By Brian J Riker
I was speaking with a client last week about selling his company and one thing became apparent: we are all aging. This made me think - who is going to replace us? With the lack of respect for vocational trades, it has become increasingly difficult to recruit young outsiders into the towing industry.
Some of us have children that are interested in stepping up to the task but with fewer family members interested in our industry, many will simply close the business at retirement time. Have you given this any thought? Do you have a succession plan to assure your operation continues beyond your life?
Business continuity should be a concern of all owners. Who will provide for your family should something happen to you? Have you surrounded yourself with a team that can carry-on without your guidance?
Obviously good life insurance and diversified investments will provide income stability for your family, but what about the families that depend on your business to provide their living?
I suggest stepping back and taking a hard look at how your business operates. Now would be a good time to create an ICE (In Case of Emergency) file. Write down all the key information that is required to keep your business running without you. Account numbers, passwords, key people, insurance information and more.
At least two trusted people, preferably within your business and separate from your immediate family should know where this information is and be authorized to use it if the need arises. I suggest people outside your immediate family simply because it is less likely a tragedy will strike you and someone outside your family simultaneously.
The business continuity plan should not be a secret. Your team deserves to know that you have a plan to take care of them. They also need to understand what will happen, who is responsible for what and any concerns need to be addressed now, before a crisis, to prevent anarchy during a crisis.
This is all well and good, but who will be the next generation of tower? I believe we can successfully recruit the next generation if we grab their attention early enough. I have bounced around the idea of recruiting from high school vo-tech programs for many years. There are insurance and regulatory hurdles to deal with but they are not insurmountable.
Talk to your local vo-tech and see if they can help. Trade schools have a responsibility to help provide employment for their graduates and towing provides a different avenue for them to explore. Maybe you can partner with a local school to provide job apprenticeship programs, provide trucks for them to learn how to drive on and more. Vocational education is not limited to just finding tow operators, their business students can become great dispatchers and clerks, even managers.
I suggest grooming the next generation of management through intern programs as well. This is a great way to grab hold of smart young individuals and shape them into great leaders. A word of caution here, they may not think like we do, and that is a good thing! Be open to learn from them as they learn from you.
Like it or not, technology is changing our industry, and the next generation has a greater grasp on this than we ever will. I was watching my two-year-old grandson play with a smart phone the other day. He didn’t need any help and seemed to intuitively know what to do. Many of us can barely make a phone call yet he was able to open the phone app and call his grandma, at two years old!
Now is the time to review how much you do daily for your company and figure out who is going to do those tasks should you be incapable. Yes, most of us got into towing because we like being towers and love operating our trucks; however we need to groom our replacements. If you don’t have anyone else at your company that can lead on the critical jobs, you have failed to prepare for the future.
By Randall C. Resch
For California rotation tow companies, owners can choose hands-on training or allow their operators to train online. When Covid wreaked havoc and eliminated live courses due to social distancing, online courses were accepted to meet training requirements by the highway patrol.
Although online training was allowed as the means to get operators trained, it eliminated the much-needed component for operators to train hands-on. Now that Covid’s deemed over, should training return to hands-on?
I dislike online operator training for a number of reasons. Let this narrative serve as my opinion that online training doesn’t deliver the same value hands-on training provides.
The Downside?
In a disagreement with a west coast tow business owner, we traded opinions as to what program offered best value when it came to tow operator training. While online training has its place in any industry, I’m not so sure online information can meet the stringent capabilities demanded by the tow and recovery industry. We tow and recover with wreckers and carriers, not from a computer screen.
Especially true to new operators, online training doesn’t prepare newbie towers for real world situations or tactical applications. The lack of hands-on scenarios eliminates an ability to apply techniques not possible through pictures and videos.
Would you as owner consider the online trained applicant versus an applicant that’s attended a multi-day, hands on training event? Would the newbie tower be able to effectively apply what they’ve learned online?
Remember, the industry has no set standards like the fire services, NFPA 1500. Many tow companies fail to teach proper tow, transport and recovery techniques while hurrying to get the new driver into a truck.
So, here’s the rub. The California Highway Patrol’s Tow Service Agreement for rotation towers speaks to its five-year training requirement, Section 8, Tow Truck Drivers, sub-section B., where it states: “Completion and/or documentation of a tow truck driver’s training does not indicate a sufficient level of competence.”
Let me ask you: Does a heart surgeon become competent by taking an online course? Does a pilot become competent flying aircraft after reading a manual? Does a hand gunner get weapons capable without first practicing (hands-on) the handling of the weapon, breathing through trigger pull, shooting live ammunition, etc.?
When an autoloader tow operator jumps into a flatbed carrier, does that online course supply “physical skills” to drive a larger vehicle, set-the-deck, operate a larger vehicle in traffic, know tie-down skills, two vehicle loads, etc.?
During live action courses, attendees work together to foster teamwork skills. Hands-on learning improves cognitive understanding of subject material and social skills. Through group activities, attendees learn how to visually and physically determine best practice solutions, develop leadership skills and how to delegate while working together as a team.
To the LE community, the lack of hands-on training may lead to increased time on-scene. This relates to extended times at tow and recovery events while increasing the potential of secondary crashes. An increase in additional time on scene is directly related to officer and motorist safety.
For agencies allowing online training only, competency and on-scene abilities are proved by operator competence, not necessarily to one’s level of experience. Learning hands on helps to develop a feeling of confidence; improve critical thinking; understand the tow & recovery industry is incredibly dangerous; demands confidence and competence; practice “simulated actual events” in a safe, supervised environment where attendees learn from mistakes; provides an environment for practicing skills other than keyboard observation
Selected Training
While there’s many ways to work a rollover incident on a busy highway, winching, rigging, snatch block use and tow vehicle positioning might easily be watched on an online presentation, but nothing replaces ability when hands-on technique and application is key to success.
I salute tow owners who choose hands-on training over online training. Convenience and travel costs shouldn’t be determining factors for selecting training that stimulates, motivates and excites the senses.
Owners, when getting the most bang for your buck, a conscious decision is at the forefront of what training you choose for your operators. I believe towers (of all levels) should return to training every five-years for an update in industry changes, new laws and a chance to undo those bad habits.
Operations Editor Randall C. Resch is a retired California police officer and veteran tow business owner, manager, consultant and trainer. For 51-years, he has been involved in the towing and recovery industry. In 25-years, he has contributed more than 625-articles for American Towman Magazine and TowIndustryWeek.com. He was inducted to the International Towing and Recovery Industry Hall of Fame and was the 3rd recipient of the industry's "Dave Jones Leadership Award." Email Randy at rreschran@gmail.com
By Brian J Riker
I write often about regulatory compliance or industry standard practices. Unfortunately, even when you are doing things correctly you can still wind up in trouble. That said, being safe and compliant with all your ducks in a row is critical not only to your safety but to be in a defensible position in the event of a serious incident resulting in a lawsuit.
Even then, it may not be enough; however it will help. Non-compliance equates to negligence in the eyes of trial lawyers and juries, and negligence adds zeros to the end of an otherwise reasonable jury award or settlement.
This has never been more apparent than in a recent decision from the 14th Court of Appeals in Texas to uphold a lower courts jury verdict of over $100 million in a truck involved crash that occurred in 2014 in Texas. This case represents the failure of our judicial system in the U.S. A trucking company and their driver, who did not cause this tragic crash in any manner, have been found mostly liable and the original jury award of nearly $100 million upheld.
The trucking company is responsible for more than $92 million while the truck driver is on the hook for $13 million, meaning every dime he ever earns in the future will be subject to seizure to satisfy this judgement -for something he shouldn't be responsible for!
Key facts: the truck driver was traveling the opposite direction and did not lose control, immediately took appropriate action when he spotted the Plaintiff’s vehicle coming across the median of the interstate; the operator of the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not have a valid driver’s license. While Eastbound I-20 was ice covered and slick, the Westbound side, which is where the truck driver was travelling, was not icy due to heavier traffic volumes resulting in a melting of the ice on the road surface.
The jury found, incorrectly, that the truck driver should have known better than to be on an icy highway and had he stopped at a truck stop earlier he wouldn't have been there for the Plaintiff to crash into. This was the principal reason for the negligence found on the part of the truck driver and trucking company, Werner Enterprises: failure to take reasonable precautions to prevent injury.
Why was the truck driver negligent in his actions? He was safely navigating his truck, below the speed limit, and did not crash into anything traveling the same direction on his side of the divided highway, a highway that was not as slick and dangerous as the direction the injured party was travelling!
This is nonsense; the truck driver is a trained professional that did not lose control of their vehicle and it is not reasonable to expect a vehicle to cross the median and be prepared to stop at highway speeds, regardless if icy or slippery conditions are present or not. Further, it is reasonable to expect a professional driver, fully licensed CDL holder, to engage in their occupation when the roadway is open to travel and traffic is flowing. The driver exercised due caution in travelling at a reduced speed.
How about the State of Texas taking some fault for failing to close the interstate, failure to maintain it free of icy and for poor design by failing to have a cable barrier in the median to prevent crossover? It is a proven fact that cable barriers and/or earthen berms are a cost-effective means to prevent these types of tragedies; however they are not deployed effectively in many locations, such as this one. If conditions were truly this unsafe why didn’t TXDOT close the highway?
How about the driver of the pickup truck that crossed the median and struck the tractor trailer? The driver was unlicensed and travelling at an estimated 50-60 MPH when he lost control of the vehicle. Where is his liability in failing to exercise due care or to act reasonable? Is it reasonable for an unlicensed, untrained, inexperienced person to attempt to drive on ice while being unreasonable for a trained professional to do the same?
This verdict, both the initial one and the appeal, represent a huge failure of the judicial system, due process and a colossal failure of the appeals process. A reasonable and prudent person would not expect any driver to be able to avoid a vehicle suddenly appearing across a median divider on an interstate highway system.
It is way past time for judicial reform and reasonable tort limits to be placed on these types of cases to restrict unscrupulous trial lawyers from plying their deceptive trade practices upon hardworking men and women in vocational trades.
It also highlights the failure of many state Department of Transportation officials to take median crossover incidents seriously across our nation.
