New Trucking Hours of Service

¶ … new trucking hours of service rule will take effect in the United States that will have important implications for over-the-road trucking companies and their professional drivers. To gain some fresh insights into these implications, the purpose of this paper was to use the three value system comprised of law, morality, and social responsibility in the application of different ethical principles in the analysis of the response by Swift Transportation and Werner Enterprise to the new hours of service rule. To this end, the paper presents a review of the relevant peer-reviewed, scholarly, governmental and organizational literature in these areas, followed by a summary of the research, important findings, personal opinions and recommendations in the paper's conclusion.

Table of Contents

A.

Introduction

1.

Purpose of Paper

2.

Value Analysis of Law, Ethics, and Social Responsibility

B.

Legal Section

1.

Introduction

2.

Statement of the Relevant Legal Principles and Rules of Law

3.

Application of Law to Topic and Legal Analysis

4.

Legal Conclusion

C.

Ethics Section

1.

Utilitarian Ethical Analysis

2.

Kantian Ethical Analysis

a.

Universal Law Test

b.

Kingdom of End Test

c.

Agent-Receiver Test

3.

Ethical Egoist Analysis

D.

Social Responsibility Section

1.

Definition of Social Responsibility

2.

Application of Social Responsibility Definition to Companies

at Hand

3.

Social Responsibility Recommendations and Conclusion

E.

Conclusion of Paper

1.

Restatement of the Three Value Conclusions

2.

Overall Conclusion, Personal Opinions, Recommendations and Predictions

Integrating Values: The Legality, Morality, and Social Responsibility of Werner Enterprise and Swift Transportation in Regards to Their Dealings with the New 'Hours of Service' Regulation

A.

Introduction

The U.S. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has issued a new trucking hours of service rule, most provisions of which are scheduled to become effective July 1, 2013; however, some changes, such as the definitions of "egregious violations" and "on-time duty" will become effective February 27, 2012 (Smith, 2012). In reality, the new rules will not substantively affect current driving regulations for most drivers. For example, the existing 11-hour driving rule remains in place, and drivers' work weeks within a 7-day period will also remained limited to 70 hours (Smith, 2012). In addition, drivers will not be allowed to drive commercial motor vehicles (CMV) following an 8-hour work period until they complete a 30-minute minimum rest break, but drivers will always be allowed to take the 30-minute minimum break at any point during that 8-hour work period at their discretion (Smith, 2012). Although these provisions will remain in place, the new rules do have some important changes with respect to the 34-hour restart provision. According to Smith, "Professional truck drivers who maximize their 70-hour work week will be required to take at least two rest periods between the hours of 1:00 A.M. To 5:00 A.M. home terminal time. Furthermore, the final rule will allow drivers to use the 34-hour restart provision only once during a 7-day period" (2012, para. 2). The new rules will be applicable to most commercial vehicle drivers in the United States (Smith, 2012). These are important considerations given the enormity of the U.S. trucking industry. For instance, nearly 9 million people are employed in the American trucking industry, with about 3.5 million of these being truck drivers (Trucking statistics, 2012). Moreover, the importance of the trucking industry to the U.S. economy is pronounced, with more than 70% of all cargo being delivered by trucks, representing $671 billion in manufactured and retail goods in the U.S. alone (Trucking statistics, 2012).

Not surprisingly, with all of this tonnage being transported cross-country, the 15.5 million trucks and 2 million tractor-trailers are involved in their share of accidents, many of which involve injuries or fatalities. Current statistics show that in the United States:

Commercial trucks are involved in 2.4% of all car accidents;

Trucks are three times less likely to be in an accident than a regular motor vehicle;

One person is injured or killed in a truck accident every 16 minutes;

More than 500,000 truck accidents occur every year;

More than 75% of truck driving accidents are due to the driver of the passenger vehicle;

Only 16% of all truck driving accidents are due to the truck driver's fault.

Nearly 5,000 people are killed in truck accidents every year; nearly 98% of the time, the drivers of the other vehicle are killed in a truck accident.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of truck accidents occur in rural areas with 68% occurring during the day time and 78% occurring on the weekends;

The highest number of truck accidents occur in California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, and Pennsylvania (Trucking statistics, 2012).

Current estimates indicate that about 16% of accidents involve driver fatigue, an alarming statistic that was the driving force behind the promulgation of the original hours of service regulations in 1935, which were subsequently amended in 1937 and 1962, in an effort to limit the number of hours commercial motor vehicle drivers could work without taking a break (Dilger, 2003). Interestingly -- and more recently, the trucking industry reports that the percentage of accidents attributable to driver fatigue has decreased to 4% (Trucking statistics, 2012). As Stalin pointed out, though, the death of a single individual is a tragedy but the death of millions is a statistic, and this appears to be the case with driver fatigue-related deaths in the United States as well. Each of these thousands of deaths affects American families in profound and lasting ways. According to Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (2012), "When commercial drivers become fatigued from excessive daily and weekly work hours, they substantially increase the risk of crashes that result in death or serious injuries. More than 750 people die and 20,000 more are injured each year due directly to fatigued commercial vehicle drivers" (Truck driver fatigue, 2012, para. 2).

Generally, vehicles are considered to be commercial motor vehicles that are used as part of a business and are involved in interstate commerce and satisfy any of the following descriptions:

Weighs 10,001 pounds or more;

Has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross combination weight rating of 10,001 pounds or more;

Is designed or used to transport 16 or more passengers (including the driver) not for compensation;

Is designed or used to transport nine or more passengers (including the driver) for compensation;

Is a vehicle that is involved in Interstate or intrastate commerce and is transporting hazardous materials in a quantity requiring placards is also considered a CMV (Summary of hours-of-service (HOS) regulations, 2012, para. 1).

Table 1 below provides a summary of the differences between the previous hours of service rule and the newly published Hours of Service Final Rule:

Table 1

Summary of Changes of Hours of Service Final Rule Published in December 2011

Provision

Prior Rule

Final Rule -- Compliance Date: July 1, 2013

Limitations on minimum "34-hour restarts"

None

(1) Must include two periods between 1 a.m. - 5 a.m. home terminal time.

(2) May only be used once per week.

Rest breaks

None except as limited by other rule provisions

May drive only if 8 hours or less have passed since end of driver's last off-duty period of at least 30 minutes. [HM 397.5 mandatory "in attendance" time may be included in break if no other duties performed]

PROVISION

PRIOR RULE

FINAL RULE - COMPLIANCE DATE FEBRUARY 27, 2012

On-duty time

Includes any time in CMV except sleeper-berth.

Does not include any time resting in a parked vehicle (also applies to passenger-carrying drivers) [emphasis in original]. In a moving property-carrying CMV, does not include up to 2 hours in passenger seat immediately before or after 8 consecutive hours in sleeper-berth.

Penalties

"Egregious" hours of service violations not specifically defined.

Driving (or allowing a driver to drive) 3 or more hours beyond the driving-time limit may be considered an egregious violation and subject to the maximum civil penalties. Also applies to passenger-carrying drivers.

Oilfield exemption

"Waiting time" for certain drivers at oilfields (which is off-duty but does extend 14-hour duty period) must be recorded and available to FMCSA, but no method or details are specified for the recordkeeping.

"Waiting time" for certain drivers at oilfields must be shown on logbook or electronic equivalent as off duty and identified by annotations in "remarks" or a separate line added to "grid."

While companies gear up to comply with the foregoing provisions, they must continue to conform to current regulatory requirements with respect to hours of service for commercial motor vehicle drivers. In this regard, Table 2 below provides a summary of the New Hours of Service Rules that remain valid until July 1, 2013 for property-carrying and passenger-carrying commercial vehicle drivers:

Table 2

Summary of HOS Regulations (Valid Until July 1, 2013)

Property-Carrying CMV Drivers

Passenger-Carrying CMV Drivers

11-Hour Driving Limit

May drive a maximum of 11 hours after 10 consecutive hours off duty.

10-Hour Driving Limit

May drive a maximum of 10 hours after 8 consecutive hours off duty.

14-Hour Limit

May not drive beyond the 14th consecutive hour after coming on duty, following 10 consecutive hours off duty. Off-duty time does not extend the 14-hour period.

15-Hour on-Duty Limit

May not drive after having been on duty for 15 hours, following 8 consecutive hours off duty. Off-duty time is not included in the 15-hour period.

60/70-Hour on-Duty Limit

May not drive after 60/70 hours on duty in 7/8 consecutive days. A driver may restart a 7/8 consecutive day period after taking 34 or more consecutive hours off duty.

60/70-Hour on-Duty Limit

May not drive after 60/70 hours on duty in 7/8 consecutive days.

Sleeper Berth Provision

Drivers using the sleeper berth provision must take at least 8 consecutive hours in the sleeper berth, plus a separate 2 consecutive hours either in the sleeper berth, off duty, or any combination of the two.

Sleeper Berth Provision

Drivers using a sleeper berth must take at least 8 hours in the sleeper berth, and may split the sleeper-berth time into two periods provided neither is less than 2 hours.

Source: Smith, 2011

1.

Purpose of Paper. The purpose of this paper was to use the three-value system comprised of law, morality, and social responsibility in the application of different ethical principles in the analysis of the response by Swift Transportation and Werner Enterprise to the new hours of service rule due to take effect on July 1, 2013.

2.

Value Analysis of Law, Ethics, and Social Responsibility. Compliance with manmade laws is frequently confounded and complicated by individual interpretations and applications of natural laws. In those cases where the conflict is sufficiently pronounced, the respective legal, ethical and social responsibilities of organizations must respond in some fashion in order to resolve the conflict. This resolution, though, can be constrained by the relative importance that each of these three values has for the organization, its leadership team and its employees and these issues are discussed further below.

B.

Legal Section

1.

Introduction. Although the new rules have met with stiff resistance from some quarters and legal challenges are expected in the future (Patton, 2012), the new Hours of Service of Drivers Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2011 and is now the law of the land for commercial motor vehicle operators in the United States. Trucking companies and their operators that ignore or otherwise allow driver fatigue to contribute to accident rates are liable for civil and criminal penalties in the U.S. (Belz, Robinson & Casali, 2004). For instance, according to the law firm Morgan & Morgan (2012), "Because truck driver fatigue can increase the trucker's risk of being involved in a crash, federal regulations have been established to restrict the amount of time a truck driver can be on the road. A trucker who chooses to disregard these regulations and their duty to drive responsibly may be considered negligent if a truck accident occurs" (Truck drivers and fatigue, 2012, para. 2).

2.

Statement of the Relevant Legal Principles and Rules of Law. The overarching legal principle and rule of law in the application of the new Hours of Service of Rule is contained in the Commerce Clause which provides the U.S. Congress with the fundamental right and responsibility to ensure the unrestricted interstate flow of goods and services (Redish, 1995). According to Black's Law Dictionary (1991), the Commerce Clause consists of those "provisions of U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, clause 3) which give Congress exclusive powers over interstate commerce" (p. 269). The provisions of the Commerce Clause extend to the interstate operation of commercial motor vehicles (Redish, 1995). The federal agency tasked with administered interstate commercial motor vehicle commerce is the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). According to the DOT's Web site, the department is responsible for the oversight of "federal highway, air, railroad, and maritime and other transportation administration functions" (About DOT, 2012, para. 2).

3.

Application of Law to Topic and Legal Analysis. The legality of the new rules has been challenged at the federal appellate level. In response to the new rules, Patton (2012) reports that the American Trucking Association (ATA) has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in an attempt to have the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration rule set aside as being "arbitrary and capricious" (para. 2). The challenges to the new rules are based on several issues, with the most salient for the purposes of an ethical analysis including the following:

1. The assumptions and analytical methods used by the FMCSA to formulate the new rules were flawed from the outset. According to Patton, "The law is clear about what steps FMCSA must undertake to change the rules and we cannot allow this rulemaking, which was fueled by changed assumptions and analyses that do not meet the required legal standards, to remain unchallenged" (2012, para. 3).

2. The potential beneficial outcomes of the new regulations were overstated. Here, an ATA representative cautioned that, "ATA said the agency overstated the safety benefits of the new rule, and that the costs outweigh the claimed benefits. We need this issue to be resolved in a credible manner, taking into account the undisputed crash reduction since 2004, so we can focus limited government and industry resources on safety initiatives that will have a far greater impact on highway safety" (cited in Patton, 2012 at para. 3).

3. The new rules will probably be changed again, causing unnecessary expense and confusion. In this regard, Patton reports that, "A highway bill in the House of Representatives contains a provision that would require FMCSA to study and possibly rewrite the 34-hour restart provision of the rule, which limits the restart to once a week with two sleep periods from 1 a.m. To 5 a.m. Whether or not the bill will pass in its present form is anyone's guess, however" (para. 4).

It also remains uncertain whether the Teamsters and truck safety consumer advocacy organizations will challenge the new rules, but all signs indicate that the likelihood of such future lawsuits is high (Patton, 2012). According to Patton:

Truck safety advocacy groups and the Teamsters union have yet to say if they will renew their own legal action against the new rule, although they have indicated strongly that they will. It was their suit against the rule that pushed the Department of Transportation to do the rewrite that came out last December. They agreed to suspend their suit while the agency reviewed the rule, but reserved the right to renew their suit if the rewrite was not satisfactory to them (2012, para. 4).

Although the revisions contained in the new rules are intended to further promote public safety through regulatory means by restricting the overall number of hours worked by commercial motor vehicle operators, it remains controversial whether the expected overall benefits will be worth the adverse impact that these initiatives will have on interstate commerce. In this regard, Patton advises:

The key issue for them is the 11-hour daily driving limit, which the new rule preserves. The agency said that while it will continue to study a cutback in the 11-hour limit to 10 hours, at this point there is no 'compelling scientific evidence' that the 10-hour limit produces enough safety benefits to outweigh the higher net benefits of the 11-hour limit. (2012, para. 4)

Finally, other organizations have indicated they are concerned about the extra hour of work allowed under the revised rules despite the lack of "compelling scientific evidence," suggesting that the adverse effects are apparent and intuitive. In this regard, Patton adds that, "Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety has indicated that it may resume its challenge of the 11-hour limit. Last December when the rule came out, the group said it is confident that since the appeals court has twice rejected the 11-hour provision it will do so again. Henry Jasny, the group's vice president and general counsel, said that barring the unexpected the group probably will renew its suit" (2012, para. 3).

4.

Legal Conclusion. Taken together, the foregoing indicate that unless and until these advocacy groups and union organizations step up and aggressively pursue legal challenges to the new rules, they will take effect as planned in 2013. Whether these changes are ethical or not, though, is discussed further below.

C.

Ethics Section

1.

Utilitarian Ethical Analysis. The key issue for utilitarian ethical theorists is the degree of happiness that a given act produces. In this regard, Ashmore and Staff (1994) report that, "Utilitarian ethical theory is the theory that states that one ought always to act in such a way that the happiness of all concerned is maximized" (p. 165). From this perspective, any proposed change in the operating rules for commercial motor vehicle operators would relate to its ultimate effect on the environment in which it was made; in the case of multinational operators, this would then extend to the global level since it requires that everyone' interests be taken into account. For instance, Ashmore and Staff add that, "Utilitarian ethical theory assesses the moral character of an intended action, in light of the intended action's projected consequences on all who are likely to be affected by the intended action" (p. 165). This means that if the proposed changes represent a threat to the public safety in the United States but help corporations close the competitive advantage gap with foreign operators, the tradeoff might be justifiable from a strictly pragmatic perspective, but would demand a thoughtful analysis concerning how these effects would also impact the corporation's ability to recruit and retain qualified commercial motor vehicle operators who are willing to abide by their rules. Indeed, Ashmore and Staff emphasize that, "It is improper to claim that ethical decision making in business settings is totally subjective" (1994, p. 165). Therefore, making an ethical decision using a utilitarian ethical approach requires taking into account the following two major classes (or areas) of ethical business decisions:

1. Those business decisions involving the maintenance of natural human rights (high objectivity); and,

2. Those business decisions involving the distribution of surplus corporate wealth (moderate subjectivity) (Ashmore & Staff, 1994, p. 165).

The business decisions related to conformance with and even an expansion of the new rules for hours of service using a utilitarian ethical approach for Swift Transportation and Werner Enterprise is set forth in Table 3 below.

Table 3

Utilitarian Ethical Analysis of Compliance with Existing and New Hour of Service

Stakeholder

Analysis

Score

Trucking Companies

Trucking companies will be placed at a competitive disadvantage from foreign competitors if they are forced to limit the number of hours their drivers can work.

General Public

The general public will benefit, slightly and incrementally, by limiting the number of hours truck drivers are allowed to work without taking a break or sleeping.

Shareholders

Shareholders in trucking companies will suffer for the same reasons cited for trucking companies above.

Federal Government

The federal government in general and the U.S. Department of Transportation have the mandate to develop and administer policies that promote public safety on the nation's highways.

State Governments

To the extent that interstate commerce is restricted will be the extent to which tax revenues are diminished.

On the one hand, then, the safety and welfare of commercial motor vehicle operators would represent a high objectivity factor and any corresponding competitive advantage gained by increasing the hours of work allowed would result in the availability of additional surplus corporate wealth for the global good. On the other hand, though, is it reasonable to suggest that most trucking companies, faced with skyrocketing fuel costs, enjoy any "surplus corporate wealth" to distribute to begin with, making the need for an additional perspective useful, and this is provided by a Kantian ethical analysis below.

2.

Kantian Ethical Analysis

For instance, according to Bielefeldt (2003), "In his philosophical writings, Kant mentions various ideas of reason in which a totality or something unconditioned comes to the fore, such as eternity, infinity, immortality of the human soul, or the 'highest good' in which virtue and happiness are reconciled in accordance with the requirement of justice" (p. 46). Central to Kant's views is the notion of "ideas" that can shape human responses to environmental changes. In this regard, Bielefeldt reports that:

God as the creator and ruler of the world is also called an idea by Kant. What characterizes ideas of reason generally is that they can never become objects of direct ('schematic') cognition, although, at the same time, they drive the understanding forward in its never-ending search for the original condition of all the conditioned things -- that is, a condition that itself remains unconditioned. Ideas of reason therefore have a 'regulative' function for the acquisition of knowledge and the development of the sciences. (2003, p. 46)

The rules of action that comprise the categorical imperative propounded by Kant are intended to provide the following:

1. 'So act as if the law of thine action were to become by thy will law universal.'

2. 'Regard humanity whether in thine own person or in that of any one else always as an end and never as a means only.'

3. 'Act as a member of a kingdom of end (quoted in Bielefeldt, 2003, p. 46).

The first rule of action indicates that if American truckers should extend their working schedules to levels that were comparable to foreign competitors, or vice versa, while taking the second and third rules of action into account with respect to the effect these changes would have on all affected stakeholders. Although this perspective does provide a way to level the playing field, Kant fails to provide any indication regarding how the three rules of action that comprise the categorical imperative relate to each other, but rather uses them in a willy-nilly fashion to provide support for a given point. In this regard, Rashdall (1907) notes that, "Kant does not offer any explanation concerning relation in which the three rules are supposed to stand towards one another, nor does he ever bring them into close contact with one another; but in different parts of his ethical writings each one of them is treated as the fundamental principle of Morality. In practice he uses one or the other of them just as may be most convenient for the purpose of proving the particular duty with which he is dealing" (p. 109).

Notwithstanding this lack of clarify in Kant's categorical imperative, the role of the rules of action do provide a framework in which the choices available to commercial motor vehicle operators exist, in other words to comply with the regulatory guidance and forego any personal moral views to the contrary or simply pursue gainful employment in another field of endeavor. In this regard, Bielefeldt emphasizes that:

Although freedom of the will necessarily includes freedom of choice, which is the negative precondition of a free will, the freedom of the will, positively speaking, must be more than the faculty of free choice. What constitutes the freedom of the will positively is the identity of the will with practical reason, an identity that makes it possible that the will proceeds in accordance with its own self-legislated law. (2003, p. 45)

This "self-legislated law" is especially salient for experienced over-the-road truckers who are faced with an operating environment that is far different from that of pilots who share the skies with others who have received specialized training. For instance, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation's statutory guidance: "Commercial truck drivers face an environment where they are required to share the highways with drivers who have not received specialized training nor are they subject to the same regulatory constraints that pilots are subject to" (Hours of service of drivers, 2011, p. 81135). Clearly, then, the analysis of the legal, moral and social responsibility aspects of the new rules of operation involves a far greater range of variables than a casual review can provide, making the inclusion of an ethical egoist analysis appropriate as discussed further below.

3.

Ethical Egoist Analysis. Like the other theoretical perspectives described above, the ethical egoist analytical approach is also concerned with maximizing some aspect of the human condition over others. In this regard, Tannsjo (2008) reports that, "The ethical egoist may find pleasure in helping other people; he or she may have all sorts of altruistic interests. However, once a conflict emerges it is clear how the ethical egoist, who wants to abide by his or her favored moral theory, ought to act: he or she ought to ensure that his or her own welfare is maximized" (p. 41). Using this analytical approach, it would be reasonable to suggest that corporations such as Swift Transportation and Werner Enterprise would be willing to use any additional corporate surplus generated by changes in operating rules for social responsibility purposes provided they were not placed at a competitive disadvantage by doing so and these issues are discussed further below.

D.

Social Responsibility Section

1.

Definition of Social Responsibility. Although there is no universally recognized and accepted definition for social responsibility in general and corporate social responsibility in particular, there are some useful definitions available that provide a general understanding of what is involved. A definition provided by Sims (2003) indicates that social responsibility generally involves "organizations and their leaders considering the impact of their decisions and actions on society as a whole and that assuming responsibility for their activities. Organizations should take steps to protect and improve the welfare of society" (p. 43). Likewise, other earlier authorities have also weighed in on defining the concept as well and these definitions include the following:

Leaders and managers must evaluate their decisions and actions not merely from the perspective of organizational effectiveness, but also from the perspective of the greater good (Parsons, 1954, p. 111).

Corporate social responsibility is seriously considering the impact of the company's actions on society (Paulszek, 1976, p. 37).

The idea of social responsibility…requires the individual to consider his [or her] acts in terms of a whole system, and holds him [or her] responsible for the effects of his [or her] acts anywhere in that system (Davis, 1967, p. 49).

The idea of social responsibility supposes that the corporation has not only economic and legal obligations, but also certain responsibilities to society which extend beyond these obligations (McGuire, 1963, p. 37).

Corporate social responsibility relates primarily to achieving outcomes from organizational decisions concerning specific issues or problems which (by some normative standard) have beneficial rather than adverse effects upon pertinent corporate stakeholders. The normative correctness of the products of corporate action have been the main focus of corporate social responsibility (Epstein, 1987, p. 99).

The social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary (philanthropic) expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time (Carroll, 1979, p. 497).

Another, more comprehensive definition provided by Sims (2003) places social responsibility within the context of its economic and legal expectations which include companies' ethical responsibilities and philanthropic (voluntary/discretionary) responsibilities as follows:

1. Economic performance to ensure organizational viability;

2. Businesses are expected to obey the law, because the law is society's codification of acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

3. Businesses have a responsibility to be ethical, which at its most basic level is the obligation to do what is right, just, and fair and to avoid or minimize harm to stakeholders (employees, consumers, the environment, and others).

4. Businesses are expected to be good corporate citizens -- to fulfill the voluntary / discretionary or philanthropic responsibility to contribute financial and human resources to the community and to improve the quality of life (2003, p. 44).

Taken together, these definitions all indicate that companies have a larger responsibility to the society in which they compete, and these responsibilities are shaped by societal forces that remain dynamic but focused on "giving back" in various ways and these definitions are applied to Swift Transportation and Werner Enterprise below.

2.

Application of Social Responsibility Definition to Companies at Hand. Large enterprises such as Werner Enterprise and Swift Transportation have a fundamental obligation to "give back to the community" from the social responsibility perspective, while ensuring they protect the interests of their stakeholders, including the companies' shareholders but most especially the safety and welfare of their drivers which extends far beyond the new rules. In this regard, Sims advises that, "Social responsibility goes beyond the letter of the law. Social responsibility is an organization's obligation to engage in activities that protect and contribute to the welfare of society. Corporate social responsibility refers to an organization's moral obligation toward others who are affected by the organization's actions" (2003, p. 44).

Although even the most ardent critics of the new rules would probably not want to return to the "good old days" when over-the-road trucking was largely unregulated and drivers were free to "pop bennies" and drive for three or four days straight without any sleep at all, the fact remains that the regulation of the trucking industry is shaped by current societal views that require changes in the law from time to time. As Sims concludes, "An organization's social responsibilities are always shaped by the culture and the historical period in which the organization operates. Just as a society's values, norms, and mores change over time, so does the definition of what is socially responsible behavior" (emphasis added) (2003, p. 44). To its credit, Werner Enterprise has published current guidance for its truckers as well as others who need timely information about the new rules (see Appendix a), but Swift Transportation has not published any corresponding guidelines for its employees to date.