference between the DLC corporatists, and the pukes. They both want to kill off the middle class. We need a to get back a progressive, populist party of the people, and NOT the corporations.

[Robson]

78. Back to our roots.

I sure agree on that one. This Party needs to get back to its populist roots of building a strong working middle class, instead of allowing itself to be manipulated by corporate elitists with divisive sub-agendas.

The DLC with their pro free (but not fair) trade agenda that supports CAFTA and NAFTA are questionnably GOP lite.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=108&subid=900010&contentid=253428

[JHB]

85. That would be the point when direct contributions to candidates...

...became the main method of campaign funding.

[cherokeeprogressive]

43. How about trucks from Canada? n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

75. Only if they comply with US law. If they are unsafe then NO.

Same answer as for Mexican trucks.

[youngdem]

100. I don't know, but I assume it would be ok since the Repukes aren't for it

That's my rule of thumb lately...If I know nothing about a subject I just assume that if it were bad and evil, that it would already be shoved down my throats by some Orwellian phrase coined by the Bush Cabal. Been really accurate so far.

Seriously though, American jobs should be done by Americans wherever possible. If Canadian trucks are safe, come in to the Zone and drop it off. But as soon as truckers start heading further inland, there is gonna be outcry about empty trucks and they will start lobbying to be allowed to take a load back toward the border, and then all of the sudden the teamsters are competing in an international marketplace in their own country that is unfair without reciprocity in Canada or Mexico.

America is being eaten alive by specious arguments of fairness and equality. There is no shame in some 'protectionism' when what you are protecting are families and jobs. I don't bemoan other countries' immigration or labor laws...they do what they need to do to sustain their standard of living and way of life, and I don't feel excluded or victimized when they do so.

[KittyWampus]

2. Wonder if THIS is finally enough to get Hoffa Jr. out of the GOP's rectum.

Teamsters should be real happy with the prospect of Mexicans taking their jobs.

[Robson]

6. The trouble with unions

Union leadership considers themselves as elitists and worthy of perks and benefits far in excess of rank and file. I suspect they see themselves as CEOs worthy of more, instead of mere activists looking out only for the best interests of their organization. When the outlook of union management and labor becomes as one, is when organized labor will once again become a force to be reckoned with in the USA.

[Sapere aude]

9. I look back to the history of unions and see a lot of bad and a lot of good that came from them.

My father was a union member his whole working career and I feel I benefited greatly because of it. I know that many union members and leaders were wrong to do a lot of the things they did but in this world the good resides right along with the bad. We know evil because there is good, says the TAU.

[Robson]

11. Good point

Evil always resides with good. It's very important when good usurps evil.

[Robson]

3. May I reply to my own post?

This is all about US corporations wanting more for work less wages. They are more than willing to sacrifice US lives on OUR highways so they can increase THEIR profits and shift transport corridors from US interstate 70 or 80 to the Mexican ports and US interstate 35. BTW selling off our highways such as they've done in Indiana and proposed by Dem Gov. Rendell proposes in PA will only accelerate this process.

[treestar]

4. Are the drivers Mexican?

The immigration authorities will check them at the border. They will have to have some type of visa to get in, and a truck driver isn't going to cut it under the immigration laws. Are they American, by chance? That the company is "Mexican" may be mostly on paper.

If they abide by the regulations, why couldn't they come in? What about our trucks going there? There is no reason to assume Mexican trucks are "unsafe." Other country give a shit, too, you know.

[KittyWampus]

5. Yeah, Mexico is known for its strict environmental laws and enforcement...

[treestar]

111. Do you really know, or are you just assuming that?

It would surprise me if they could come into the U.S. without being checked for all sorts of requirements.

The U.S. is a very persnicketty nation, especially post 911.

[napi21]

8. I believe you're mistaken about many Mexican truck being safe.

I lived in Tx for 6 years. I've seen lots of the trucksthat would have free access to the US. I used to call them excapees from the junk yard. I don't mean EVERY ONE, but there are very few vehicle safety laws in Mexico, so many vehicles are just driven until the wheels fall off.

[Robson]

13. You are on your own

Mexico is like living in the wild west. If you, or a company can get away with it...so be it.

Is that what we in the USA want for our US highways. Is that what we want to face if we are in an accident or have our families killed or injured by a Mexican company?

Basically what it means is if you want to receive renumeration for damages from Mexico or a Mexican company it will only occur at the end of gun barrel or with a huge bribe, otherwise you are on your own.

[treestar]

115. I can believe it is that way in Mexico

but from what I can tell of U.S. immigration, especially post 911, the driver cannot get into the U.S. without some type of visa, or perhaps the border crossing card.

Then it's hard to believe the truck is just let in as is, without filing tons of paperwork to prove it is up to U.S. standards.

Not saying it's not so, just that it would be a big surprise.

[treestar]

110. I'm just surprised they were let into the U.S. then

They would have to put up with all sorts of checks at the border, and they can't be coming over illegally the way the people can.

[Adelante]

67. I have rarely seen a truck in Mexico I would call safe

There are some well-kept, but they are very few and far between. This is not even taking into account the pollution spewing from them. It is very, very different.

[treestar]

112. But how do they get into the U.S.?

NAFTA? And they are allowed into the U.S. even if they don't live up to Texas standards?

[Divernan]

79. Spend some time in Mexico and then revisit your opinion.

I like Mexico and some of the local people I've met and worked with there are wonderful. But environmentally speaking, they are in sad shape. Mexico City, geographically located as it is, has smog worse than Los Angeles in the 60's.

[treestar]

113. I'm sure you're right, but are the trucks allowed into the U.S.

even if they don't abide by U.S. standards?

I can imagine the Mexicans don't have standards as high, but I don't really know, and am going on a presumption involving prejudice regarding the third world.

[Joey Liberal]

7. No.

Not because they are Mexican. I just dont see a need for the huge super-highway that Bush wants to build. We have enough highways as it is. Why build a fence along the border *snicker* and then open up a huge highway?

[Elwood P Dowd]

12. I cannot believe 5 people voted yes.

Just goes to show you how totally lost and uninformed some people have become.

[izzybeans]

14. Do U.S. trucks get free access in Mexico?

:shrug:

[Robson]

17. No

First Mexican drivers and companies must get full and open access to our highways and take market share. That's the way our failed trade policies have worked for 35 years of ever increasing trade deficits.

American workers first have to get screwed then they open the door to other markets but just a crack. After that Americans can apply for jobs at Mexican companies at $4/hr. Under this program American companies can not compete with Mexican companies in Mexico even though Mexican companies can come into the USA.

It's all about helping capitalist elitists get rich and richer.

[TerdlowSmedley]

15. The Teamsters are one of the last bastions of a strong union labor

economy. We can't just turn over our trucking routes to Mexicans, to the detriment of American truckers.

[razors edge]

18. The teamsters just raised

my companies employees dues 3% and they are pissed. We signed a new contract in December and they only got 2%.

This is the largest local in the US and they did not fight for shit for these guys in my opinion. I told the guys to keep going for more but they thought they were doing good.

If my boss ever reads this, I'll need a new management job.

[Robson]

20. Union redo needed.

The trouble with unions is that the word "union" has developed a bad reputation. They need a new name and a new structure and a new PR image and a redo.

Most importantly they need a political party that will consistently support American workers. Possibly, hopefuly, the new Democratic party will move in that direction. Certainly the GOP has no interest.

Unions need management that are dedicated to the cause and not to their personal prestige, money and benefits. It can happen but it will take major effort and time. Most Americans see unions as a problem and not a solution, although unions have done much for this country in equalizing and improving economic benefits. It's only since the demise of union strength that CEOs have been able to both personally enrich themselves and outsource at will.

[razors edge]

21. The crazy part of it in my case is

that I know what the company is prepared to approve before we even meet. If I thought my company was unfair to its employees I would be out the door myself, not waiting for them treat me the same way.

When the Union rep doesn't even encourage or help the stewards to push for as much as the company will pay, then close the deal as quickly as possible telling the men to take it, that Union only undermines itself with its members.

[Selatius]

37. Are your union leaders that insulated from the base?

One thing that galls me is that there are too many cases of union bosses doing the exact opposite of what they were elected for. I generally favored unions with flat organizational structures that easily allow the base to assert itself.

[Bridget Burke]

28. No, there's nothing wrong with the word "Union"....

Perhaps more unions need to get back to their source. And more people need to unionize.

[GOPisEvil]

16. No, I use Interstate 35 in south and central Texas a lot.

That's the main north-south route from Laredo, Mexico. There's LOTS of truck traffic.

I'm not all that certain the US-based trucks are safe. I have even less confidence in the Mexican trucks.

[Marrah_G]

19. NO!

If that happens you will see truckers getting paid like shit, killing our working class even more. If that isn't enough of a reason think of this. Some foriegn truck driver gets in an accident and causes death and injury, how confident would you be that some small mexican company has kept up it's insurance and will pay up for the damages? Unless Mexico implements AND enforces ALL the same laws out truckers have to follow here then, hell no.

And finally... this would devastate our shipping yards also. They could ship to cheap Mexican ports with far less regulation and use cheap Mexican truckers to deliver the goods here. That would completely destroy two more sections of our economy.

[Divernan]

80. Re: accidents, it takes 3 to 5 years to get a civil case to trial in the U.S.

And before you can tell the court you're ready to go to trial, you have to have completed all the depositions of witnesses, gathering of evidence, etc. It would be absolutely impossible and/or prohibitively expensive to accomplish this with the defendant/driver/employee in another country. The Mexican company could go out of business and reorganize under another name; the driver "can't be located", etc. It would be like the taxi operations back in the sixties. The owners split their operations up into dozens of 2 or 3 cab operations, each a separate company - so there were no assets to attach other than 2 or 3 beatup taxis and they'd declare bankruptcy if sued.

[Ikonoklast]

23. The issue is always MONEY

The moneyed class that currently runs our country wants cheap labor, at all costs, period. They will destroy all of the middle class in this country to achieve their objectives.

Union truckers are actually a very small percentage of the total truck-load carriers in the U.S., as the large mega-carriers (J.B. Hunt, Werner, Swift, Knight, Schneider, U.S.Express, etc.) are all virulently anti-union. They are fabulously profitable, yet most pay pitiful wages. They also have wholly-owned Mexican subsidiaries just waiting to cross the border.

The real problem with Mexican drivers is that they operate in a totally different regulatory environment than U.S. truckers do. There is NO verification of skills by the Mexican federal government, NO verification of drug use or testing by the government, NO real enforcement of log book rules, NO real way to check if they have a criminal background, let alone check to see if the person is really who they say they are.

Mexican drivers can enter the U.S. without a passport, U.S. drivers have to show one to operate in Mexico. There is no mechanism to drug test Mexican drivers in this country before an accident. The equipment inspection at the border crossing will, using the governments' own statistics, only check one out of eighty trucks crossing the border at any given time. We have all seen how efficient the federal government is keeping cocaine out of the country. Just think how good they will be trying to enforce safety regs on a deluge of commercial vehicles, every day.

The pay of Mexican truckers is LESS THAN HALF OF AMERICAN DRIVERS' WAGES. This is the issue. Trucks cost the same, trailers cost the same, tires cost the same, but cheap labor and ignoring safety regulations gives these companies a competitive advantage that a U.S. carrier based driver cannot supersede unless he is willing to work for about $17,000 a year.

[Elwood P Dowd]

24. Yet 5 DUers suport this.

They are either freepers or idiots. Which is it?

[treestar]

114. I find it impossible to believe Mexican drivers can enter the U.S.

without a passport AND a visa.

And a truck driver will never be granted a visa.

The CEOs themselves would have to drive them over, and get themselves a TN visa.

[A HERETIC I AM]

25. This thread is so full of misinformation and bullshit it's hard to know where to start.

1st, with the OP;
"OK....forget about Mexican trucks that will be driven by drivers without regulated CDLs and forget about companies that are held accountable only under Mexican law."

Ummmmm how do you figure? A truck being driven in this country or in ANY country around the world, REGARDLESS of it's country of origin is held accountable to the rules and regulations of the country in which it is driven. Do you honestly think that just because a truck that has Matamoros as its home base wouldn't be held accountable to the laws of Texas or Oklahoma? Do you think an American truck that drives and delivers into Montreal is not accountable to the Province of Quebec?

"The core problem is it's already dangerous enough with trucks from US companies, that do have drug testing and insurance and are susceptible to US laws that are already dangerous on our over crowded highways. Our US trucks are often overweight, drivers tailgate and yet they are rarely held accountable in an accident. That's what we US drivers already face with US truck drivers that speak and read English and are accountable in US courts."

Really? Wow. Did you just get your license and were promptly in a wreck with an 18 wheeler or something? The statement "Our US trucks are often overweight, drivers tailgate and yet they are rarely held accountable in an accident." is nothing short of complete and utter bullshit. Do you drive professionally? Do you actually know a professional over the road tractor trailer operator? Often over weight? Rarely held accountable in an accident? Wow. Overweight fines are expensive and avoided at all costs. The overwhelming majority of American Trucking companies make the DRIVER responsible for paying such fines and trust me, they don't want to have to pay them. As far as accidents are concerned, you can bet your sweet ass the driver is held responsible, often when he isn't even remotely at fault because he is held to a much, MUCH higher standard of driving skill than YOU are. Next time you see a tractor trailer in a ditch or off the side of the road jackknifed and there isn't a car involved, you can bet with 80% accuracy that the driver put that truck there in order to save the life of the moron driving the four wheeler.

Do some American truckers tailgate? Yes they do. And there is rarely an excuse for it. But hey! Here's one. When you see a truck driving down the road with a large space between himself and the vehicle in front of him it is BECAUSE THE TRUCK DRIVER PUT IT THERE. Of course, some idiot automobile driver will fill the space, not nearer to the car in front but typically closer to the truck. More often than not, tailgating by a heavy truck is momentary. If you are constantly tailgated by large trucks GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE LEFT HAND LANE!

You obviously have NO experience in or with the motor transport industry or you wouldn't have made such ridiculously uninformed statements.

"It will only get worse with Mexican companies taking over our US highways. If you truly believe that more trucks driven by Mexicans that have a questionable background, minimal English ability for signs and communication ability, with neither "Commercial Drivers Licenses" nor drug tests, and have trucks and equipment that are most certainly in worse mechanical condition."

How the fuck do you figure Mexican companies are going to take over US highways? American trucking companies have been going into Canada for years and, in spite of deregulation and the downward pressure on wages for the drivers, Canadian trucking companies still continue to haul ALL of the goods point to point inside Canada. American firms are allowed to haul from a US site to the delivery point in Canada and they are allowed to go to a pickup site if other than the delivery site and then ONLY haul freight that is exclusively destined for the United States. They can not deliver in Toronto, pick up in Mississauga and deliver in Edmonton then head back to the States. It just doesn't work that way and it won't for Mexican companies either. In fact, the proposals for Mexican trucking in the US CLOSELY MIRROR the agreements the US has with Canada.

Read this page: http://www.cmca.com/ <snip> "This latest effort will implement NAFTA’s access provisions with a one-year pilot program limited to 100 Mexican Trucking companies. Mexico responded to the U.S. announcement by saying it will allow 100 U.S. carriers to travel across the border into Mexico. The DOT says the first Mexican trucks could roll into the U.S. in about 60 days (in May)."<snip>

100 COMPANIES! That's all. And they will all be inspected, insured and have properly certificated drivers. If you don't believe it then fine, don't, but the agreements that started this ball rolling were signed in the early 1990's under Clinton. It has taken this long to get things going because responsible Government officials with the American publics interest and safety in mind have been hashing out the details for almost 14 years.

From Post # 3 above; "This is all about US corporations wanting more for work less wages. They are more than willing to sacrifice US lives on OUR highways so they can increase THEIR profits and shift transport corridors from US interstate 70 or 80 to the Mexican ports and US interstate 35. BTW selling off our highways such as they've done in Indiana and proposed by Dem Gov. Rendell proposes in PA will only accelerate this process."

1st of all, this has nothing to do with your ridiculous initial sentence. The agreements with which you are so vehemently opposed to are designed to streamline cross border freight flow, much like it has been done with Canada. Currently it takes at least 3 different tractors and 3 different drivers to get a load of goods from a plant in Mexico to it's destination in the US. Into/out of Canada it takes 1 with a few special exceptions. (New cars, for instance.) I am at a loss to understand how you think allowing Mexican drivers to deliver goods in the US will take freight traffic away from any particular interstate highway. If you're thinking about container freight from overseas diverting to Mexico, why would a shipper want to add yet another set of Customs documents and import headaches to his shipping costs? The infrastructure is already in place in the major US ports and it is efficient and cost effective. It won't get moved to Mexico. The circumstance with the "Sale" of the interstates you mentioned is merely an operating agreement. They haven't sold the hard asset. They are allowing a private company to maintain the highway in exchange for the rights to a portion of the toll revenue. Suggesting they have "Sold off our highways" is inaccurate and disingenuous.

Post #8 - The initial trucks that will participate in this program will come from only 100 Mexican companies. They will be required to have had an American DOT inspection and they will be fully insured.

Post # 13. Sorry, Robson, but more bullshit.
Post # 7. The plans for the I 69 Corridor have been in place for at least 20 years. This isn't a "huge super-highway that Bush wants to build"
Post # 12. I didn't vote in this silly poll but the truly uninformed ones are those that have a knee-jerk reaction because of the possibility that more strange talking brown people might be driving trucks on American roads.
Post #17. More bullshit from Robson
Post #15. The overwhelming majority of cross border freight from Mexico into the US never ends up on a union truck. Your concerns are groundless.
Post #16. If you aren't sure how safe American trucks are, just start counting all the heavy trucks you see every day. Count everything from a 3 axle dump truck on up. The fact is, you don't notice how many trucks are around you every day because they are EXTREMELY safe.
Post #19. See my answer above. There is aminimal threat to the American trucker from the Mexican driver. The threat to the American trucker is from the American people who bitch and moan when a head of lettuce goes up twenty cents. The threat to the American trucker has been from the likes of the JB Hunts of this country who have been willing to run a truck AT A LOSS for up to 500 miles in order to pick up a load that pays a profit. Deregulation has been pushing real wages down for the American driver for years. The fact that some Mexicans will be taking the freight from the border to the plant will make very little difference.

I know what the hell i am talking about, BTW. I have held a Commercial Drivers license since 1978, long before the CDL came out. I have driven well over one and a half million miles accident free in every state in the lower 48 and 3 Canadian Provinces. I have driven over almost every mile of paved interstate in this country in all seasons and all kinds of weather and i have seen more than my share of shit. I have slept in more truck stops than i care to recall and have hauled a wide variety of freight, from exotic cars to rolls of newsprint paper to canisters of Yoohoo mix and tubs of powdered Saccharine. I've hauled Piggy backs out of rail yards and containers out of ports. The situation with freight transport across our southern border is a complex one and, as i said earlier, has been hashed out for over a decade.

Misinformation does not help anything.

I apolgize if my tone has been harsh but i was in the industry for a very long time and it bugs me when i read such inaccurate information.

[Robson]

26. THANKS, but who wants to be a guinea pig?

I don't see any benefit for American motorists, but I do see tremendous risk. Essentially we are being made guinea pigs for the bed buddies of big business and the federal government so they can pilot the program under NAFTA. I'm not a truck driver so it won't immediately impact me, but I do see it as one more attempt by Bush and corporate America to chip away at our middle class.

You seem to have strong feelings as a proponent of this pilot plan that initially opens the doors to 100 Mexican trucking companies using US highways, while keeping Mexican roads closed to US trucks. I suspect that Bush would eventually like to open it all the way including independent Mexican owner operators.

I'm very curious; since you have such strong feelings that are counter-intuitive and to the beliefs of every person that I've spoken with on this…. are you currently in the trucking business and will you benefit from this plan?

Do you believe NAFTA has been a boon to the USA at large? Has it raised middle class economic conditions or has it resulted in the outsourcing of many well paid US jobs. As an example the new Ford models are predominantly Mexican made and assembled automobiles produced by a US headquartered company.

With any such plan there will be winners and losers. I submit that the losers are Americans and the only winners are commercial interests. But what’s new as this is standard operating procedure under President Bush. The winners are always commercial and wealthy interests while middle America pays or subsidizes in lives, taxes, reduced benefits and wage pressure.

It may not be obvious to you, but it is obvious to most that the policy will reduce pay for American drivers...it must. The miles that are currently driven by American drivers will be displaced by Mexican Cos. paying Mexican wages. The same products that are hauled today by American drivers will be hauled by Mexican trucks.

Obviously the policy will increase risk to American motorists. Our government doesn't have the resources or the will to inspect American trucks. How are they going to inspect Mexican trucks? They will rely almost entirely on data from Mexico. We all know that Mexico has no government corruption. (Sarcasm intended). My guess is twenty pesos will get you a Mexican CDL license and an approved safety inspection.

You say you have experience as an over the road driver. You might want to ask the Owner-Operator Independent Driver's association their opinion which is highly negative or Joan Claybrook the safety guru of Public Citizen which is also highly negative of this plan.

In researching this I’ve uncovered some interesting facts. Land Line magazine, "The Magazine of Professional Truckers" ran an article about this issue and testimony in Congress

<quote>In granting authority under the program, the DOT must rely heavily on Mexican data and procedures. That isn’t sitting well with opponents of the program.

“U.S. truckers must operate under a tremendous amount of scrutiny and an ever increasing number of stringent safety regulations. Such burdens are, by all available accounts, nonexistent for truck drivers and trucking companies in Mexico,” Parfrey testified.

“U.S. drivers are outraged to think that their government would accept a lower standard for Mexico-domiciled trucks and drivers. Specific examples include DOT accepting the Mexican commercial driver’s license, drug and alcohol testing program, and physical qualification and examination standards as being equivalent to U.S. regulations.”</quote>

http://www.landlinemag.com/Special_Reports/2007/Mar07/S...

And btw the “Americans for a Strong National Highway Network” calls the trend to outsource our highways as a “Pawn shop mentality . Our politicians are hawking our assets to cover their short term butts.

http://www.landlinemag.com/Special_Reports/2007/Feb07/S...

[Bridget Burke]

27. Hmm.... Attacking the messenger, not the message.

"I'm very curious; since you have such strong feelings that are counter-intuitive and to the beliefs of every person that I've spoken with on this…. are you currently in the trucking business and will you benefit from this plan?"

Anyone in a position to know is obviously suspect--since neither you nor any of the people you've spoken with have "intuited" what this experienced driver has to say.

I don't care for the way Perry is handling the Trans Texas Corridor. (By the way, it's a Spanish company that will build the toll roads in Texas.)
www.corridorwatch.org/ttc/index.htm

That's worth discussing. But your OP was about the expected hordes of Mexican truckers, free from any regulation & even more dangerous than US truckers. I'm not scared.

[Robson]

30. Curious

Attack the messenger? How do you get that out of my reply? I don't think I started my post out claiming that his/her post was bullshit as did the poster replying to mine.

I just asked why he had such a strong position favoring this program when I know of no one that sees it as a positive for American drivers...including most truck drivers. Actually I'd still like to know WHY anyone concerned about family on the highways would favor this program? But then I'd still like to know why Clinton voted for NAFTA too.

<<<Briget says: That's worth discussing. But your OP was about the expected hordes of Mexican truckers, free from any regulation & even more dangerous than US truckers. I'm not scared.>>>

But that's exactly what we'll see.
-uninspected,
-unregulated trucks,
-driven by unlicensed drivers from Mexico that may have bribed officials for a license
-drivers that may not be able to understand English and the CB warnings from US drivers of an impending traffic slowdown, or accident, or other emergency.
-that lack of understanding English will result in that 40 ton truck, at 70 mph, 20 feet behind your rear bumper being driven right over your car,

BTW you're one "brave" lady if that doesn't concern you. Had you read my post there are experts that say we will be relying on a wing and a prayer to depend upon Mexico to provide safe equipement and drivers.

There are already enough US CDL drivers that think a six second rule (in good weather) has something to do with football or basketball. BTW that's a minimum timed interval space of six seconds between vehicles.

[A HERETIC I AM]

77. My apologies for the offensive language.

The post i made Thursday night took until 11:00 in the evening. It had been a long day and i had had a couple of beers.

Substitute "Bullshit" for "Nonsense", OK?

But again, i take issue with your characterizations of American Truck drivers. " There are already enough US CDL drivers that think a six second rule (in good weather) has something to do with football or basketball.

When i was driving, if i had a six second delay between me and the car ahead, some numbnuts would pass me and fill the space, forcing me to slow down to make it up. It isnt that it is a stupid rule or largely ignored, it's that it is an impractical one that if followed to the letter, would force trucks to constantly slow down to the point of a crawl.

One other thing; You and many others seem to think that because a truck is from Mexico, it will by definition be held together with chewing gum and baling twine. That is simply absurd.

Cheers.

[A HERETIC I AM]

72. Unfortunately, we are all Guinea Pigs every time something new is tried on a large scale.

For simplicity, your comments appear in italics.

Essentially we are being made guinea pigs for the bed buddies of big business and the federal government so they can pilot the program under NAFTA. I'm not a truck driver so it won't immediately impact me, but I do see it as one more attempt by Bush and corporate America to chip away at our middle class.

As i said in my post above, this regulation was signed under Clinton in 1993. This isn't about Bush and Corporate America, no matter how much you might like it to be.

You seem to have strong feelings as a proponent of this pilot plan that initially opens the doors to 100 Mexican trucking companies using US highways, while keeping Mexican roads closed to US trucks.

Actually, no where in my post did i say i was a proponent of this plan. I realize my tone and the fact that i didn't directly condemn it may lead you to believe i am a proponent, but i am not. I just see it for what it is; a solution, as woefully imperfect as it may be, to an import/export nightmare. If you read the article that i linked, it states that a similar 100 US trucking companies would be granted access to Mexico. But let's be clear: what we are talking about is transporting of goods from inside the United States, across the border, delivery to a specific point or points, reloading and coming right back out. Not going into Mexico, unloading, reloading, delivering elsewhere in Mexico, etc. etc.

I suspect that Bush would eventually like to open it all the way including independent Mexican owner operators.

Suspect all you want but there is, as far as i know, zero evidence to support your suspicion.

I'm very curious; since you have such strong feelings that are counter-intuitive and to the beliefs of every person that I've spoken with on this…. are you currently in the trucking business and will you benefit from this plan?

I intentionally and clearly used the past tense when i referred to my driving history. I will in no way personally benefit from this plan, any more than you will by the lowering of transport costs for a portion of the goods we all purchase. I have changed careers and am no longer involved in either Trucking or Motor Racing, two disciplines i was fortunate enough to enjoy for 14 years (I worked in promotions and marketing programs in Indy car, NASCAR, NHRA and Sports Cars). I hauled general freight for a combined 6 years and automobiles including new, used and exotics for 5 which adds up to 25 years of behind the wheel experience.

Do you believe NAFTA has been a boon to the USA at large? Has it raised middle class economic conditions or has it resulted in the outsourcing of many well paid US jobs.

No, I do not. But please remember this was a plan promoted by and signed under Clinton. While i truly did like Bill's Presidency, I am inclined to agree with Michael Moore who once said "Bill Clinton was the best Republican President this country ever had."

As an example the new Ford models are predominantly Mexican made and assembled automobiles produced by a US headquartered company.

Which new Ford models? Keep in mind that Ford manufactures and distributes automobiles in 200 markets across six continents. With about 300,000 employees and 108 plants worldwide, the company’s core and affiliated automotive brands include Aston Martin, Ford, Jaguar, Land Rover, Lincoln, Mazda, Mercury and Volvo. The Mercury and Lincoln brands are, as far as i understand, only available in North America.

With any such plan there will be winners and losers. I submit that the losers are Americans and the only winners are commercial interests. But what’s new as this is standard operating procedure under President Bush. The winners are always commercial and wealthy interests while middle America pays or subsidizes in lives, taxes, reduced benefits and wage pressure.

The pressure on the middle class started LONG before NAFTA and Shrub. Put blame where it belongs. On Reagan and others who shared his economic mindset.

It may not be obvious to you, but it is obvious to most that the policy will reduce pay for American drivers...it must. The miles that are currently driven by American drivers will be displaced by Mexican Cos. paying Mexican wages. The same products that are hauled today by American drivers will be hauled by Mexican trucks.

Why must it? The pool of qualified American drivers is relatively finite. In fact, driver retention is a major problem in the industry due largely to wage issues. The American driver is finally waking up to the fact that he doesn't have to work for $.25 a mile any more. More and more trucking firms are raising their wages in order to keep good drivers on board. If anything, there is a driver shortage in this country.

Obviously the policy will increase risk to American motorists.

Debatable.

Our government doesn't have the resources or the will to inspect American trucks. How are they going to inspect Mexican trucks?

They do have the will and the resources have been increasing annually for quite a long time. I did not attend any of the meetings held over the last 14 years between the FHMCA, the FHWA and the Mexicans but one of the articles i read last night while researching this issue indicated that an agreement was reached wherein AMERICAN INSPECTORS would be going to the terminals of the Mexican companies and inspecting trucks. That's how they are going to do it. By making actual inspections, logging the inspections, certifying the units and tagging them as such.

They will rely almost entirely on data from Mexico.

Even if this were true, and is appears it is not true, why do you think the owners of Mexican trucking companies would be cavalier in all of this? If you think those company owners have absolutely no regard for safety then i would suggest you don't understand business very well.

My guess is twenty pesos will get you a Mexican CDL license and an approved safety inspection.

Your guess is probably wrong but so what? Again, this is one of the details that has been worked out for over a decade. They aren't going to let some 14 year old who saw his first truck last week drive down the street near your house.

You say you have experience as an over the road driver. You might want to ask the Owner-Operator Independent Driver's association their opinion which is highly negative or Joan Claybrook the safety guru of Public Citizen which is also highly negative of this plan.

I respect the OOIDA and Public Citizen. Both fine organizations. Their concerns are valid. But again, so what?

<quote>In granting authority under the program, the DOT must rely heavily on Mexican data and procedures. That isn’t sitting well with opponents of the program.

A serious problem indeed. But that is one of the reasons this has taken over 14 years to implement. Details needed to be hashed out.

“U.S. truckers must operate under a tremendous amount of scrutiny and an ever increasing number of stringent safety regulations. Such burdens are, by all available accounts, nonexistent for truck drivers and trucking companies in Mexico,” Parfrey testified.

In Mexico, yes. But those wishing to operate in the US will be held to a higher standard (Or that is the idea. we'll see)

“U.S. drivers are outraged to think that their government would accept a lower standard for Mexico-domiciled trucks and drivers. Specific examples include DOT accepting the Mexican commercial driver’s license, drug and alcohol testing program, and physical qualification and examination standards as being equivalent to U.S. regulations.”</quote>

This is a major concern and i agree completely. In my opinion, they should force those 100 companies to submit the drivers selected for this duty to US Drug testing and licensing/driving qualification scrutiny. The system needs to resemble the arrangement we have with Canada, but i do not have to have a Canadian CDL to drive to Toronto. The Canadian government has the confidence in our system such that they can be assured American drivers aren't dope smoking fiends who don't know how to drive.

Look, I understand your concerns. It is just my position that those concerns are based on an irrational fear and swayed by misperceptions of precisely what is being proposed. Is the solution perfect? By no means. But it is indeed a NIGHTMARE to ship goods over the Mexico/US border by truck and something had to be done. Like it or not, the US and Mexico have a vast and varied business relationship. We mustn't cut off our nose merely to spite our face.

[sandnsea]

123. You will be sorry

Generally, your post is correct. Except when it gets to Mexican truck drivers. There is no comparison between Canadian/US trade and Mexican/US trade. The disparity between regulations, wages, standards of living, are just too great. There WILL be unsafe trucks on the roads and they WILL drive wages down. They are planning on doing the majority of shipping through Mexico as well, which will put a big hurt on the dockworkers and their very strong union, and eventually put you out of work.

I am for fair immigration and trade. But the first step should be lifting the standard of living in Mexico, otherwise the only point to trade is to allow corporations to exploit more and more workers around the world.

[pampango]

127. "I am for fair immigration and trade.

But the first step should be lifting the standard of living in Mexico..."

Is there a certain level of prosperity in Mexico, and the rest of the Third World, that would signal that fair immigration and trade are now acceptable? Unless you have a strategy that will propel them on a path to a higher standard of living, it would not seem likely that fair immigration and trade from that part of the world will not be possible in the foreseeable future.

Does that make you a member of the "wall builder" society? Or do you have a more nuanced approach that I have not fully grasped?

[BluePatriot]

29. No way.

No more trucks on the road in the Houston area! The US trucks crowd up the roads already. This is an issue of safety -- lowering standards to get freight in the US in on the "cheap" so some rich guy can pocket the difference while we all sit around and have to dodge death-traps on the roads is NOT a good idea.

[Xenotime]

31. Yes. to say no is discrimination..

These people are bring the goods and things we use everyday. By not allowing them is hurting our failed economy.

[Robson]

32. Yeah right

Our failed economy is because middle class and below jobs are being outsourced and wages pressured because of trade agreements that benefit every country but the USA. Another one way trade policy such as this plan that allows Mexican trucks in the USA and keeps out American trucks from Mexico, is an example of why the USA has had 35 years of increasing trade deficits.

You may vote in favor of Mexico's corrupt conservative government if you wish, but I'll vote in favor of and for America, it's economy and the safety of my family.

edited to add: BTW what does racial discrimination have to do with this? Take your agenda someplace else.

[Elwood P Dowd]

33. It looks like

about 10% of the DU membership cannot see the forest for the trees. That, or they're repukes using their old "you can't discriminate against the poor brown people" argument.

[pampango]

50. Hah, a preemptive accusation of playing of the race card.

Haven't seen that done before. :scared:

Hey, at least we have you thinking about the folks against whom this opposition is directed. :)

[Elwood P Dowd]

69. I don't give a damn what race the trucker belongs to or his/her

nationality. I just want the following....

1 - A truck that meets US safety requirements.

2 - A driver that can read US traffic signs and directions.

3 - A driver that can communicate in english with other truckers and law enforcement over his radio.

4 - A driver that meets the same licensing requirements as US drivers.

5 - A truck and driver who do not replace a US driver and force another American family to work at Wal Mart for peanuts.

If we have a shortage of truckers, they could come from Borneo for all I care. Just meet the requirements.

[pampango]

76. Allow me to respond to your points.

1. Agreed.
2. Agreed.
3. Partially agree. (We could get into a whole "English only" discussion and all that it entails, but that would spill over into bilingual teachers in schools, government forms in English only, and other issues that are best left to Republicans.)
4. Nope. Our drivers licenses are good in Mexico (at least, that's what they told me when I drove there.) Same as Canada-Theirs are good here; ours are good there.) Mutual respect.
5. Ding, ding, ding. I do appreciate that you got to the heart of the matter with #5. I should have jumped ahead to this, instead of dealing with all of the smokescreen points above. If you value an American truck driver more than a Mexican, than so be it.
To me they are both human beings. One just has the misfortune in your eyes to have been born on the wrong side of a line drawn on a map 160 years ago. Each has the same wants and needs.

In the spirit of generosity, I will accept your premise that the American truck driver's alternative would be a job at Walmart (the bugaboo of our times). While I would not wish that on anyone, can you speculate on what alternative the Mexican truck driver might have? Before you say that you don't care, because he is Mexican, how about if he had to sneak across the border illegally? Does he become a hero then? What if he is laid off in a poor country with few employment alternative, not even Walmart, and little in the way of a social safety net?

[Elwood P Dowd]

81. The english is critical

If you can't speak english, how do you communicate with other truckers over your radio? How do you communicate with law enforcement? How do you read and understand traffic signs? Communication is a very important part of a trucker's job.

As for #5, just how many millions of jobs are you willing to sacrifice to foreigners? We've shipped millions out of the country the past decade alone. 3-4 million have been shipped out under Bush. Nearly 2 million have been lost to Mexico, yet their standard of living has not changed since NAFTA. We haven't helped those people, but we have enriched corporate CEOs and the republican party. When does this race to the bottom of the wage scale stop? Real wages for median income workers and the working poor are falling due to policies you support. The US simply cannot afford for this trend to continue. There are only about 140 million jobs in this country, and there are over 6 billion people on the planet. We can't save the world, but you seem to want us to die trying.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. Um, no it's not.

"If you can't speak english, how do you communicate with other truckers over your radio?"

In Spanish.

"How do you communicate with law enforcement?"

Also, in Spanish.

"How do you read and understand traffic signs?"

I'm pretty sure "Kalamazoo- 65" says pretty much the same thing in Spanish that it does in English.

[Elwood P Dowd]

97. You are full of it today

I don't know a single trucker that speaks spanish...or a single law enforcement officer for that matter. I'm sure there are areas in the country were there are some, but not in most.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

99. "I don't know a single trucker that speaks spanish"

Well, then that's their problem.

[pampango]

96. "Communication is a very important part of a trucker's job."

Agreed, as it is of a cab driver's job, as well.

As for your second paragraph, would you be happy if I said, "Alright, you win. Build a wall around the country. Keep out the foreigners and the products and services that they produce (unless perhaps they come from places like Canada and Europe where people are more like us). From now on, it is American jobs, for American workers, making products for American consumers."?

Is so, you are entitled to your dream world. That type of isolationist vision of an "American over the rest of the world" is not one that I share, but I realize it would probably be popular with many here and a few freepers, as well.

[Solon]

108. The weakest part of your argument is the traffic sign problem...

Which doesn't exist, by the way. Back when the road signs for our country was standardized, the literacy rate was closer to 20 percent than 90 percent. So, as a result, you don't need to know or read ENGLISH to understand the signs in this country. Most people in this country don't even read the traffic signs, no more than they realize what shapes and symbols are on the signs. The human brain processes shapes and abstract symbols quicker than it does reading a word.

Even information signs are abstract, using pictures instead of words, like the steep grade warning sign, its yellow, with a black outline, and a diagram of a truck going down a triangle in the center, sometimes it will even have a number and a percentage sign under it, to convey the percentage of the grade, do you really need to understand English to understand signs like that?

Look, your other arguments I agree with, its just that this one is rather weak.

[Beelzebud]

35. Then why can't our truckers drive there?

[Elwood P Dowd]

36. That would be discriminating against the poor little brown people.

We must give up all our jobs and pray to the god of free trade.

:sarcasm:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

92. Yes, those poor little brown, corrupt, drug smuggling

brown people who can't even understand traffic signs.

:crazy:

[Marrah_G]

38. This is not about race

This is about economics and safety.

[pampango]

53. My granparents in Alabama many years ago told me that the

poll tax and literacy tests under Jim Crow were not about race, they were designed to insure that voters were "qualified" to participate, i.e. weeding out the riff raff and those who don't understand how society works.

If a Republican was proposing to keep Mexican planes out of our airports, we would, I hope, howl in protest at the racism evident in that act.

[Elwood P Dowd]

55. Even if the planes were unsafe and the pilots couldn't speak english?

This doesn't have a damn thing to do with race, and you should know that. Your analogy doesn't fit in this situation.

[pampango]

60. Well, there are a lot of taxis in New York and Chicago that

should be off the streets if we demand high quality vehicles and drivers who speak English. I bet the Mexican truck drivers would compare favorably with the cab drivers in terms of speaking English.

Don't come to America, if you can't speak English. (Sounds like something I have heard from some of my more conservative coworkers.)

All trucks American and Mexican, should have to pass safety inspections.

[Elwood P Dowd]

62. Big difference between a little cab

and a 40-ton truck going 80 MPH on I-85 in Atlanta traffic. Again, another poor analogy. You are clueless.

[pampango]

70. I do my best to present my side of the argument using

examples. If my logic falls short of convincing you, I humbly apologize. I do the best I can.

Oh, and I do try to refrain from snide remarks like "You are clueless." I may not always agree with everyone here at DU, or anywhere else for that matter, but I am pretty successful in avoiding putting people down. But to each his own. (Maybe that's just your way of letting me know that our conversation is over and you won.) ;)

BTW, you didn't exactly reject the idea that the taxis in Chicago and New York are a problem, just that there's a "(b)ig difference between a little cab and a 40-ton truck going 80 MPH on I-85 in Atlanta traffic." Perhaps we can team up to deal with those pesky foreign cab drivers and their dilapidated taxis once you have successfully kept those Mexican truck drivers off our highways.

[Elwood P Dowd]

73. Those are not Mexican-owned cabs

operating under a Mexican license and under Mexican inspection procedures. They are also not 80,000-pound hulks traveling at 80 MPH. Two totally different animals.

It's the republicans pushing this. Does that not set off any alarms with you?

[pampango]

86. I am trying to discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of the idea.

I appreciate it when you do the same. But, "It's the republicans pushing this. Does that not set off any alarms with you?" They also criticize Hillary. Does that mean that I can't do that? Like most DU'ers when I find myself in agreement with a Republican position, I take a step back and rethink it.

However, I try not to be a knee jerk reactionary and oppose something that I philosophically agree with, just because politics makes strange bedfellows, sometimes. I trust that we all think for ourselves and don't base our beliefs on what any politician or party says. I am way too old for blind allegiance or blind opposition.

[Robson]

103. Crown Vic vs. 80,000lbs

Ellwood I certainly agree a Crown Vic TaxiCab does not present the danger that an 80,000# rig that can easily run over half a dozen cars if it isn't aware of traffic being stopped ahead, if the driver can't understand the CB warnings in English. Or if the truck driver isn't aware that he has a loose dually wheel on his trailer, or if he has a recap that is ready to pop off and kill some innocent family.

One thing about all this......big money is able to push big buttons to get what they want. They're able to fund groups, manipulate people, muddy the waters, make opponents look like racists, and buy whatever influence is needed to get their way, which in the end is to increase their profits through lower wages for Americans.

[Marrah_G]

56. Again ths is not about race

No matter how much you want it to be.

This is about allowing vehicles and drivers on our roads, working for far less money, working for companies that spend far less money to keep drivers and trucks up to safety and labor regulations. Unless we take over Mexico and our Labor and Safety laws are implemented there then no, they do not need free access to drive on our roads.

[pampango]

65. If you mean that this is not primarily about race, I will agree.

If you are saying that there is not a disproportionate racial impact of the opposition stated in this thread, I disagree.

We all know of policies of our own government that are not overtly racist (like the criminal justice system, public education, recruitment policies of the military), but in practice have a disproportionate impact on minorities that is rightly condemned.

The Mexican trucks that would use our highways should be as safe as ours. They should have to be inspected, as ours are.

[treestar]

116. You're right. There must be some type of trade going on, and some U.S. person

must be getting something out of it.

[Beelzebud]

34. Just another way to fuck the middle class out of more jobs.

[GreenZoneLT]

39. Most of the arguments against are nativist, protectionist

You can fix the actual problems with proper regulation. Hire enough inspectors, and set fine levels to ensure that no company that cuts safety corners is going to get an economic advantage.

The restriction in Mexico is more justifiable, in that they have a feeble economy that needs protecting more than ours does, but there ought to be some sort of phaseout of that.

All the crap about "they don't speak English" and "they don't drug test" is just bullshit.

Why are American Teamsters more deserving of a job than poor Mexicans? The unions ought to be organizing in Mexico where there's a REAL labor fight, not protecting the unrealistic wages of a few Americans.

[Beelzebud]

40. The arguments against are rational, and in our interest.

"Why are American Teamsters more deserving of a job than poor Mexicans?"

Well call me old fashioned, but I think Americans should have first dibs on American jobs, and Mexicans should have first dibs on Mexican jobs. This isn't rocket science.

The Americans should get American jobs firs because, get this; They're American! What a weird concept!

[Elwood P Dowd]

41. "Just Bullshit?"

"Why are American Teamsters more deserving of a job than poor Mexicans?"

Why don't you give your job to a poor Mexican?

[Beelzebud]

42. Excellent question!

[Robson]

45. Are you being facetious?

Greenzone says: <You can fix the actual problems with proper regulation. Hire enough inspectors, and set fine levels to ensure that no company that cuts safety corners is going to get an economic advantage.>

That's a pipe dream. We can't even regulate our own industry whether it be food production safety or transportation safety. The testimony in front of Congress on this indicates that the USA DOT will be depending on Mexico to regulate their drivers and trucks. That's a bad joke on America. Mexican officials will sell anything for a couple pesos including a safety inspection or a CDL. It's been part of their culture for centuries. That's why corruption is so difficult to weed out once it becomes entrenched.

<The restriction in Mexico is more justifiable, in that they have a feeble economy that needs protecting more than ours does, but there ought to be some sort of phaseout of that.>

If their economy is feeble its because of the corruption and all the money is in the hands of a few. The USA is headed in this direction unless Americans don't start putting our interests first.

<All the crap about "they don't speak English" and "they don't drug test" is just bullshit.
Why are American Teamsters more deserving of a job than poor Mexicans? The unions ought to be organizing in Mexico where there's a REAL labor fight, not protecting the unrealistic wages of a few Americans.>

Hopefully this statement was made facetiously......either that or you are extremely naieve. Next time you come upon a sudden stoppage in traffic on the freeway, you had better pray that the driver of the 18 wheeler behind you speaks English, because that is how he would have been made aware via his CB radio that there's a traffic stoppage ahead. English for truck drivers in America is not just a nice idea, it saves lives and it should be required as it is for airline pilots.

America has enough problems with maintaining its own standard of living without putting the economic welfare of citizens from other countries ahead of its own.

[Elwood P Dowd]

47. Great post Robson

I really believe some DUers live in a dream world. Especially the ones that start slinging nativist, protectionist, racist, etc. at every poster that questions some of our government's idiotic trade policies.

[Robson]

95. Thanks

I always wonder about the possibility of mass manipulation when the bottom line of an issue is about big money for big business. Take the US Chamber of Commerce for example. They have the wherewithal to fund groups that on the surface look to be the exact opposite of big business. They might even appear as far left groups to some. But they are able to use disinformation or divisive tactics that end up getting big business exactly what they want...cheap labor, open trade and maybe a NAU. Follow the money, motive and agenda.

[pampango]

58. That's a jaw dropper.

"Mexican officials will sell anything for a couple pesos including a safety inspection or a CDL. It's been part of their culture for centuries."

Does you opinion of the honesty of Mexicans extend to the people in the rest of Latin America? Or does this penchant for corruption only apply to those Mexicans who work for the government? How about those in Africa and Asia? Do they all suffer from the same character flaws that Mexican officials have?

I know, I know. It is not about race. I am sure that you have a similar opinion of the government officials in Canada and Europe.

[Robson]

63. We're getting there

Mexican corruption is a fact of life from the lowest officials on up. It's been a part of the fabric of Mexico for centuries. Google it and you will find numerous resources and articles about it. Most third world countries have to struggle with it, because the corruption is difficult to weed out when it becomes imbedded and accepted by low level officials. Here is a dated article from the 90s but things haven't changed, just the players.
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/951127/lomnitz.shtml

That may be a jaw dropper to you, but not for those officials in Mexico willing to take care of your needs as long as their palm is greased.

In the USA and Canada we have corruption too but it tends to reside at higher levels and be more discreet as with the legalized bribery of campaign finance contributions. It is not as tolerated by most citizens that aren't worried (yet) about crooked police knocking on their door at night. That's not to say it doesn't exist.

[pampango]

90. I am beginning to understand now why some here at DU want

to build those high walls to keep the Mexicans and other Hispanics out of the country. Not only do they speak the "wrong" language and take our jobs, but they bring with them a culture of corruption (are they Republicans?). Or do you just want to keep out the truck drivers for those reasons and let in others in spite of those reasons.

I have lived in the Third World (Asia, not Mexico) and I know about the corruption that exists there. What I try to do is come up with ideas that will help the people in poor countries make economic progress. As their lives improve, they will become less tolerant of corruption (as has been the case during our history). When you are poor, it is difficult to resist corruption, but as your economic condition improves, people become less tolerant of it.

[Divernan]

82. As someone who has traveled in Mexico and Central America

I'm telling you, yes, corruption is rampant. The difference there is that you have to "tip" the lower level of public servants, whereas here in the U.S. you have well-dressed lobbyists bribe our high level politicians with fat campaign contributions. Or don't you believe that happens, either? If you are not interested in traveling to these areas, then read some travel guides about them.

[Bridget Burke]

46. Did you see this thread?

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=355148

[Robson]

57. Yeah I saw it

I wrote it and indirectly it does have something to do with this thread which I'll explain later.

My sense tells me one thing but intuition says another. Surely you aren't going to attempt to marginalize the trucking issue by pulling out the proverbial ace-in-the hole, if logic doesn't work...the racist xenophobe card...lol.

I happen to favor US workers of all colors getting paid US wages. Is that wrong in your eyes? Or would you prefer Mexicans taking jobs from Americans in America. Illegal immigration has already hurt American wages and standard of living, It is illegal, it hurts legal immigrants and it makes money for wealthy Americans that already suck out more than their share of the country's wealth.

As Bill Gates says, he wants an unlimited supply of H1B visas. It's all about making money and reducing opportunities and wages for Americans. This trucking initiative is but another attempt by big business to screw American citizens by using cheap non-American labor in our own country.

If the country needs immigration then the POTUS and Congress should have the guts to stand up and say we will legally allow this many immigrants into this country to assimilate, learn our language and become productive citizens. Instead they come up with back door methods of providing cheap labor such as winking an eye at illegal immigration or not enforcing labor laws or providing unlimited H1Bs and temporary worker status.

All this does nothing to strengthen the fabric of the USA. Instead it creates a sub class that never becomes part of the USA.

[Ikonoklast]

121. The majority of truckers in this country are NOT TEAMSTERS

Get that into your head. The majority of drivers are underpaid by mega-carriers that have turnover rates of over 100% a year, and are virulently anti-labor, anti-union, and work 70 hour weeks for an average of $34K a year.

And if anyone posting here thinks that not being able to understand English to operate a CMV in this country, why don't we just let foreign airline pilots landing here speak any language that they want? Would you fly on that plane knowing that air traffic control and the pilot just barely understand each other? ONLY ENGLISH IS SPOKEN FOR SAFETY REASONS OR YOU CAN'T FLY HERE.

And there is NO MECHANISM to test Mexican drivers for either drugs, exzperience, and proficiency at driving a 40 ton commercial vehicle, unless you want to take the word of the Mexican Federales.

[pampango]

124. If I were to agree with you on your "English only" belief,...

would I be accused of spouting RW talking points? BTW, I have driven in Mexico, Italy, France and Spain and my high school French and Spanish (no Italian) were pretty useless. I didn't leave a trail of death and devastation behind me. (I know, driving a big rig "is different", though the concept of staying between the lines and reading highway signs is really quite similar.)

Does the "English only" requirement apply to voters as well? If they cannot speak English, how can they understand what is going on in the country and be wise voters? Perhaps the damage they can do does not compare with the damage a big rig can cause.

"unless you want to take the word of the Mexican Federales." :banghead: You are not playing the "corrupt brown people south of the border" card, are you? What if we let Canadians do the driver testing in Mexico, as a part of NAFTA? Would you trust the Canadians to do an honest job?

[gollygee]

44. No - they should at least have to get a CDL license

what happens to Canadian truck drivers? It should certainly be the same for both.

[Marrah_G]

48. I'm thinking Canada's drivers are already pretty regulated

and I don't think they work for half the pay. I could absolutely be wrong, since I am at work, without time to research it. Any Canadians out there know what sort of regulations and pay scale Canadian truckers have?

[B Calm]

51. I have a Canadian friend that makes more than I do driving.

[Robson]

49. IN SUMMARY: Will Those That Voted Yes Please Explain Why?

Will those that voted YES that Mexican trucks should be allowed into the country please explain their rationale with something more logical than to vote NO is a vote for discrimination?

Some reasons for voting No:

Safety:
*As testified in Congress, it depends on Mexican data for licenses and safety inspections (Mexican data historically open to bribes)
*Non-English speaking drivers not able to communicate and understand warnings of safety conditions (bad tire), accidents or stopped traffic
*US DOT inspectors already overloaded inspecting American equipment and drivers. Few trucks are inspected.
*The worst maintained trucks on the US highways are probably trash haulers, and they will look good next to Mexico's trucks.

Economic:
*One more notch in the corporate CEO armament to pressure US worker wages. CEO to drivers: "You want to drive in America, then take a pay cut and accept the wage of your Mexican peers."
*One more move to a unified North America
*If Bush likes it, it has to be a screwing for working Amerians and a boon for commercial interests
*More workers for Wal-Mart as truck drivers will need a job.
*US taxes pay to maintain the roads and Mexico gets to tear them up

Drugs:
*One more method to enable drugs to be smuggled into the USA.
*On one hand the government spends billions of our taxes on the war on drugs, then undercuts it through policies such as allowing Mexican trucks free access to our country. In the end these policies are all about making money for big business.

[A HERETIC I AM]

93. Like i said before, I didn't vote in your poll but here's why I didn't vote NO

Because there is no reason why it can not work like it works for the US and Canada.

Robson, really, I appreciate your passion on this issue but it is amazing how uninformed you are regarding truck transport in this country. I was going to cut and paste your post onto this one like i did earlier but this is getting tiresome.

A couple of points;

Not every single policy or action done by this administration, as totally fucked up as it is, is done for nefarious purposes or with the direct intention of screwing over the American worker.

If you actually think the drivers of American based transportation firms will tolerate much more downward pressure on wages, you don't understand the American trucker. Wages in the industry are trending UP because so many drivers have had enough of low pay.

EVERY HEAVY TRUCK IN THIS COUNTRY IS REGULARLY INSPECTED. Regardless of your impressions, this is a fact.

Of the million and a half miles i drove 18 wheelers in the US i was warned by the CB radio of a slowdown in such a way as to help me avoid an accident PRECISELY ZERO TIMES. The Citizens Band Radio is about as reliable a news service as Fox News. Implying it is something other than what i KNOW it to be is evidence you don't own one and/or don't drive with one turned on all the time.

[lovuian]

52. No they don't pay taxes

and they have no rules and regulations

[maveric]

54. Only if they have to meet the same emission standards that I do in CA.

We have to "smog"our vehicles every two years here in CA. I work practically on the border and right next to the Otay International Truck Crossing and I see many trucks coming over from TJ that are smoking up a storm.
Make them "smog" there vehicles like everyone else has to.

[rockymountaindem]

59. Are they actually considering allowing this to happen?

Please tell me this is just a hypothetical question. If not, then we're in a lot of trouble if we're going to allow poorly-regulated Mexican truckers on our roads to work for less pay in poor safety conditions.

Anybody who votes yes on this poll needs to talk to an American trucker and ask their opinion. Sheesh.

[A HERETIC I AM]

83. I am an American and an Ex-trucker. You can read my opinions above.

n/t

[sarcasmo]

64. This will only drive down truck drivers wages even further.

Truck Drivers will make less money per mile because the Mexican truck will haul the load cheaper.

[Marrah_G]

66. of course it will

And this is not only due to the cheaper Mexican driver's wages, but also the much smaller amount of money Mexican companies have to expend to keep up with labor and safety standards. American companies could move to Mexico to bypass the American Regulations.

There is a reason Mexicans come here by the millions and it isn't because Mexico is full of responsible and safety concious employers.

[sarcasmo]

68. I am an ex truck driver who can see the writing on the wall.

Now a company driver can start out at around thirty cents per mile. Once the Mexican drivers come in and start back hauling freight to Laredo watch the company drivers wage plummet. I would not be surprised to see them back haul freight to Laredo for a quarter a mile just to get back to Mexico. This is going to be an ugly mess and I bet there are plenty of State D.O.T. cops who are just salivating over this news.

[A HERETIC I AM]

119. One question.

How many Canadian trucks backhaul from points in the US to Port Huron, Detroit or Buffalo and deliver there before heading back into Canada?

Answer - NONE

So much for your argument.

[misternormal]

71. The foreign trucks are not...

... subject to the same safety codes, nor are the drivers subject to the same safety codes, therefore it is inherently more dangerous for them to be allowed unencumbered access to the US.

[Nikki Stone1]

74. Only if they comply with US law. If they are unsafe then NO.

That answer isn't on your poll.

[Robson]

89. I can only speak for myself

nikki...I can only speak for myself. If US law says that we'll accept all Mexican documentation as proof of compliance, that's still not good enough for me and from what I've read that's what is planned.

Only if we do 100% inspection of all equipment (emissions and safety) and testing of all drivers, using US procedures and testers, will that aspect satisfy me. I do trust Canada to provide legitimate documentation (or as legitimate as the USA) but I don't trust the integrity of Mexican officials.

But meeting that inspection and regulation aspect is only a small part of why I oppose this program. I won't belabor it here, but you may wish to look at post #49 for a summary of reasons on why this isn't a good idea.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=371936&mesg_id=377764

BTW sorry I didn't have that option on the poll.

[Nikki Stone1]

94. Inspections are an excellent idea.

I'll click on your link and see the whole story.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

84. How does it work with Canada?

There's a border crossing in Blaine specifically for truck crossings. I'm pretty sure the American drivers don't get out of the trucks and hand them over to Canadian drivers, and vice versa.

So why should it be different with Mexico.

[Elwood P Dowd]

87. It's not quite that simple.

From Robson's post above....


Will those that voted YES that Mexican trucks should be allowed into the country please explain their rationale with something more logical than to vote NO is a vote for discrimination?

Some reasons for voting No:

Safety:
*As testified in Congress, it depends on Mexican data for licenses and safety inspections (Mexican data historically open to bribes)
*Non-English speaking drivers not able to communicate and understand warnings of safety conditions (bad tire), accidents or stopped traffic
*US DOT inspectors already overloaded inspecting American equipment and drivers. Few trucks are inspected.
*The worst maintained trucks on the US highways are probably trash haulers, and they will look good next to Mexico's trucks.

Economic:
*One more notch in the corporate CEO armament to pressure US worker wages. CEO to drivers: "You want to drive in America, then take a pay cut and accept the wage of your Mexican peers."
*One more move to a unified North America
*If Bush likes it, it has to be a screwing for working Amerians and a boon for commercial interests
*More workers for Wal-Mart as truck drivers will need a job.
*US taxes pay to maintain the roads and Mexico gets to tear them up

Drugs:
*One more method to enable drugs to be smuggled into the USA.
*On one hand the government spends billions of our taxes on the war on drugs, then undercuts it through policies such as allowing Mexican trucks free access to our country. In the end these policies are all about making money for big business.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

88. You didn't really answer my question.

How is this different than trucks crossing at the Canadian border?

[ieoeja]

98. I can think of two.

1a. Our laws are stricter than Canada's. Ever driven around Canada? Then you have surely seen their trucks billowing black smoke.

1b. Ever see those same Canadian trucks in the United States billowing black smoke? No? That's because we don't let those trucks on US highways. Is that bigotry?


2. This one is pure speculation. Sticking with the trucks-headed-to-countries-north-of-them-only theme, given how empty western Canada is I would not be surprised to learn that western Canada doesn't have enough trucks and drivers to meet their needs. So US drivers may simply be a necessary evil for that portion of Canada. As I say, this is purely speculation on my part.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

101. ...

"1a. Our laws are stricter than Canada's. Ever driven around Canada? Then you have surely seen their trucks billowing black smoke.

1b. Ever see those same Canadian trucks in the United States billowing black smoke? No? That's because we don't let those trucks on US highways."

I see American trucks on American highways billowing black smoke.

"Is that bigotry?"

If you let Canadian trucks and truckers in, and not Mexican, then yes.

[A HERETIC I AM]

105. He didn't answer because he has no clue.

The fact is, getting a load from the US into Canada is easier by a factor of 100 compared to getting a load into the US from Mexico.

For a better understanding of how it works getting a shipment into the US, click this link, open the document and scroll down to page 5, figure S-1 (About 10 pages down, or so, past the intro and the table of contents);
http://www.borderplanning.fhwa.dot.gov/TTIstudy/TTIRpt.doc

There is a flow chart there showing what happens and how.

A more inefficient and time wasting procedure is difficult to imagine.

Getting a shipment into the US from Canada;

Pick up at facility, call ahead to Canadian Customs broker near the border with details provided by shipper. Drive to Canadian Customs Broker, collect US Customs import paperwork, pay any fee if not pre-paid.

Drive over the border, stop at US customs, Hand them the paperwork. Get stamped and off you go. Occasionally an inspection of the cargo is required if the shipper is a new entity or anything appears out of order.

You're in the US. Drive to delivery site and deliver.

I hauled cars into and out of Ontario a number of times as well as driving Racing transporters to the Races in Toronto and Vancouver. If your paperwork is in order and there is no reason to inspect you, you go on your way in short order.

BTW, one year when the Toronto race was coming up, a buddy of mine who worked for a company supplying parts to the teams raised the suspicion of a Canadian Customs agent. He got inspected. They found 2 guns and a quantity of Cocaine in his truck. Customs agents aren't idiots.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

106. Oh, I think he knows.

He just realizes what it means.

[Elwood P Dowd]

107. I didn't answer because I'm also trying to work

Are you saying the Mexican trucks are just as safe as US and Canadian? Are the wages similar? Do they have the same licensing procedures? Can the Mexican truckers effectively communicate with US/Canadian truckers and law enforcement.
Oh, your answer to that will be that the truckers and law enforcement should learn spanish. Yea, sure.

This is all about making more money for a few corporations. Now I have to go back to work. Later...

[A HERETIC I AM]

109. Mexican trucks most certainly CAN be just as safe.

It just takes effort.

Do a little research on the proposals and answer your own questions about licensing etc.
My point is that this can be made to work if it is done in a similar way as it has been done with Canada.
Regarding communication, American truckers are allowed to drive into Quebec with no problem and i know just about as much French as i do Spanish.

And yes, the good, old, reliable DU Canard "It's the evil corporations!"

How handy.

[Elwood P Dowd]

117. Now I know why you support this.

"And yes, the good, old, reliable DU Canard "It's the evil corporations!"

That is almost an exact quote from republicans pushing these fake free trade deals. Just substitute liberal or democrat for DU, and you have it.

[A HERETIC I AM]

118. LOL.

So now i'm a Freeper? Or a repub, eh?

I think you would be hard pressed to find in any of my posts on this thread where i said i support this. There is a HUGE difference in seeing things as they really are and "support".

Here are some facts that can not be denied;

The United States does business with Mexico.
Much of that business results in goods that need to be transported by truck.
Making that transport smoother and less complicated is necessary in order to keep costs down.
Keeping costs down is a natural function of a market economy.
Freight coming across the border is going to be made more efficient, there is no denying it and this program is going to happen, whether the naysayers on this thread like it or not.

As a side note, no where on this thread have i mentioned that wages for the Mexican truckers shouldn't be competitive with American truckers. I'll do that now; They should.

Look, you can call me what you want, I quite frankly don't give a rats ass. If you are so paranoid as to think that everything on this planet that looks like something you don't approve of is somehow a conspiracy by the evil corporatists, be my guest.

I don't look at the world that way. I am as liberal and progressive as they come but i am also a realist and a capitalist.

Those ideals are not mutually exclusive.

[cgrindley]

102. Trucks from America barely deserve access to American highways

500,000 accidents... 1 out of every 5 traffic fatalities... we need much harsher regulations on these monsters...

[ieoeja]

104. I always take the open border side of these issues.

But I believe this is one where I will come down on the other side. While I believe the legitimate concerns are overblown, they are not entirely without merit. But mostly I just see this as an issue where the gains far outweigh the losses.

1. The ONLY loss is an increase to shipping cost/time for international goods. Given all the problems with globalism that are currently being ignored, what say once, JUST FUCKING ONCE, we come down on the side that benefits the MANY instead of the FEW. To paraphrase Teddy Kennedy, why do you hate working Americans so much?

2. The growth in international shipments combined with the requirement that shipments be handed off at the border creates a whole industry. And it creates an industry on BOTH sides of the border. Both Mexicans -and- Americans win. What's not to love?

3. NAFTA supporters claimed it would create jobs on both sides of the border. So the first time it does (see #2 above) are we going to respond by legislating those jobs away? Sort of defeats the purpose. As I say, I just don't see how anyone loses here. You think those Mexican truck drivers WANT to drive all the way to Chicago? Heck, no. The most hated thing about over-the-road hauling is the time away from home (except in some circumstances; I know a friend whose spouse was unbearable, for instance).

[Madspirit]

120. Ahhhh

I live in Austin. The NAFTA highway runs right through it. They cause more wrecks and death...to the point they have made it the deadliest highway in the US. Look it up. It's awful.
Lee

[moondust]

122. Las Greyhound Trucking Co.

All aboard for the USA!

[robcon]

125. It is outrageous on DU...

that the bias against Mexico is so freely expressed.

Just like Canada since 1995, Mexico should be allowed to bring trucks into the U.S. Obviously the trucks have to pass safety standards, but that has nothing to do with national origin - it has to do with the model and safety of the trucks.

[Elwood P Dowd]

128. And it is outrageous that you support every job-killing,

outsourcing, and fake free trade deal the republicans present. Why do you hate American workers so much?

[pampango]

129. Are you a reactionary "idiot liberal" who opposes (reacts to)

everything based on the source, rather than the merits, of an idea? If not, you needn't throw in the references to republicans and freepers. Just stick to discussing the idea.

Why do you hate Third World workers do much? I know they don't speak our language, unless you are a Hispanic-American, and can't vote in our elections, but they really are not that much different from us.

[Elwood P Dowd]

132. NAFTA, CAFTA, and all these other fake free trade deals

are nothing but outsourcing/investment scams cooked up mostly by republicans. They do absolutely nothing for foreign workers, and they drive down the standard of living for American workers. They do put billions a year in the pockets of CEOs and wealthy investors. When are you going to wake up and realize that fact?

Edit to add: You might as well call 90% of DUers "idiot liberals", since that's the percentage against the truck deal. This is NOT about race or nationality, this is about economics and safety.

[pampango]

133. If you are arguing that the trade deals with Mexico have not

benefited their workers as much as the deals with India and China have benefited their workers, I will agree with you.

If your contention that trade deals with any Third World country are bad, then I respectfully disagree.

Besides I would argue for the fair treatment of Mexican and Canadian truck drivers, immigrants, planes, train and automobiles whether there was a NAFTA or not.

[Elwood P Dowd]

134. Our trade deals are not free trade.

When you ship both labor and capital out of the country, that is not free trade. When you give our trading partners 15 years to lower tariffs while we lower ours immediately, that is not free trade. When you allow our trading partners to charge a 20% VAT on imports from us while we charge nothing, that is not free trade. David Ricardo, the father of the free trade theory, is rolling in his grave.

Sure, India and China have benefited but at what expense to American workers? Real wages are falling for median income Americans. Real wages are falling for the working poor. We are shipping $16.00 an hour manufacturing jobs out of the country and creating lowering paying service jobs within the country. We are even shipping high technology jobs to Asia. A friend recently returned from a year in China where his company has relocated. He trained their engineers, collected his final paycheck, and came back home. So far this electrical engineer, who was making over 70K per year, hasn't found a job that pays even half what he was making before the move. His former company and it's CEO are making out like bandits though. Chinese engineers are just as smart and will work for 15K a year and no benefits.

[pampango]

135. "Free trade" is a misnomer and we both know it.

"When you give our trading partners 15 years to lower tariffs while we lower ours immediately, that is not free trade. When you allow our trading partners to charge a 20% VAT on imports from us while we charge nothing, that is not free trade."

To me it matters whether you are referring to trading partners who are also Western countries (Canada, Europe, Australia) or Third World countries. Our trading with the West should be "free" or "equal" or whatever term would imply similar treatment of imports and exports.

I do believe that we owe the Third World some advantages in our trade with them. To some extent they are poor because the West has exploited them over the centuries. Look at it as a form of affirmative action to make up for past sins. Whether you agree with that analysis or not, the West owes the Third World a chance to work their way out of poverty and develop their human capital, not just a foreign aid (welfare) check every year.

I would hope in 30 years or 50 years, long after I am gone, that people all over the world will have a reasonably equal chance at a decent standard of living. If that is to happen, either the Third World has to elevate to our level or we decline to meet them somewhere in the middle. I don't want us to decline and at the same time I know that many say that the environment can't withstand the population of Third World living with our standard. I know that presents a dilemma which I have not worked out yet, but I hate to give up on the idea of giving the Third World a chance.

The other option, of course, it is that things stay as they are now. The West lives a decent life and we just accept Third World poverty as their fate which is sad but an ecological necessity. Do we give up on the Third World reaching our standard of living? Do we take a chance that the environment can handle it? Do we find some middle ground?

[Elwood P Dowd]

137. Unless something is done

about the environment and population growth, this planet is doomed. Capitalism is out of control and in the process of destroying itself and it's planet. Sometimes I just want to move away from the States and live on a mountain - maybe Banu, Ecuador.

[Vidar]

126. No.

[leftofthedial]

130. of course they should

provided they are owned by a well-connected capitalist

[saltpoint]

131. Let's reconstitute our national rail system, with spurs to Mexico and

Canada, and make rail the mode of transport.

I'm aware that certain oil companies might not be terribly crazy with this proposal.

All the more reason it needs to be done.

An international panel would convene to set universal safety standards for all freight and infrastructure.

Rail is cheaper, less energy-wasteful, and bypasses the nasty politics of trying to restrict one country's trucks from operating on another country's roads.

[A HERETIC I AM]

136. You might be surprised at how much is already going into and out of Mexico by rail

The overwhelming majority of cars assembled at plants in Mexico destined for the US market get here by rail. The same is true for cross Canadian/US Auto transport.

I know. I hauled cars into Windsor and out of Ontario by truck. The percentage of vehicles built in Canada that are destined for the US market hauled across the border on trucks is small compared to the rail traffic. (and vice-versa)

I lived in Southern California from late'01 through '04 and i recall an incident where trains could not get across the Mexican border for some reason. (bridge out, or something like that)

The trains headed south were backed up for scores of miles. Almost all of them EMPTY auto transport rail cars.
If memory serves, it was in Texas, but wherever, it made the televised news. Trains literally backed up on sidings for over 100 miles on the US side of the border because they couldn't get into Mexico. Probably the same on the other side, only with LOADED rail cars.

[saltpoint]

138. 'wasn't familiar with the stats you've given -- thanks for those -- and

I'll admit that part of my interest in rebuilding the rail system -- just vastly, massively, comprehensively reconstituting it -- is environmental.

The carbon footprint of a vast rail system is far less than 18-wheelers all over the place all the time coast to coast, etc.

Also the nation's heritage in letters and the arts was richer when we had the more expansive rail system. I would welcome that back as well.

Preferential hiring for drivers and folks in related industries, certainly, but just speaking for myself, I'd love to see the system greatly expanded.

[A HERETIC I AM]

139. There is an inherent problem with a distribution system overly dependent on Railroads.....

The fast that it is unlikely and quite frankly, unwanted for a rail siding to be put behind every grocery store and 7-11 in the country. Trucks are efficient because the logistics can be individually tailored for the application. This is not the case in large part with railroad freight.

Case in point;
Your typical high-cube boxcar has a freight capacity of around 100,000 or so pounds - roughly twice that of a tractor trailer. The problem is how do you use that capacity to it's best advantage. If you load that same boxcar with lead ingots, you won't nearly fill its volume. If you load it with toilet paper....I trust you see where i am going here.

Whats best is to send several dozen boxcars to the toilet paper plant, load them and send them on different trains to different areas of the country. There, they are dropped at trucking companies who can deliver the toilet paper to the grocery warehouses, who in turn, deliver it to the stores. There is simply no way that a grocery store can deal with an entire boxcar load of a single product.

This is, in effect the distribution system we currently have.

Rail traffic to and from Mexico is dedicated to a few particular commodities and trying to consolidate all of the various products from all the various manufacturers onto the railroad system is not just difficult, but impractical.

Want to know what the railroads haul best and make the most money on?

Coal. Coal and other similarly easily handled bulk products. An entire 100 car coal train can be loaded, transported and unloaded by less than ten men. From production (mining) to end use can encompass less than 25. This is an efficiency level that is difficult if not impossible to surpass with "boxed" freight.

[saltpoint]

140. I'd trade for environmental and cultural advantages over some slight

inconvenience.

Cincinnati had been the nation's leading hogbutcher early in its history but refused to build up its rail system. Chicago did build up its rail system ("freight-handler to the nation," in Sandberg's phrase) and become Hog-Butcher to the Nation as well.

Cincinnati's loss of revenue and political clout was swift. Up the road from there, perhaps 15 minutes -- maybe 20 -- in a little berg called Blue Ball is a monument to the Poland China Hog, the only monument to a pig in the United States so far as I know. It's the last remnant of greatest for a once-possible dominant market and economic profile for SW Ohio.

All that's left now is that pig monument and Mean Jean Schmidt.

[A HERETIC I AM]

141. Your point about Cincinnati is an interesting one and could lead to it's own thread!

But it isn't a "slight" inconvenience. What i think you are alluding to would be even more of a transportation nightmare than is already the case with trans border freight across the Mexico/US frontier.

Consider the literally hundreds of companies that now have plants in Mexico whose production require shipment to the US. I grant you that the entire outsourcing issue is a big fucking over of the American worker, but what has been done is done and now we have to find the best way to deal with the problem at hand, namely getting the goods to their destination.

The railroads are not the entire answer.