You are on page 1of 40

December 12, 2016



Petition of Jack James Elias

to exempt non-driving duty time
from the 8-day driving limit calculation
for long haul truckers

Amicus Curiae brief of Jack James Elias
in support of the Respondents in the Electronic Logging Case
OOIDA v. U.S. DOT, case no 15-3756
U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit
Decided: October 31, 2016

Submitted by Jack James Elias

Employed long haul truck driver
PO Box 3312
Ramona, CA 92065

(E-li-as: long-e, long-i, accent on middle syllable)


A regulatory system that prevents truckers from claiming compensation

for the hours that they work is rigged against them.

Legal Argument

There are two sets of federal regulations that require motor carriers to keep

records of truck drivers on-duty hours: the Department of Transportation Hours

of Service regulations, and the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division


Wage and Hour Division definitions of on-duty time are codified at 29 CFR

785 under the title Hours Worked.

Department of Transportation regulations define on-duty time as follows:

On-duty time means all time from the time a driver begins to work or is required to
be in readiness to work until the time the driver is relieved from work and all responsibility
for performing work.
(49 CFR 395.2)

The Hours of Service regulations require truckers to record in their log books

not just driving time, but all time spent in service to their employers. Truckers

may not drive after being on-duty a total of 70 hours in 8 days, an average of

8 hours on-duty per day. All time logged on-duty, not-driving must be subtracted

from the 70-hour, 8-day allowance of driving hours.

For every non-driving duty hour logged there is one less driving hour

available within the 8-day limit.

The Hours of Service regulations, which were promulgated in 1937 by the

now defunct Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), are predicated on the

word service.

Service is a broad, sweeping generality that has been liberally construed

by the courts to include, in certain circumstances, periods of sleep, as in the case

of Central Missouri Telephone Company v. Conwell (U.S Court of Appeals,

8th Circuit, 1948), a case cited in Part 785.21 of Wage and Hour Division

regulations. The following passage is from the Conwell decision:

The employees here involved were employed as night switchboard operators. They
were on what is termed an eleven hour tour of duty, which required them to go
on-duty at nine oclock in the evening and to remain there until eight oclock the
following morning. They were paid for an eight hour tour of duty until 1943. The
difference between the time compensated for and the eleven hours was designated
as sleeping time and a cot was furnished by defendant and placed in a room near the
switchboard so that the operator might utilize such time as her duties permitted in rest
or sleep.We conclude that the plaintiffs were on-duty, performing compensable
activities, during the entire eleven hours they spent at defendant's exchanges during
the period involved in this action.
-- 8th Circuit Chief Judge Gardner

Wage and Hour Division regulation 29 CFR 785.20 reads:

Under certain conditions an employee is considered to be working even though some of

his time is spent in sleeping or in certain other activities.

Wage and Hour Division regulation 785.21 reads:

An employee who is required to be on-duty for less than 24 hours is working even though

he is permitted to sleep or engage in other personal activities when not busy. A telephone
operator, for example, who is required to be on-duty for specified hours is working
even though she is permitted to sleep when not busy answering calls. It makes no
difference that she is furnished facilities for sleeping. Her time is given to her employer.
She is required to be on-duty and the time is work time.

Wage and Hour Division regulation 29 CFR 785.16(a) reads:

(a) General. Periods during which an employee is completely relieved from duty and
which are long enough to enable him to use the time effectively for his own purposes
are not hours worked. He is not completely relieved from duty and cannot use the time
effectively for his own purposes unless he is definitely told in advance that he may
leave the job and that he will not have to commence work until a definitely specified
hour has arrived. Whether the time is long enough to enable him to use the time
effectively for his own purposes depends upon all of the facts and circumstances of
the case.

Wage and Hour Division regulation 29 CFR 785.16(b) reads:

Truck drivers; specific examples. A truck driver who has to wait at or near the job site
for goods to be loaded is working during the loading period. If the driver reaches his
destination and while awaiting the return trip is required to take care of his employers
property, he is also working while waiting. In both cases the employee is engaged to
wait. Waiting is an integral part of the job. ...

In most cases, shippers and consignees require drivers to remain on the

premises while trailers are being loaded or unloaded, and carriers tell drivers to

do what the customer asks them to do. (In that regard, the customer is the proxy

for the employer.) If he is not permitted to leave a customer facility then

the driver is on-duty regardless of whether he spends the time in the customers

break room or in the trucks sleeper berth sleeping.

A random sampling of driver logs from any of the major truckload carriers

will show that drivers are logging a minimum amount of on-duty, not-driving

time generally 5 to 30 minutes upon arrival at shipping and receiving facilities

and are logging off-duty while trailers are being loaded or unloaded, in violation

of both DOT and DOL record keeping requirements.

A driver whose logs show 70 hours of on-duty time in 8 days is in violation

of the 70-hour, 8-day limit to the extent that he omitted segments of Line-4 time

during that period.

In the context of the Fair Labor Standards Act, on-duty time is defined by

four U.S. Supreme Court landmark decisions:

Armour & Co. v. Wantock (1944)

Skidmore v. Swift (1944)
Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123 (1944)
Anderson v. Clemens Pottery Co. (1946)

In separate cases, employees of a soap factory, a meat packing plant, a

pottery company, and a mining company sued their employers for non-payment

of wages. The work in dispute in the Swift and Armour cases involved waiting

time. In the Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad case, the work consisted of

underground travel by iron ore miners to and from the working face of the mine.

In the Clemens Pottery case, the dispute concerned time spent on the employers

premises preparing for work. The employers argued that the employees were not

working while they were waiting, preparing, walking or riding to the work area

and were not entitled to wages. The cases moved through U.S. District Courts

and Circuit Courts of Appeal and were granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme

Court. In each case the high court sided with the employees. Supreme Court

Justices Robert Jackson, Felix Frankfurter, Harold Burton, Frank Murphy, and

Owen Roberts wrote the Opinions.

The U.S Supreme Court decisions cited above form the foundation of

U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division regulations. The following

passage from Wage and Hour Division Regulations summarizes the Supreme

Courts interpretation of on-duty time.

29 CFR 785.7 Judicial construction

The United States Supreme Court originally stated that employees subject to the
Act must be paid for all time spent in physical or mental exertion (whether
burdensome or not) controlled or required by the employer and pursued necessarily
and primarily for the benefit of the employer of his business {Tennessee Coal, Iron
& Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590 (1944)}. Subsequently,
the Court ruled that there need be no exertion at all and that all hours are hours
worked which the employee is required to give to his employer, that an employer,
if he chooses, may hire a man to do nothing, or to do nothing but wait for something
to happen. Refraining from other activity often is a factor of instant readiness to
serve, and idleness plays a part in all employments in a stand-by capacity.
Readiness to serve may be hired, quite as much as service itself, and time spent
lying in wait for threats to the safety of the employers property may be treated by
the parties as a benefit to the employer{Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126
(1944); Skidmore v. Swift, 323 U.S. 134 (1944)}.

The 80-year-old Hours of Service regulatory system, which arbitrarily links

service to fatigue and remains in effect to this day, predates U.S. Supreme Court

landmark rulings defining the meaning of work by almost a decade (1937 versus

1944 and 1946).

There is an apples-to-oranges incongruity between U.S. Supreme Court

decisions defining the meaning of work, as beautifully expressed in the Judicial

Construction passage of Wage and Hour Division regulations, and on-duty

time as expropriated by the Interstate Commerce Commission as a presumed

measure of truck driver fatigue.

The terms on-duty and off-duty are not scientific terms. They are

business terms based on construction of agreements between particular

parties (Skidmore v. Swift, U.S. Supreme Court, 1944).

The only difference between on-duty and off-duty physical or mental

activities is that in one case I am free, whereas in the other case I am not free.

Time passes in either case. Non-driving duty activities that involve physical

or mental exertion are no different in terms of generating fatigue than

activities that a truck driver is at liberty to engage in, for his or her own

benefit, when off-duty.

Truckers should be free to report their non-driving duty hours without

suffering aversive consequences. The Fair Labor Standards Act was not

intended by Congress to be taken out of context and used against an employee

as an instrument of oppression. The Fair Labor Standards Act is remedial and

humanitarian in nature and must not be interpreted in a narrow, grudging

manner (Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad v. Muscoda Local No. 123, U.S.

Supreme Court, 1944).

Line-4 time delineates the boundaries of required rest breaks and is

therefore essential to the integrity of the rules, but as a unit of measure of

fatigue Line-4 time is an arbitrary standard.

The U.S. Supreme Court decisions cited in the Judicial Construction passage

of Wage and Hour Division regulations render the term Hours of Service

obsolete. The problem is the word service. Its too broad a term to be used

as a unit of measure of fatigue.

Einsteins Rule

The aphorism attributed to Albert Einstein suggesting that insanity is

doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results aptly applies

to the ICC-era method of fatigue management, which, intentionally or unintentionally,

prevents truckers from claiming compensation for the hours that they work. Men

long since dead control truck driver wages from the grave.

The Department of Transportation didnt invent the idea of linking service

to fatigue, but regulators have continued to enforce that antiquated regulatory

scheme rather than come up with a new name for the fatigue management rules.

And thats really whats needed a name change. The Fatigue Management Rules

should be called something else, a name that doesnt contain the word service.

A simple name change would permit truckers to claim the non-driving

hours that they work each day while preserving the essential rules e.g.,

the 11-hour daily driving limit rule, the 10-hour break rule, the 8-day driving

limit rule, the 14-consecutive-hour workday window rule, and the 30-minute

break rule.

The 14-consecutive-hour workday window rule
rendered the Line-4 time calculation superfluous and unnecessary
as far as limiting the duration of the daily
waking cycle is concerned

The duration of the waking cycle, and the number of driving hours logged

during the waking cycle, are reasonable predictors of fatigue. Under current

regulations, the waking cycle is limited by the 14-consecutive-hour workday

window rule, a relatively recent development in the 80-year history of federal

motor carrier enforcement. The 14-consecutive-hour workday window rule

replaced the 15-hour on-duty rule.

Under the old rule, the 15-hour workday limit was calculated by adding up

driving time (logbook Line 3) and on-duty, not-driving time (logbook Line 4).

Since truckers are inclined to underreport or omit from their logs unpaid duty time,

the 15-hour limit was seldom, if ever, reached. A truck driver could stay awake

20 hours or longer without a mandatory rest break and continue to drive and his

logbook would appear be in compliance as far as the arithmetic was concerned.

The beauty of FMCSAs 14-consecutive-hour workday window rule is

that it doesnt depend on the reporting of on-duty, not-driving time.

Charging on-duty, not-driving time to the 8-day driving limit

contributes to on the job injuries
and increases the risk of workplace accidents
Truckers are under duress whenever they log on-duty, not-driving time.

The term under duress suggests being forced to do something against ones

will or better judgment. In that limited sense, truckers are under duress. They

are under pressure and forced to rush when checking in at customer facilities,

driving on customer property, backing in at loading docks, disconnecting from

and hooking to trailers, performing safety inspections, cranking trailer dollies,

climbing in and out of van trailers, and climbing on ladders to tarp and secure

flatbed loads. With the Line-4 time clock ticking away weekly driving hours,

drivers must race to get those unpaid tasks done as quickly as possible. A driver

under duress can injure himself, injure someone else, or have a fatal heart attack.

Shipping and receiving facilities are typically very busy with pedestrian traffic

and over-the-road trucks and spotter trucks moving about chaotically and getting

in each others way. When you are in a rush you tend to make more mistakes

and have more accidents. You overlook or neglect safety priorities. Your attention

becomes introverted and you lose awareness of your surroundings.

Motor carrier safety personnel encourage truck drivers to Get Out And Look

(G.O.A.L.) when backing into parking spaces and loading docks, but there is

no time to get out and look when Line-4 time is depleting your log hours.

A fatigue management rule that allows unpaid duty time to count against

a truckers weekly driving hours works in opposition to workplace safety.

A connection between on duty, not driving time

and sleep deprivation

It is imperative that truck drivers get adequate sleep, not only in terms of

quantity but also quality. Quality sleep means uninterrupted sleep. In my

experience (I have driven big rigs 3 million miles since 1974), the quantity

and quality of sleep, more than any other fatigue countermeasure, determines

wakefulness, alertness and level of energy throughout the day.

Truckers must have 10 consecutive hours off-duty following a maximum of

11 hours of driving within a 14-hour window. But truckers dont always get a full

10 hours off-duty, even though their logs may show that they do. The 10-hour break

is compromised by various on-duty activities such as paperwork, synchronized

trailer swaps (drivers meeting at an agreed-upon location to exchange trailers for

logistic reasons, often in the middle of the night when one party is sleeping), and

also maintenance work at truck repair shops.


Because it will reduce hours available for paid driving duties, truckers

are reluctant to report activities such as paperwork and essential trip planning,

and that results in drivers shortening their 10-hour break time. If they were free

to log non-driving duty activities without having the time charged against the 8-day

allowance of driving hours, truckers would be more willing to log end-of-the-day

duty activities and less willing to compromise their sleep time. It is not uncommon

for a trucker to spend 30 minutes at the end of a driving shift catching up on

paperwork duties, which typically involves en route trip planning calculations.

The DOT logbook format conflicts with Wage and Hour Division
definitions of on duty time

The truck driver logbook has four entry lines:

Line 1: Off-duty
Line 2: Sleeper berth
Line 3: Driving
Line 4: On-duty, not-driving

A single logbook page displays a 24-hour time grid. The times reported

on Lines 1 through 4 must total 24 hours otherwise a truck driver can be cited

for a logbook form and manner violation. The logbook format does not

allow a driver to log Line-2 (sleeper berth) and Line-4 (on-duty, not-driving)

simultaneously, even though Wage and Hour Division regulations recognize

that an employee can be asleep and on-duty at the same time.

FMCSA has shown in documentation published in the Federal Register that

it is aware of the Conwell decision defining qualifying periods of sleep time as

duty time (FMCSA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Hours of Service of Truck

Drivers, Federal Register, May 2, 2000). In a condensed version of a passage

from Skidmore v. Swift (1944), one of the four landmark cases cited above,

FMCSA writers include a quote from the Conwell decision, as follows:

Whether waiting time meets the legal definition of time worked depends upon particular
circumstances. The determination involves scrutiny and construction of the agreements
between particular parties, appraisal of their practical construction of the working
agreement by conduct, consideration of the nature of the service, its relationship to the
waiting time, and all of the circumstances. Facts may show that drivers were engaged
to wait or they may show that they waited to be engaged [Skidmore v. Swift, 323 U.S.
134 (year 1944)]. Such questions must be determined in accordance with common
sense and the general concept of work or employment [Central Missouri Telephone
Company v. Conwell, 170 F.2d 641 (C.A. 8, year 1948)].
May 2, 2000, FMCSA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Emphasis added.

Presumably FMCSA personnel read the entire text of the Conwell decision

and were aware when proposing changes to the Hours of Service rules that

a truck driver, in qualifying circumstances, can be on-duty while resting in the

sleeper berth. That fact is not acknowledged in FMCSAs year-2000 Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking. The reason seems obvious. If FMCSA were to change

the logbook format so that drivers could log sleeper berth time and on-duty time

simultaneously without being charged with a violation, that would bring into

question the legitimacy of using on-duty time as a unit of measure of fatigue.

Some long haul trucks are operated by two-driver teams. Requiring a team

driver who is at rest in the sleeper berth to log on-duty in accordance with WHD

regulations would result in excessive amounts of Line-4 time being charged against

the drivers 70 hours, and teams would run out of log hours very quickly. Arguably,

a team driver resting in the sleeper berth is on-duty while the truck is in motion.

The resting driver cannot sleep in a hotel and is therefore sequestered.

I would never, by choice, spend my sleeping hours in the sleeper berth

of a noisy, rough-riding truck, especially during winter months when the roads

are icy. Confinement in the sleeper berth of a tractor-trailer rig in transit is

hazardous duty. Team drivers have been killed in crashes while occupying the

sleeper berth. In some cases they have been trapped and burned alive.

I can hire a truck driver to do nothing

On-duty time shall include: ... (9) Performing any compensated work for a person
who is not a motor carrier.
49 CFR 395.2

... an employer, if he chooses, may hire a man to do nothing, or to do nothing but

wait for something to happen.
(Armour v. Wantock, U.S. Supreme Court, 1944).

To prove a point, I could hire a long haul truck driver who is employed but

is at home for time off to agree to be on-duty for 70 consecutive hours. I might

prepare an employment contract explaining exactly what Im attempting to prove.

I would pay the driver by the hour continuously around the clock and during periods

of sleep. If I need you for something, I will call you, I would tell the driver, but

thats not likely to happen. Go about your business and do whatever you want.

On-duty time would begin with the signing of the employment contract. The driver

would run out of log hours, as measured by the 70-hour, 8-day rule, in just three days.

At that point I would relieve the driver from duty and pay the wages I had promised.

Even though he had done nothing during the 70 consecutive hours, the driver

would be prohibited from driving a truck until he had regained his log hours.

For the purpose of measuring truck driver fatigue it does not make sense to

define work in broad terms since not all work involves exertion and not all duty

time is productive of fatigue. Time spent driving a commercial vehicle interstate,

the duration and quality of sleep and the duration of the waking cycle are reasonable

measures of fatigue. But "work may consist of doing nothing at all. And work that

involves exertion fueling the truck and cleaning the windows, for example is

therapeutic and may actually reduce fatigue by increasing blood circulation and

wakefulness. As a measure of fatigue, work should be defined in narrow terms.

Waiting but free versus waiting but not free

Suppose that after docking a trailer at a warehouse facility a truck driver at

10:00 am reports to the shipping office and inquires whether or not he is free to

leave the facility while his trailer is being loaded. The shipping clerk tells the driver

that he is free to leave but must return by 1:00 pm. In that case the driver will be

off-duty for three hours. Having established his duty status, the driver, by choice,

decides to remain on the premises of the shipping facility.

Suppose in a different scenario the shipping clerk tells the driver that he must

remain on the premises of the shipping facility while the trailer is being loaded.

In that case the driver will be on-duty for the entire time that he is at the facility.

In the above scenarios you have identical circumstances. In each instance

the driver will remain on the premises of the shipping facility. But in the on-duty

scenario the driver will suffer the loss of three hours of his 8-day allowance

of driving hours.

If I have some leisure time today and spend twenty unhurried minutes on

a stepladder cleaning the windshield, side windows and mirrors of the employer-

owned truck that I drive, and report the time in my logbook as required by 49 CFR

395.2(2), eight days from now I will have 20 minutes less driving time available

within the 8-day limit. The presumption is that cleaning the windows will cause

fatigue eight days from now.

There is no scientific evidence to show that cleaning truck windows, fueling

a truck or, for that matter, simply waiting is productive of fatigue that cannot be

erased by a good nights sleep.

To suggest that a long haul truckers lifestyle is undesirable and should

therefore be limited is a prejudicial value judgment.

Whether a truck driver is waiting but free or waiting but not free is a

meaningless question from a fatigue management perspective. The only difference

between on-duty and off-duty physical or mental activities is that in one case

I am free, whereas in the other case I am not free. Time passes in either case.

On-duty activities that do involve physical or mental exertion are no different

in terms of generating fatigue than activities that a truck driver is at liberty to

engage in, for his or her own benefit, when off-duty.

On-duty time is a measure of personal freedom and dignity. An employee

deserves to have his duty minutes and hours recognized, and deserves to be paid

according to minimum standards set by federal labor laws.

Is duty status a physical condition?

To establish whether or not duty status can be measured physiologically,

a blind experiment could be conducted using test subjects. Designate some

of the test subjects on-duty, others off-duty. The on-duty subjects would be

hired as employees and paid for their time. The off-duty ones would be unpaid

volunteers. The test subjects would be instructed not to disclose their duty status.

How would medical examiners be able to tell who is on-duty and who is not?

Testing with scientific instruments to determine duty status seems ludicrous.

Examiners would have to resort to lie detector tests.

Capricious rulemaking

It is relatively easy to identify a rule or regulation that is arbitrary. To say

that regulations are capricious is a bit more difficult. Capricious must refer to

a regulatory standard or measurement that is applied inconsistently; for example,

declaring that time given to an employer is DOT reportable but excluding sleeper

berth time from the on-duty calculation. The definition of on-duty time is applied


An eyebrow-raising example of capricious regulatory action can be seen in

a recent Hours of Service rule change having to do with team truck drivers. The

Department of Transportation has always considered a team driver who is relaxing

in the passenger seat of a truck in motion to be on-duty, not because relaxing

in the passenger seat is productive of fatigue but because a team driver riding

in the passenger seat is sequestered and not free to pursue activities of his own


In 2005, the American Trucking Associations, a trade organization catering

to the financial interests of trucking companies, petitioned FMCSA to reinterpret

on-duty time with respect to team drivers. The ATA proposed that a team driver

riding in the passenger seat of a truck moving on the highway should be declared

off-duty at least some of the time. FMCSA approved the ATA petition and rewrote

the regulation to read as follows:

... On-duty time shall include: ... (4) All time in or on a commercial motor vehicle,
other than: (i) Time spent resting in or on a parked vehicle, except as otherwise
provided in 397.5 of this subchapter; (ii) Time spent resting in a sleeper berth;
or (iii) Up to 2 hours riding in the passenger seat of a property-carrying vehicle
moving on the highway immediately before or after a period of at least 8 consecutive
hours in the sleeper berth; ... (emphasis added)
49 CFR 395.2

The Department of Transportation overstepped its authority by declaring

that a team driver is off-duty (for any period of time) while riding in the passenger

seat of a commercial vehicle moving on a roadway in service to an employer. The

duty status of a sequestered employee is defined by the Fair Labor Standards

Act, U.S. Supreme Court landmark rulings and federal labor laws. Altering the

meaning of on-duty time contravenes Supreme Court decisions.

Declaring that a team driver riding in the passenger seat is off-duty is the

same as saying you are not working and dont deserve to be paid. A team driver

riding in the passenger seat is, of course, working. Wage and Hour Division

Regulations make that fact abundantly clear.

In petitioning FMCSA to declare that a team driver riding in the passenger

seat is off-duty, the American Trucking Associations has shown that it doesnt

believe that truckers should be fairly compensated for the work that they do.

The American Trucking Associations should be arguing the same points that I am

making in this Petition. A team driver riding in the passenger seat should be free

to log the sequestered duty time on Line-4 without it counting against his or her

8-day allowance of driving hours. The resting driver would not be permitted to

drive until 10 hours had elapsed (8 in the sleeper berth, 2 in the passenger seat).

Compare the two-hour passenger seat rule, which exempts a sequestered

team driver from on-duty record keeping, to FMCSAs declaration that washing

a truck at any time is an on-duty activity (FMCSAs Interstate Truck Drivers

Guide to Hours of Service, page 6). FMCSA does not distinguish between

washing a truck under orders from an employer and washing a truck for ones

own pleasure polishing the aluminum wheels, for example, out of a sense of pride.

The words at any time seem to suggest that washing a truck or polishing the

aluminum wheels is on-duty time whether the employer requires it or not, which

is unfair to employers.

If washing the outside of the truck is an on-duty activity then why doesnt

FMCSA declare that maintaining cleanliness and order on the inside of the truck

is an on-duty activity as well, just as it would be in a woodworking shop where

there is saw dust, wood scraps and tools to be put in their proper places at the end

of the work shift? The inside of the cab (workplace) gets dirty and disorganized

and needs to be cleaned and put in order on a constant basis. Inside surfaces of

window glass need to be cleaned in order to see the road clearly.

The travel time regulation is another stunning example of capricious


Travel time refers to the time you are being transported to a new location as part of
your job, while not performing any driving on the trip. Any travel time you do at the
direction of your motor carrier is considered on-duty time. However, if you take at least
10 consecutive hours off-duty once you get to your destination, you may count all of
the time, including the travel time, as off-duty.

Example: Your company sends you on a bus for 8 hours to pick up a truck and drive it
back. You are simply riding the bus and not doing any other work for your company.
Before driving the truck you take 10 consecutive hours off duty. In this case you may
count all of the travel time as off-duty as well {FMCSAs Interstate Truck Drivers
Guide to Hours of Service, page 7, referring to 49 CFR 395.1(j).}

Evidently, FMCSA has joined the ranks of those who believe that a truck

drivers service to his employer does not deserve to be recognized and compensated.

Does FMCSA believe that it is doing truckers a favor by excluding an entire

days work (8 hours in the example given) from DOT/DOL record keeping as if

the service performed never happened? Ten hours off-duty following an employer

directed bus ride does not negate 8 hours of compensable service.

What makes the bus ride example different from any other example of

sequestered waiting time? A truck driver who is sequestered at a shipping or

receiving facility has more freedom of movement, more things to do, and more

to eat in most cases, than he would have riding on a bus. At a customer facility

a driver can get out and walk around, chat with other drivers, go to the break

room or cafeteria, or lay down in trucks sleeper berth and turn on the air


To justify excluding travel time from on-duty record keeping, FMCSA

writers minimize the physical-or-mental-effort aspect of the activity, as if that

mattered at all. You are simply riding the bus and not doing any other work

for your company.

If ten consecutive hours off-duty are sufficient to erase any fatigue that might

result from riding eight hours on a bus and I agree that it would then the same

principle should apply to all circumstances in which a truck driver is sequestered.

The on-duty activity should be logged, but the time shouldnt count against the

8-day driving limit.

The year-2000 Hours of Service Notice of Proposed Rulemaking referenced

earlier, in which FMCSA acknowledged existence of the Conwell decision affirming

that sleeping time is on-duty time in qualifying circumstances, was the first of

several attempts by FMCSA to overhaul the ICC-era fatigue management rules.

From that same NPRM, the following appears to be a tacit admission

by FMCSA that its conception of what is, and what is not, on-duty time has been

capricious all along.

Records currently created for FMCSA compliance purposes use definitions and interpretations
created over the years by the ICC, FHWA, and the FMCSA, and they differ somewhat
from those used by the WHD. The differences often create confusion for motor carriers
and drivers and for officials from both the FMCSA and the WHD when it comes to
assessing a motor carrier's compliance with FMCSA and WHD regulations.

The FMCSA's regulations and regulatory guidance have allowed drivers to record some
periods of time during the workday as off-duty time. However, the WHD requires the
motor carrier to record the same period as time worked'' and to compensate the driver
for that time.

The FMCSA definition of on-duty time would be revised to make it consistent with the
the term hours worked as explained in the WHDs regulation at 29.CFR785.7 Judicial
construction, referencing a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases: Tennessee Coal, Iron
and Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 134 (1944), Armour & Co. v. Wantock,
323 U.S. 126 (1944), Skidmore v. Swift, 323 U.S. 134 (1944), and Anderson v. Clemens
Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946).

The above passages refer to FMCSA[s] definition of on duty time.

That phrase is very troubling. How can FMCSA have its own definition of on-duty

time? There can be only one definition of on-duty time and that is the definition

established by the Fair Labor Standards Act, affirmed by U.S. Supreme Court

landmark decisions and codified in Wage and Hour Division regulations.

FMCSAs admission that it has been using definitions of on-duty time

that are at variance with definitions articulated in the Judicial Construction of

Wage and Hour Division regulations suggests that truckers, as far back as 1937

when ICC promulgated the rule equating service to fatigue, have been living under

a shadow government that operates outside of the U.S. Constitution.

The liberally-construed definition of work described in the Judicial

Construction passage of Wage and Hour Division regulations reflects the spirit

of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Interstate Commerce Commissions definition

of work, which predates the FLSA and U.S. Supreme Court decisions (1935 for

the Motor Carrier Act and 1937 for the ICC-Rule versus 1938 for the FLSA

and 1944 and 1946 for the Supreme Court decisions) is an arbitrary definition

that contradicts common sense.

What makes the ICC definition arbitrary is the presumption that service

to an employer produces greater levels of fatigue than would otherwise occur

with the normal passage of time.

A matter of human dignity

A quote from the Secretary of Labor on OSHAs Internet home page states:

"No one should have to sacrifice their life for their livelihood, because a nation built
on the dignity of work must provide safe working conditions for its people."
Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez

The dignity of work encompasses not only workplace safety but also the

right to a fair days pay for a fair days work. The imperatives of workplace safety

and employee compensation are related. Nowhere is that more evident than in the

trucking industry. The Bureau of Labor Statistics lists the average annual pay in

2014 for tractor-trailer drivers at $41,930. I assure you, many truckers are paid far

less than that! In a weekly payroll period some truckers may not even receive the

federal minimum wage. A trucker may sit through a weekly payroll period

without being assigned to a load and make nothing at all.

In order to earn $42,000 in a year, truckers in many cases push themselves

too hard driving when fatigued, risking their lives driving on ice-slick roads

when they have every right to park the truck, speeding, angrily tailgating other

vehicles in order to eke out a living.

It is injury enough for an employee to not be paid for time given to an employer.

It is adding insult to injury to give time to an employer and not be able to claim

that time in the federal minimum wage calculation without being penalized by

the ICC-era Hours of Service rule. It is an affront to human dignity to perform

work without recognition or compensation and have no record of the hours worked.

Truckers must pay to be on duty

Truckers generate income only when driving. Logging on-duty, not-driving

is like opening ones wallet and throwing away twenty dollar bills.

Truckload carriers dont want an accurate record

of truckers on duty time

In the 80 years since ICC first published its rule linking service to fatigue,

no individual or consortium of individuals among truckload carriers or their

representative organizations including legal representatives has argued in an open

forum the points that Im making in this Petition, even though patriotic duty

demands that these points should be argued. If truckers were free to report their

non-driving duty hours according to WHD regulations without being penalized,

they might then ask for higher pay, or hourly pay. Not wanting to open a can of

worms, truckload carriers and their attorneys would prefer to maintain the status


Is FMCSA helping truckers falsify Line-4 time?

... On-duty time shall include: ... (4) All time in or on a commercial motor vehicle,
other than: (i) Time spent resting in or on a parked vehicle, except as otherwise
provided in 397.5 of this subchapter; ...
49 CFR 395.2 395.2(4)

For decades, the Department of Transportation included in its list of

conditions that constitute on-duty time all time in or on a commercial motor

vehicle. The plain meaning of that phrase didnt allow for the fact that a truck

driver, in qualifying circumstances, can be off-duty while sitting behind the

wheel of a parked truck. FMCSA revised the statute to include the words

... other than: (i) Time spent resting in or on a parked vehicle, except as

otherwise provided in 397.5 of this subchapter; ... The only stated exception,

49 CFR 397.5, refers to hazardous material loads when the driver is required

to attend, or be in surveillance of, the vehicle at all times. No other exceptions are

citied in Subpart (4) and no reference is made to the full context of 49 CFR


The revised statute permitting drivers to log off-duty while resting in

a parked truck does not, and cannot, mean that a driver is off-duty in all such

circumstances. A driver resting in the drivers seat of a truck parked at a loading

dock is not off-duty unless he is definitely told in advance that he may leave

the job and that he will not have to commence work until a definitely specified

hour has arrived {WHD regulation 29 CFR 785.16(b)}.

There are a variety of circumstances that require a truck driver to log

on-duty while resting in a parked truck, circumstances in which the resting driver

is engaged to wait.

Truck drivers are not lawyers. They may not understand that a regulation

must be understood in the context in which it appears.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in its October 31, 2016 decision

in the matter of OOIDA v. U.S. DOT, the electronic logging case, shed light on

the issue of regulatory context. The point of discussion was OOIDAs contention

that FMCSAs ELD mandate did not fulfill the requirement of Congress that ELDs

must be capable of recording changes in duty status automatically. ELDs do

in fact record driving hours automatically, but are incapable of automatically

recording non-driving duty hours, a fact Congress apparently failed to consider

when it drafted the mandate.

In its Decision, the 7th Circuit wrote:

First, petitioners read the single word automatically in isolation, ignoring the rest of
the statute. This runs contrary to the Supreme Courts repeated instruction to construe

statutes, not isolated provisions. King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. ,135 S. Ct. 2480, 2489
(2015), citing Graham County Soil and Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel.
Wilson, 559 U.S. 280, 290 (2010). We interpret statutes as a symmetrical and coherent
regulatory scheme, Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, \569 (1995), and fit, if
possible, all parts into an harmonious whole, Federal Trade Commn v. Mandel Brothers,
Inc., 359 U.S. 385, 389 (1959). ...
7th Circuit Decision, OOIDA v. U.S. DOT, page 11

In construing arguably ambiguous statutory terms, it is usually prudent to assume that

Congress does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms
or ancillary provisions. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns, No. 15-3756 531 U.S.
457, 468 (2001). More colloquially, Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes. ...
7th Circuit Decision, OOIDA v. U.S. DOT, page 13

49 CFR 395.2 (4)(i), the revised regulation permitting drivers to log

off-duty while resting in a parked truck, is applicable only within the full meaning

and context of the 395.2 (Definitions) statute.

There are at least three subparts to the 395.2 statute that require drivers

to log on-duty when resting in a parked vehicle.

395.2(1). All time at a plant, terminal, facility, or other property of a motor carrier
or shipper, or on any public property, waiting to be dispatched, unless the driver has been
relieved from duty by the motor carrier.

395.2(5). All time loading or unloading a commercial motor vehicle, supervising, or

assisting in the loading or unloading, attending a commercial motor vehicle being loaded
or unloaded, remaining in readiness to operate the commercial motor vehicle, or in giving
or receiving receipts for shipments loaded or unloaded. (Emphasis added.)

395.2(6). All time repairing, obtaining assistance, or remaining in attendance upon

a disabled commercial motor vehicle.

When interpreting the meaning and applicability of a regulation there are

concentric circles of context. With regard to 49 CFR 395.2 (4)(i), the resting

in a parked truck regulation, there is (a) the context of U.S. Supreme Court

landmark rulings defining on-duty time, (b) the context of Wage and Hour Division

regulations, and (c) the whole and complete context of Part 395.2.

Definitions of on duty time are part of a larger context

Pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, the Interstate Commerce

Commission in 1937 declared that service, measured incrementally in

accumulating 15-minute units, would be the basis for its fatigue management

regulations. The Department of Transportation remains bound to that regulatory

scheme, and to the legal meaning of the words service, duty, responsibility

and engagement as they apply to an employer-employee relationship. The DOT

has no authority to make up its own definition of those terms. The legal meanings

of duty, service, etc., have been well-settled by the courts.

FMCSA writers, in the passage below, attempt to draw a distinction between

duty as defined by the Department of Transportation, and duty as defined

by the Department of Labor.

Some motor carriers, drivers, and enforcement officials have not understood the
differences between the current FMCSA and WHD definitions of duty time, off-duty
time, interstate commerce, and record keeping methods. The FMCSA believes some
motor carriers that have not understood the difference may miscalculate the minimum
wage, placing the motor carrier in violation of the FLSA. The driver may lose pay
because the driver recorded time based upon the current FMCSA regulations and
guidance rather than using the WHD regulations and guidance for duty time.
Likewise, enforcement officials who do not understand the differences may
attempt to compare a WHD-compliant time card to an FMCSA-compliant RODS.
The enforcement official may see on the WHD-compliant time card that the driver
punched in at 8:00 a.m. The FMCSA-compliant RODS, however, may show
the driver off-duty until 11:00 a.m., when the load was ready for transport. An
enforcement official who does not know the differences may cite a false RODS
out of ignorance of the different definitions of duty time and off-duty time. Both
records were accurate, but the different definitions led to a perceived conflict.
NPRM, May 02, 2000, Page 25565. Emphasis added.

The above passage refers to a perceived conflict. According to FMCSA

writers, the perception is false and in reality there is no conflict. The Department

of Labor and the Department of Transportation simply have different ways of

defining duty. That assertion is repeated again further along in the NPRM.

... Comparing separate records using the two different sets of definitions may make
it appear the driver has a false RODS under current part 395. In fact, both sets of records
may be accurate and correct for their respective purposes. ...
NPRM, May 02, 2000, Page 25584

In FMCSAs hypothetical example, a motor carrier enforcement officer

obtains from a truck driver two sets of hours worked records, one set

recording the drivers hours worked according to the Wage and Hour Division,

the other set recording the drivers hours worked according to FMCSA.

The enforcement official may see on the WHD-compliant time card that the driver
punched in at 8:00 a.m. The FMCSA-compliant RODS, however, may show
the driver off-duty until 11:00 a.m., when the load was ready for transport. Id

If, according to Wage and Hour Division regulations, the driver came

on-duty at 8:00 a.m. and remained on-duty continuously through 11:00 a.m.

when the load was ready, and the drivers DOL time card was truthful and accurate

(both records were accurate, NPRM, FR page 25565), then the DOL must

have good reason for declaring that the time period in question met the criteria

for service, duty, responsibility and engagement.

FMCSA writers agree that between 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. the driver

was providing a service to his employer and was responsible for performing

work in the liberally-construed meaning of that word as decided by the

U.S. Supreme Court. FMCSA writers have said as much by acknowledging that

the driver was on-duty according to Wage and Hour Division regulations. How

then does FMCSA arrive at the equivocal conclusion that the service rendered

was not service and that the duty performed was not duty?

Like everyone else motor carriers, truckers, and state enforcement

personnel FMCSA has been forced to cope with the ICC-era regulatory system,

which equates service to fatigue. That false premise led the agency, in its year-2000

notice of proposed rulemaking, to engage in what might be characterized as

Orwellian doublespeak.

Doublespeak is defined by Wikipedia as follows:

Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses

the meaning of words.
(Search words: Wiki, doublespeak.)

If duty is synonymous with fatigue, then it follows that work in the absence

of fatigue is not duty. This Orwellian-style coping mechanism explains the

difference between the way WHD and FMCSA define service, duty, responsibility

and engagement. It also explains why truckers are being cheated out of their

rightful earnings.

In truth, there is only one time record for truckers and that is the DOT

Record of Duty Status, or RODS. Interstate motor carriers do not maintain separate

WHD time records. The truck driver logbook is a hybrid document that serves

both DOT and DOL record keeping requirements.

{It is of interest to note that WHD regulations require motor carriers to

maintain records of truck drivers basic payroll information for three years

(29 CFR 516.5), and records of truck drivers hours worked (the logbook pages)

for two years (29 CFR 516.6). DOT regulations require motor carriers to

preserve drivers logs for six months (49 CFR 395.8(k), far less than the

time required by DOL regulations. After six months, motor carriers routinely

destroy driver logs.}

FMCSAs well-intended but misguided effort to help truckers

Reading 49 CFR 395.2 (definitions of on-duty time), it is clear that

there is little difference between DOT definitions of on-duty time and WHD

definitions, except where FMCSA has made an exception. In every case, the

FMCSA exceptions allow on-duty circumstances to be logged as off-duty.

The ostensible reason why FMCSA would declare that a WHD-defined

on-duty condition is not reportable as duty is to help preserve truckers weekly

log hours. The agency evidently agrees that the ICC rule linking service to fatigue

is arbitrary, otherwise it wouldnt make exceptions to the rule.

FMCSA is not helping truckers get paid for the work that they do by

deregulating non-driving duties in piecemeal fashion and creating an alternate

set of interpretations defining on-duty time. If non-driving service were uniformly

exempt from the 8-day driving limit calculation, competing definitions of

on-duty time would not be necessary.

Judicial review

When a federal court considers whether or not an agency action is in

accordance with the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court decisions, the

reviewing court is guided by Section 705 the Administrative Procedures Act

(5 U.S.C.), which directs the reviewing court to

(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions

found to be

(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not

in accordance with law;

(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;

(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations,

or short of statutory right;

(D) without observance of procedure required by law;

FMCSA had planned to align its definitions of on duty time

to WHD regulations

In summary, the definitions the FMCSA proposes to revise in this section would make
the FMCSAs on-duty time the equivalent of WHD required paid work. The FMCSA
would also revise its conditions necessary for determining off-duty time so they would
correspond to the WHDs definition. This change should fix the problems described above,
reduce the need for regulatory interpretation by tying into an established body of WHD
interpretations, and provide clear guidelines for motor carriers and the FMCSA to make
accurate determinations of how many hours off-duty the driver had prior to beginning work.
NPRM, May 02, 2000, Page 2558

FMCSAs May 02, 2000 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking became the final

rule on April 28, 2003, and was amended on September 30, 2003. The final

rule was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, on July 16, 2004,

subsequent to a petition for review filed by the group Public Citizen.

FMCSAs plan to make DOT on-duty time definitions consistent with

WHD definitions never materialized, and the agency reverted to its alternate


FMCSAs year-2000 plans were forward-thinking and commendable

(with specific reference to the on-duty definition issue), but something was left

out, and that was a revision of the 8-day hours cap calculation, which would

have prohibited truckers from making full use of the consolidated WHD/FMCSA


Arguably, truckers are on-duty continuously during their waking hours,

except for meal stops and routine breaks {see WHD regulation 29 CFR 785.22

(Duty of 24 Hours or More)}. Drivers are expected to be ready to go on a

moments notice in the event that a load becomes available for immediate pick up.

According to DOT regulations, drivers are required to log on-duty while waiting

to be dispatched unless relieved from duty by the carrier.

... All time at a plant, terminal, facility, or other property of a motor carrier
or shipper, or on any public property, waiting to be dispatched, unless the
driver has been relieved from duty by the motor carrier. (Emphasis added.)
49 CFR 395.2(1)

Most of the trucks on the nations highways are operated by irregular route

truckload carriers. Relieving a driver from duty is a non-issue for truckload

carriers since a drivers non-driving service doesnt cost the carrier anything

and its assumed that drivers will log off-duty anyway to conserve their 8-day

allowance of driving hours.

If drivers began to truthfully log all of their non-driving duty hours according

to DOT and WHD regulations, the exponential increase in Line-4 reporting

would severely impact the ability of the trucking industry to move the nations


The Compatibility Issue

Attached to this petition is a copy of the 28-page Amicus Curiae brief

that I filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, in the electronic logging

case, OOIDA v. U.S. DOT (Oct. 31, 2016).

As I explained in my Amicus brief, the Hours of Service regulatory method

is incompatible with pay-by-the-mile truck driver compensation. If you limit

the number of hours truckers who are paid by the mile can drive in an 8-day

period and measure hours of service consumption with a stopwatch, you create

incentive for truckers to drive faster and more aggressively.

It is a simple matter of arithmetic: drive slower, burn up hours; driver faster,

conserve hours.

Non-driving duty time depletes the 8-day allowance of driving hours, which

forces truckers to push even harder.

If truckers were paid by the hour, electronic timing wouldnt matter.

A trucker would make the same amount of money in one hour regardless of the

rate of speed, and would be under a lot less pressure.

In order to make electronic logging safe truckers need to be paid by the

hour. To make hourly pay work it will be necessary to uncouple non-driving

duty time from the 8-day driving limit calculation. I explain further in the attached

Amicus Curiae brief in the section titled The Antitrust Issue.

Why are truckload carriers opposed to hourly driver pay?

An electronic logging device measures driving hours with precision accuracy,

like punching a time clock. So why not pay drivers a fixed wage for each hour

that they drive?

Truckload carriers balk at hourly driver pay because they assume it would

mean paying drivers by the hour not just for driving duties but for non-driving

duties as well.

If drivers were paid by the hour for non-driving duties they would be required

to record the compensated time on Line-4 of their logbooks instead of falsely

reporting off duty, which is what truckload carrier drivers who are paid by

the mile are doing now in most cases. An increase in Line-4 activity would

result in a corresponding reduction in the number of log hours that would be

available for driving, and that would mean a decrease in equipment utilization

and loss of corporate revenue as well.

Disconnecting driver pay from how we get paid by our customers is a very

frightening thought for this industry, according to Steve Gordon, the former

chief operating officer of Gordon Trucking of Pacific, Washington, speaking

at an American Trucking Associations management conference. 1 Hourly pay

would be financial suicide, Gordon warned. Carrier executives seemed to

nod their heads in agreement: pay-by-the-mile compensation should not be

abandoned because hourly pay would reduce corporate profits.

The antitrust issue referenced in the attached Amicus Curiae brief has

to do with collusion to fix wages. Truckload carrier executives know full well

that the drivers they employ are falsifying Line-4 time on their daily logs, and

are doing so on a massive scale. The unwillingness of executives to give hourly

pay a try, if only on a limited basis, belies any claim of ignorance.

Truckload carriers are unable to point to an example of hourly pay tested

experimentally on even one driver. Hourly pay has never been tried on even one

driver because the amount of Line-4 time showing on the logs of the hourly pay

driver would be much greater than the amount of Line-4 time showing on the logs

of other drivers in the same fleet, and that would raise questions in a DOT log

compliance audit.

Hourly pay for drivers is financial suicide for truckload carriers, exec says, Commercial
Carrier Journal,, October 23, 2013.

If truckers were accurately logging their non-driving duty hours according

to the regulations there would be no increase in Line-4 activity if hourly pay

became a reality. Equipment utilization would already have been reduced by

large percentage points, the fallout would already have taken its toll on the

U.S. economy and truckload carriers would be calling for changes in the way

the 8-day driving limit is calculated instead of remaining oddly silent on the


Truckload carrier executives are unable to openly discuss their real fears

about hourly driver pay without admitting that they are engaged in a conspiracy

to violate Hours of Service rules.

Truckload carriers fear of hourly driver pay doesnt add up. The disconnect

issue disconnecting driver pay from how carriers are paid is a subterfuge

covering deeper fears, namely, the loss of income-producing log hours that would

result from increased reporting of Line-4 time.

But what if Line-4 time didnt count against the 8-day driving limit? Would

truckload carriers then be more receptive hourly driver pay? One would expect

that to be the case.

A distinction needs to be made between the general concept of hourly driver

pay, which suggests hourly compensation for both driving and non-driving duties,

and hourly driving pay, which concerns driving time only.

An hourly pay mandate need only concern compensated driving time.

Including non-driving duties in an hourly pay mandate would be more difficult

to defend in the event of a legal challenge.

I am in favor of letting the wage market take care of itself with regard to

compensation for non-driving duties, and Im confident that it will once an

uncoupling takes place between Line-4 time and the 8-day hours cap. Instead

of denying that they are on-duty (truckers recoil from the term on-duty as

if it were an aversive electric shock), drivers will become informed by reading

Part 785 of WHD regulations and demand to be paid for their time.

Truckload carriers insist that driver pay is a private matter between employers

and employees. Uncoupling Line-4 time from the 8-day driving limit would

give truckers the power they need to negotiate fair wages. Truckers are unable

to effectively make their case for fair wages, and carriers are unable to negotiate

reasonable freight rates, without an accurate record of drivers total working

hours as defined by WHD regulations.

Would paying drivers by the hour for non-driving duties be

inflationary to the economy?

If a truck driver was paid by the hour for waiting two hours at a loading

dock and four hours at a receiving dock, how much would that add to the retail

price of, say, a can of beans or a pound of beef? I haul a lot of meat loads in my

refrigerated trailer so I can speak to that one. A typical meat load weighs 40,000

pounds (net weight not including packaging and pallets).

On a 40,000 pound load, you would have to pay the driver $400 extra

to raise the retail price of a pound of meat by one penny.

Six hours of non-driving duty at the nominal rate of $10 per hour would

total $60. Adding less than one-sixth of a cent to the cost of a pound of meat

is hardly inflationary.

What needs to happen

When truckers get together over coffee and grumble, they often threaten

to run legal in order to slow down the freight distribution supply chain and

command respect. The Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA,

the largest trade organization exclusively representing truckers) staged a run

compliant in June campaign in which truckers were encouraged to legally log

their on-duty, not-driving time for a period of 30 days to draw attention to the

matter of uncompensated labor. (Search words: OOIDA, run compliant in June.)

The best way to deal with trucking companies and trucking company customers

who take drivers for granted is to allow truckers to freely log their waiting time

and other non-driving duties without suffering a penalty. Tightening enforcement

screws on the current arbitrary system would reduce productivity and result in

deep cuts in driver pay. More trucks would be needed to move the freight.

The Department of Transportation should sever the connection between

Line-4 time and the 8-day driving limit. Eliminating the non-driving service

penalty would make little difference in the number of log hours that would be

available for driving on an 8-day basis, but the benefits would be substantial.

Truckers would wake up and realize that they have been on-duty far more often

than they could have imagined. Abuse and exploitation would be brought out

into the open.

As long as it goes on in secret, abuse is able to continue without being

observed and curtailed.

Thanks for reading this.

Jack James Elias