Free– at a price
The problem with free trade is it’s free. That’s the part opponents of the Mexican truck demo program that got under way last week seem incapable of grasping.
Okay, well, just maybe the U.S. should never have signed the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the seminal treaty that melded– on paper, anyway– the U.S., Canada and Mexico into the world’s largest free-trade zone.
On the other hand, two points are so self-evident that even a 5th grader should grasp them:
1) The Treaty has been finalized and we (the U.S.) are bound to hold up our end of the deal and all its facets.
2) The Treaty was midwifed well before most of us realized China was due to emerge as an economic mega-giant and, frankly, all North Americans should be glad we at least have NAFTA on our side going forward into a very uncertain future.
In its Editorial today, The New York Times rightly took a pro-business stance and slammed both the Teamsters and the Sierra Club (so don’t give me any crap about the Gray Lady being a “left-wing rag”) for trying to block Mexican trucks from taking their legal place on U.S. roads.
“Guaranteeing highway safety does not require undermining the nation‘s free trade agreements or its relationship with Mexico,” argued The Times. “It is time for Congress to let Mexican trucks through.”
Yes, let them roll here and let the chips fall where they may.
Isn’t that exactly what free enterprise is all about?
Email This Post
Related Topics: Heavy Trucks, Management, Midrange Trucks, Light Trucks, David Cullen, Drivers, Trucking
September 12th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
The problem with your reasoning is that you do not take into consideration wage differentials and fuel cost that from my point of view is an abomination.e,g. A truck loading in Mexico with cheap Mexican fuel, A driver that is paid a great deal less than a US driver yields a competetive edge that US truckers cannot meet. Are driver standards and HOS in Mexico the same as the US. We all acknowledge the corruption that is the essence of Mexico. Are you really telling your readers something to the contrary. I call your attitude to NAFTA Lee’s inverse ratio factor,,,The further away one is from the effect of cheap labor, the more the writer or writers favour it.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Robert,
Thank you for your comment. I did not intend to suggest there’s no downside to this. As you clearly stated, there are potentially quite a few for individual truckers. On the other hand, there may be substantial benefits for U.S. fleet operators and, yes, shippers. Either way, we collectively inked that treaty and must deal collectively with the consequences. No matter where one stands on the border issue, the best course of action now is to make one’s view known to Congress.
September 15th, 2007 at 11:21 am
This is the first time I posted anywhere on this subject. I hope you can respond to and clarify some of my points. The late 70s early 80s brought deregulation and many chances. Among them, I was surprised to learn, Mexican truckers were no longer allowed to deliver in the US,which they were ALLOWED to do up until then. So NAFTA just brings us back to the way things used to be before 1982.
I am baffled by the vehement opposition of the Teamsters. Their numbers are eroding, yet instead of focusing on organizing they have chosen to make this a central issue. It is even more baffling because their main base are LTL haulers and private fleets, not the 48 -states carriers most affected by this change. In 20 years of trucking I have seen the rise of the likes of JB Hunt, Schneider, US Express, CRST, Swift and any number of less prominent carriers. Never once have I heard of the Teamsters making an effort to organize in this segment of the industry, even though the prevailing wage levels and working conditions seem to cry out for improvement through a collective bargaining agreement.
The Sierra Clubs concerns also seem pretty flimsy. Mexican truckers largely operate hand-me-downs originally sold in the US. So while the emissions controls are not up to 2007 or 2010 levels, they were the US EPA standard at the time of manufacture. Living as I do near the LB-LA ports, a more pressing concern is the aging equipment being driven by the Mexicans (yes, they are already here) hauling containers in the confined space of SoCal.
I am not going to take a position on safety concerns as voiced by PATT, CRASH. I do believe it is in the economic selfinterest of mexican companies to use their best trucks and drivers for loads into the US. It is expensive having to pay for tows and breakdowns when you have to pay in US$ and they know they are being VERY closely scrutinized.
Cabotage rules do not permit hauls from point to point INSIDE the US, so I do not really see an erosion of overall wages, although as far as reciprocity goes, I have ABSOLUTELY NO desire to haul into Mexico, I do not even go into Canada anymore.
Thanks for letting me post. Let me know what you think.
dondiaz@earthlink.net
Leave a Comment
Advertisement
About
Between the Lines: David Cullen offers his take on how actions taken by government agencies, industry suppliers and other trucking stakeholders impact truck fleet owners. Executive Editor of FleetOwner, Cullen has been covering trucking since 1981 and has been on the staff of FleetOwner since 1989. He does not claim to be an expert on trucking, but will admit to being a writer-- and hoping to be regarded a journalist.Advertisement
Categories
Calendar
Archives
Your Account
Subscribe