“Stand by the door and LOOK LARGE” or… Lawyers are tools
Stevie is a big guy, over 6 feet and muscular from years of manhandling anchors as a boat captain. He wandered into the scuba shop one afternoon, and the store’s owner asked him to “stand by the door, and look LARGE”.
That wasn’t difficult, so he did what he was asked, and only later inquired “what the bleep was that about?” (Manly Captains talk like that)
It turned out that there was a dispute with some visiting divers who had been robbing local lobstermen’s traps, and the shop owner was about to tell them they were no longer welcome.
He wasn’t sure how they’d take it, so he asked Steve and several others to look large as a deterrent to bad behavior.
I KNOW it happened that way, because I watched the situation unfold…. While cowering, behind the counter.
Current events in the motorcoach industry have reached a point where we may need someone in our corner “looking large”.
In ye olden (regulated) days most motorcoach operators had a law firm they worked with, and many attorneys specialized in transportation law. Substantial legal resources were used in obtaining, maintaining and defending “operating authority” in the regulated environment.
De-regulation seems to have reduced the number of attorneys who specialize in transportation issues.
I admit to having scribbled some unkind things about the legal profession over the years. Perhaps I was wrong. I should have said that lawyers are tools. ;-)
Just as a hammer can be used to build something, or assault someone, there are some occasions when attorneys perform a constructive function.
By now you’re thoroughly confused, wondering where this is heading…
Currently regulators are blitzing us using new authority. Companies are being threatened or driven from business; in some cases without access to the “due-process” that’s a cornerstone of our legal system.
We can’t, and shouldn’t, argue about the importance of safety. What is open for discussion is whether the data currently being used to measure it is truly relevant, and whether the rules are being fairly applied across the board (raising another pesky constitutional concept… equal protection).
One way to improve your chances in a confrontation with unreasonable regulators is to have a lawyer on your side. If you have sinned mightily, then you’re gonna get slapped. If, on the other hand, the issue is either overzealous, irrelevant enforcement, or obscure regulations a reasonable person (like you) can’t understand, then an attorney is invaluable.
It would be great if you could find a Perry Mason who drove buses to finance his law degree. Failing that, find the legal equivalent of Stevie… someone to LOOK intimidating.
Just having an attorney representing you often alters the situation, because bureaucrats don’t like pushback. Generally interested in avoiding embarrassment, often when they encounter real resistance, they fall back to more reasonable positions.
When you find yourself being unfairly hassled, don’t go it alone… get legal representation. Follow up on many of the stories of companies that have been targeted, and you’ll see that things often turn around when they contest agencies findings in court.
If you haven’t yet had trouble… you probably will. Start looking for a good law firm now and you’re more likely to be represented by Matlock than “My Cousin Vinny”.
It may be anecdotal (that’s a sophisticated way of saying “maybe I’m wrong”), but it seems that the majority of companies damned to bussy hell have been small, unable to fight back.
Attempts to contest things at the agency level are often futile (even WITH a lawyer), but it appears that regulators are very nervous about actually appearing in a courtroom.
Many allegations are subjective and won’t stand the scrutiny of a trial. It’s a double whammy for regulators, because they can lose the specific case and have their whole intimidation regime unravel over time.
A judge may ask embarrassing questions about whether targeting a particular operator was based on real criteria versus political ones. That same court might want statistical correlation between the behavior you’re accused of, and actual safety.
Regulators might be asked if they’re applying the same standards to all carriers, or responding to political or media pressure. A curious judge might even ask them why you were satisfactory last week, and an imminent hazard today.
Occasionally courts have forced agencies to reimburse legal fees to companies they’ve capriciously accused.
Now is a good time to research attorneys, identifying some who know transportation and regulatory law. Just having one available to look “large” is a good idea, having one who actually knows the industry is ideal.
The lobster thieves left the dive shop with nary a whimper… smart enough to avoid a confrontation they appeared unlikely to win. If you can’t afford a lawyer, I can give you Stevie’s number.
