Published: Wednesday, September 11, 2024
By Randall C. Resch
A rickety wheelbarrow “full of pennies” is making its way toward your facility’s release window. You know the drill. Some upset fool is seemingly bent on disrupting your company’s otherwise, easy day.
The customer’s ever-growing smirk goes wide-eyed with intentional glee, suggesting, “I’m getting you back for towing my car.” Because they’ve got an “axt ta’ grind”, they’re certain to make their presence known. Bringing you a ‘barrow full of pennies is simply their protest.
Following close behind is an involved third party sporting a cellphone to video record what’s about to take place. This transaction likely is destined to appear on social media or drive time news.
I’ll Show You
Under the Coinage Act of 1965, “An individual arriving to pay their debt is within their legal right to pay in pennies.” According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, "United States coins and currency are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes and dues."
Because the Coinage Acts requires accepting payment for all debts, perhaps tow personnel should manipulate said transaction that requires action on the customer’s part.
According to MoneyStackExchange.com, “Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise.”
Good, Better, Best
In dealing with this wheelbarrow full of pennies, consider three options:
Option One: Refusing to take their payment, tow personnel can end up in hot water. Just know the disgruntled vehicle owner is actively setting the tow company up for a lawsuit. It’s all about them “getting revenge.”
Option Two: A better suggestion says, “Yes, we’ll gladly accept your rolled pennies sir/Maam as payment, but you (the customer) have to roll the coins in bank acceptable paper rolls. Doing so isn’t a refusal to accept pennies. I see it as a reasonable and prudent way to call their bluff. Will you toss them a handful of paper rollers telling them, “We’ll accept your pennies, but they need to be rolled.”
Option Three: Should you dedicate an employee to count the pennies, asking P. Pusher to wait (outside) as personnel count pennies, one at a time. Personally, as busy as it gets in the business office and because distractions are bound to occur, there’s no doubt tow personnel might likely to lose count within the first half-hour. That being the case, it’s likely necessary to start over at the beginning. “Oh no? Did we lose our place, again?”
In today’s age of credit card transactions, vehicle owners typically don’t stoop so low as to pay with pennies. But there’s always some cantankerous fool willing to do so. So, how would you handle it when Mr. Instigator stands at your release window?
First and foremost, learn this, Mr./Mrs./Ms., P. Pusher is deeply bent on disrupting your business activities. While they’re acting as a self-centered, entitled jerk, it’s important for tow personnel to provide the very best customer service while turning the tables and accept their payment.
Note: There’s nothing in the Coinage Act of 65’, mentioning how much time it takes to count pennies one by one. If a tow invoice costs one-thousand dollars, does it mean you count 100,000 pennies? And I’ll bet that it takes a really long time to get an accurate count, not to mention the high probability of being distracted along the way.
Calling the Cops
Some police officers aren’t knowledgeable about the “nuts and bolts” written in the Coinage Act. On one hand, it’s soothing to watch the cops take the heat, knowing they too are likely being dragged into a set-up lawsuit, when it comes at the heels of them refusing to enforce the Coinage Act. Better them than you, right?
Because the Coinage Acts requires accepting payment “for all debts,” perhaps tow personnel manipulate said transaction by requiring action on the customer’s part? Don’t call 911 to settle Penny Pusher’s intentional disagreement; let them call to tell arriving officers that the window staff’s taking too long.
While it’s law enforcement’s job to protect the peace, some officers may interject judgement that suggests “it’s a civil matter.” If that’s the case, Mr. Pusher may become more irritated and obstinate, but didn’t he, she, or it, initiate this transaction? Remember, customer service comes in all sizes, shapes and scenarios. I believe having a little fun and turning the tables on Penny Pusher makes for a good day.
Operations Editor Randall C. Resch is a retired, veteran, California police officer, former tow business owner and industry advocate. As consultant and trainer, he authored and teaches tow truck operator safety courses approved by the California Highway Patrol. For 51-years, he has been involved in the towing and recovery industry. In 27-years, he has contributed more than 700-safety focused articles for American Towman Magazine, TowIndustryWeek.com and is a frequent seminar presenter and beauty pageant judge at tow shows. In 2014, he was inducted to the International Towing and Recovery Industry Hall of Fame, was the 3rd recipient of the industry's "Dave Jones Leadership Award," and is a member of American Towman’s Safety Committee.
Email Randy at rreschran@gmail.com.
Published: Tuesday, September 03, 2024
By. Brian J. Riker
In browsing social media, I see requests for established businesses to share their company policy or employee handbook almost daily. Some may ask, what’s the harm in this? After all it is just some words on a page to make the insurance company happy, right? Wrong, and your misunderstanding of the importance of a custom company handbook could cost you everything!
What good is a policy if it is not enforced? As towers, we know firsthand how dangerous it is working roadside, yet there are plenty of laws on the books that should protect us, although that isn’t the case because often they are not adequately enforced. The same concept holds true with your employee handbook, company polices and standard operating procedures. Whatever you have on paper in your book better be what you are enforcing with your team, and you better be prepared to prove you are enforcing it.
Building upon Randall Resch’s column last week, Defending Explosive Settlements, it is much more than just when the other party is mostly responsible for their own injuries. Yes, every point he made in his article is 100% valid, and critical to your success; however, what happens when it was your employee that made the mistake? How does it look to the finder of fact, or the jury, when you had a policy in place to prevent the injury or loss, yet you failed to enforce it?
Honestly, it is worse to have a generic policy in place and ignore or fail to enforce it than it is to not have any policy in place. I have been involved in multiple cases where Plaintiff counsel will try to paint a picture of an irresponsible, poorly managed company that has no understanding of what a Standard of Care may be.
One of the easiest ways they can do this is by pointing to your own company document that says “thou shall not do this” then ask when was the last time, you Mr. Tow Boss, disciplined or fired an employee for violating any of these rules in the book? It is not just in court either, when the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration or the Occupational Health and Safety Administration comes knocking for an audit, which they do quite often in the towing industry. One of the first things they will look for is internal documentation of a safety policy, immediately followed by documentation of violations and corrective actions.
No company is perfect, so it is not doing you any favors when you can’t point to a few corrective actions. In fact, it serves just the opposite by proving you have no effective safety controls in place if you are not catching at least some of your team violating the rules occasionally.
Another issue is the generic, or borrowed, policy manual. I have read several that were so bad they didn’t even bother to remove the other company’s name from the document. Literally, they just put their name on the front page and the rest was stolen content from another company, often not even towing specific.
What can I do? These policies do not have to be hundreds of pages long, in fact the simpler the better in many cases. Outline realistic expectations for safe operations, stay away from overly broad, blanket statements and make sure you point to industry accepted methods or standards that do not encourage your team to break any law or regulations. Craft your policies so that they are reasonable and attainable, not some pie in the sky goal of perfection.
One final note regarding creation of these policies: stay away from platitudes like “Safety First.” Plaintiff attorneys have made a fortune over the past few years pointing to unattainable or overreaching company statements in policy documents, in websites or even emblazoned on their trucks echoing the sentiment of “safety first.”
One extreme example is a wrecked truck with a similar phrase clearly visible in a very graphic crash photo where the attorney asked the Safety Director, and I am paraphrasing: “If safety is your first approach to operating a company, then why do you allow your drivers to operate in any form of inclement weather? Are you not needlessly endangering the public just to make an appointment time to avoid a financial penalty?”
This paints the trucking boss into a corner, answer either way and they have agreed that their “safety first” policy is unrealistic. Instead, try using language like “we strive for safety every day,” something not so exacting, similar to the concept of never say never. Same concept with a zero tolerance policy towards speeding, or anything else. If the rule is not realistic, or not stated as a goal rather than an exacting expectation, it may not be defensible in court.
And, finally, take corrective actions to hold your team, including yourself, accountable to whatever your company policy is. If it is not documented then it didn’t happen, and no, a verbal warning without a note in the employee file is not proof you are using an effective safety management system in your workplace.
Published: Tuesday, August 27, 2024
By Randall C. Resch
How many of you don’t, won’t and openly refuse to set cones, flares or triangles at roadside incidents? Providing advanced emergency warning is one important topic that shouldn’t be sidestepped, yet I’ll beat this dead horse again. Let’s focus on “Explosive Settlements” whereby another motorist or party primarily caused their demise or injury but were awarded regardless of disputed fault.
As a “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t” consideration, towers generally rebuke what practices should be provided to create a higher level of operator safety on scene, and to forward a message that a dangerous situation is present. Based on more than 600-tow operators killed in on-highway or shoulder events, ask yourself, “Does adding cones, flares, or triangles make a difference in providing advanced warning while actively working during roadside incidents?”
Best Roadside Actions
There’s plenty of media accounts describing events in which distracted motorists plow the rear of stopped, disabled vehicles, or running into a parked tow truck assisting motorists. Should the (striking) motorist be killed, some attorney will likely blame the tower’s actions (or lack thereof) because he or she failed to provide advanced emergency warning to approaching motorists.
Advanced emergency warning is where emergency lighting, traffic control, or other roadside devices and equipment are activated and situated to provide notice to approaching traffic. But, for the average untrained tow operator, do they have topic specific training in MUTCD practices? Typically, that answer is “No.”
You’ve heard the excuses: “They (cones) take too long to set up;” “We don’t carry flares;” “I can hook-up faster than it takes to set em’ up.” When it comes to on-scene safety, being skilled in hook-up procedures is a solid quality; however, legal settlements are based on doing something proper versus doing nothing at all.
And when these kinds of wrongful death or injury scenarios occur, they result in “Explosive Settlements,” in which guilty verdicts translate into high-dollar awards.
Why the Need?
For 35 years, operator safety has been my life-long mission, and I’ve made it my practice to review operator fatalities. As read in NIOSH, OSHA, highway patrol and police investigations, there are obvious patterns in which a percentage of towers are killed because (they) themselves were walking, working, or standing in harm’s way.
Specifically, many fatality investigations contain detailed, associated factors describing what caused a fatality. In many cases, it’s oftentimes determined that operators failed to deploy some kind of advanced emergency warning such as cones, flares and triangles.
Simple to Extreme
You can justify not using them all you want, but truth and reality often go hand in hand. When it comes to explosive settlements, consider this. In September 2020, a Southern California bicyclist rode his bicycle into an inner-city intersection at the same time a city crew was mopping up stormwater repairs.
Parked curbside was a city owned “Vactor pump truck” that didn’t have its emergency lights on or were there other roadside devices to alert drivers and cyclists of the existing road hazards and conditions.
As the Vactor truck was parked in the bike lane doing its work (for approximately 45-minutes), one city worker “prematurely” picked up cones thinking it was time to leave. In that unfortunate occurrence, the investigation revealed the bicyclist was killed when he crashed into the city truck.
Although it appears the cyclist was most likely at fault for striking the city truck, the jury found city workers responsible for not maintaining advanced emergency lighting and roadside warnings. In this case, the “Explosive Settlement” awarded 2.9-million dollars to the deceased cyclist’s family. While naysayers complain the bicyclist was at fault, none-the-less, the court found the city’s workers held responsibility in his untimely death.
Compare this off-the-wall incident to what typically occurs in the towing and recovery industry. If someone were to strike your legally parked tow truck, or a motorist’s disabled vehicle parked curbside or on a highway’s shoulder, what liability still exists should you fail to provide advanced emergency warning to include activating overhead emergency lights and or flashers?
Considering that crashes occur without notice, or because of unsafe movement by a distracted motorist, is it worth losing one’s livelihood because the tower was too lazy or didn’t like using cones, flares or triangles? I’ll leave it to your good senses to figure what’s proper based on lessons learned.
Operations Editor Randall C. Resch is a retired, veteran, California police officer, former tow business owner and industry advocate. As consultant and trainer, he authored and teaches tow truck operator safety courses approved by the California Highway Patrol. For 51-years, he has been involved in the towing and recovery industry. In 28-years, he has contributed more than 700-safety focused articles for American Towman Magazine, TowIndustryWeek.com and is a frequent seminar presenter and beauty pageant judge at tow shows. In 2014, he was inducted to the International Towing and Recovery Industry Hall of Fame, was the 3rd recipient of the industry's "Dave Jones Leadership Award," and is a member of American Towman’s Safety Committee.
Email Randy at rreschran@gmail.com.
