The Chairman's Corner

By John Chipman, Jr.

March/April 2022

Holy smokes, what just happened with Canada’s truckers?  The serially polite long haulers seemingly traded civility, courtesy and decorum for blocked borders, a siege of Ottawa and arrests by armed Mounties.  Sacre bleu!

Could California be next?  According to law enforcement officials, here are the truck stop warning signs: mullets instantly stylish, Molson tallboys weirdly popular, a preposterous mix of Gordon Lightfoot and Drake serenade fuel pump customers, and worst of all, Bolshevik versions of Bob and Doug McKenzie (“Hoser!”) tricking innocent CA truckers into parking big rigs on the Capitol Mall lawns in Sacramento.   Without eternal vigilance at the Pilot Flying J, it could happen in CA.

Are there other major concerns California movers and suppliers should be aware of?  Glad you asked, Mon Cherie.

The CA Truckers Association’s (“CTA”) case against Sacramento’s heavy-handed worker classification law, Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), patiently sits on the marble steps outside of the US. Supreme Court waiting for its day in court.  You remember AB5; it’s the California Legislature’s attempt to prevent independent contractors, including motor carriers, from doing business as entrepreneurs in the Golden State.  The law includes a presumption of an employment relationship that can only be rebutted by satisfying the nearly impossible “ABC test.”

Why stuck on the courthouse steps?  The US Department of Justice hasn’t responded to the high court’s November 15, 2021, request for the Biden administration’s position on AB5.  According to CTA’s CEO Shawn Yadon, “Still no response from the U.S. Solicitor General...While there is no specific deadline for the Solicitor General to submit her filing with the Supreme Court, we should see something submitted sometime during the Spring.” The timing is tricky, but, if the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, a Spring or even Fall court date is a possibility.

CTA and CMSA hope the high court will strike down AB5 as a violation of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.  However, the justices could just as easily rely on the Court’s super precedent as laid down in Marbury vs. CA Legislative Hubris.

Another concern is the California Air Resources Board’s (“CARB”) march to zero emission for vehicles.  Lofty goals and deadlines have been set. But, who pays for it?  CARB has a secret: the expense of emissions compliance won’t be limited to the vehicle’s owner. 

According to CARB’s language in the “Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation Prepared Draft Regulation Language” (September 2021), the “controlling party” bears the responsibility and expense. 

Furthermore, from CARB: “…a vehicle is considered to be under an entity’s control if that entity operates the vehicle using that entity’s state or federal operating authority or other registration…displaying the same name or logo, or contractors who represent the same company are considered to be under common ownership or control.”  

To borrow a phrase from syndicated communist Joe Bob Briggs: “Communist Double Alert!”  I’m no regulatory wizard, but the expense for CARB compliance could potentially be paid by any company using an independent contractor model in CA.  Advice to movers and van lines about hiding logos: best to shrink wrap vehicles like sofas when operating in CA.  To learn more about CARB’s regulations, contact Sean Edgar at sean@cleanfleets.net

March/April 2022- CMSA Communicator