I'm not on the scene. I don't work in that business. So take this with some salt. But I have heard that two things are causing issues.
1. California passed a law that all trucks older than 10 years old had to have expensive modifications (I believe for pollution control). Well, the average age of trucks is 14 years. Surprisingly (not), trucks became in short supply in California.
2. They passed this law that Uber drivers were employees, not contractors. Surprisingly (until you think about it), this same law hit owner-operators of trucks. That confuses the legalities of hiring owner-operators, which is a fair number of trucks.
From what I heard, for both of these reasons, trucks and drivers are less available than they used to be in California.
From the summaries I’ve seen, AB5 provides a new temporary exemption (through 2022) for construction truckers from the ABC test that did not exist under the Dynamex ruling, but not for truckers generally.
Are you talking about AB 5? Because if so, it's nowhere near that simple.
"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, after hearing the case, issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing AB5 .....The court noted that carriers likely would have to reclassify all independent-contractor drivers as employees for all purposes to comply with the California labor law.... California officials and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit. The appeals court reversed the district court's order...."
I'm not a lawyer, but to a layman it looks like a legal fustercluck.
> industry experts said that some owner-operators sought work elsewhere. Some fleets, too, chose to stop doing business with owner-operators in California.
where "stop doing business" is a link to an article about people doing just that.
And the "exemption" you mention is a temporary injunction that may be lifted at any time, which is not conducive to a stable business relationship.
This is a classic fact check where they admit the basis of the claim is true, but then deny the impact and call it mostly false.
They might be right about the impact, they might not, it is a complicated system that is fudged up. I doubt there is a single cause. But, if you believe the OP, that lack of trucks is big part of the problem today, then the fact checkers are most likely wrong and should update.
I wish people would stop citing politifacts articles as if there were something other than partisan editorials.
From their own "fact check":
"Industry experts said the rules certainly impact the availability of drivers and trucks, but acknowledged that many other issues are impacting the movement of goods through U.S. ports."
>Industry experts said the rules certainly impact the availability of drivers and trucks, but acknowledged that many other issues are impacting the movement of goods through U.S. ports.
Plus they'd like to think they are the bellwether state for progressive policy, but really the whole Left Coast is just a petri dish for experiments that usually don't work and serve more as a warning than an example to be emulated.
To be fair, many, if not most, of the failed experiments in California are voter enacted conservative pet projects (Prop 8, Property Tax Cap, Ban on Affirmative Action, Making Uber drivers unable to be considered employees...) Either way, the idea of governing by Constitutional amendment seems like a terrible idea. We ostensibly elect leaders so that they can be deeply informed on public policy and make wise decisions. Personally, I feel uneasy voting on the 20+ propositions each year, since I don't have the time or capacity to fully research and appreciate the public policy implications of my votes. I'd much rather offload this responsibility to an elected Representative (and their staff) who broadly shares my worldview.
Diversity levels at colleges were increasing under the non affirmative action.
Property tax cap keeps taxes reasonable and does not allow for straight up highway robbery.
Uber contractors were able to set their own hours and work when they wanted. Not having to listen to the man on when they wanted to turn on the work sign. I get it, there needs to be a balance, but think about the benefits these laws have had. The Uber situation was great for some, and bad for those who could not do maths.
> Property tax cap keeps taxes reasonable and does not allow for straight up highway robbery.
Price controls always distort the market. Property tax cap simply gives earlier residents an advantage versus newer residents for a highly in demand land like California’s. It is a blatant wealth transfer from newer land owners to previous landowners. I guess there could be some benefits from that, but I am not convinced of the long term, societal benefits of it versus the drawbacks.
That is strange, because CA seems to do really well economically for being a disaster. GDP per capita is 79k in CA and US GDP per capita is only 65k.
So maybe, just maybe, they know a good bit more than you are willing to give them credit for because you are unable to see reality through the haze of your politics.
I can offer one anecdote, having only yesterday finally received a shipment that had been mired at long beach for over a month. My truck driver went to 3 appointments a week for the last 4 weeks, only to be told every time that there were no trailer frames to load the container onto for him to haul away.
Would love to know more about that. Appointments are full but no one is showing up for them? Companies just can't get drivers?