I worked for a company once which as part of their business maintained and in house fleet for customer deliveries. This was a major National corporation with what is generally a “household name.” Their policy was that all their trucks were unmarked. The general justification was cost related, the costs of applying logos to trucks and keeping them all pristine, replacements for accidents or damage, logo or other changes, fleet replacement and moving vehicles between locations or sister and parent companies etc. the REAL reason which I was privy to was that they ran their drivers so ragged on schedules that were barely possible even with carefully choreographed and planned routes and breaking labor laws for breaks etc. and literally requiring drivers to break traffic laws and drive aggressively and park or stop inconsiderately that they didn’t want the public knowing those trucks belonged to them or associating it to their name.
For the same reason, despite at this time gps tracking and routing being common and even standard in “small fleet use,” they refused to use such systems. Again- they had justifications, one of which humorously being that they “felt that drivers who thought they were being monitored for efficiency might drive less safely..” the REAL reasons were two fold.
1. They didn’t need to track drivers, if drivers deviated from the precise and insane routes set for them they literally couldn’t keep the schedule. Each day was broken into a number of “runs” and each route had a set of specific addresses and a set number of stops. While occasional variances or circumstances could cause issues, generally speaking a driver performing the route correctly would always return at roughly the same time and a driver that was significantly behind was not performing the route to the unofficial but department mandated specifications.
2. They didn’t need to pay for the data to maximize efficiency because…
.. in order to have their departments function, managers of drivers were compelled to “scout” the routes on their own time. The department managers needed to be intimately aware of traffic patterns and such at the various times of day and would drive their territories finding the fastest and most efficient routes- ones which always required illegal speeds but usually required the use of “short cuts” that were illegal or unsafe and which no reputable or same commercial software would suggest- cutting through parking lots and even at times going the wrong way down one ways alleys or streets and such, illegal turns, etc etc. managers who’s departments weren’t able to keep to the schedule and volume would fond their status stripped and their careers dead ended. So they were completed to do what needed to be done. A practice the company employed “stealth wise” in most positions
3. The biggest reason was because they didn’t want GPS tracking. If they had gps tracking there was no way they could plausibly claim they didn’t have any knowledge of the average speed or the driving habits of their fleet. It would be a huge legal liability as even if they ignored the data and pretended to be dumb successfully, that is gross negligence and they would likely lose any law suits from employees or others. Accidents and such, but also things like class actions by employees who had received tickets and paid fines and such. Most companies make drivers sign documents stating they will drive safe and legal and the company isn’t responsible for legal violations of the employee- but with such GPS data, claims of a criminal culture where employment required breaking the law would likely have validity. Big law suits and likely a very bad public image crisis.
So by keeping their trucks generic and purposely lacking the tools to track drivers, gps, “how’s my driving” stickers or reporting methods etc- they basically created a way that the public couldn’t finger them for wrong doing unless an actual accident occurred where insurance got involved, and in such cases they could push the blame to a “bad employee” who was an “unsafe loose cannon.”
In point of fact, the operations executives once went out to one of the congested urban area driver centers to explore adding another run for the day using the same number of personnel. After lots of finger wagging and speeches about “doing more with less,” the manager sat down and showed them in hard numbers that the total distance being traveled already exceeded what was possible to do with the staff size and within a work day while following both traffic and labor laws- which was before even factoring in traffic or other things. They fired the manager. Plausible deniability.
1. They didn’t need to track drivers, if drivers deviated from the precise and insane routes set for them they literally couldn’t keep the schedule. Each day was broken into a number of “runs” and each route had a set of specific addresses and a set number of stops. While occasional variances or circumstances could cause issues, generally speaking a driver performing the route correctly would always return at roughly the same time and a driver that was significantly behind was not performing the route to the unofficial but department mandated specifications.
2. They didn’t need to pay for the data to maximize efficiency because…
In point of fact, the operations executives once went out to one of the congested urban area driver centers to explore adding another run for the day using the same number of personnel. After lots of finger wagging and speeches about “doing more with less,” the manager sat down and showed them in hard numbers that the total distance being traveled already exceeded what was possible to do with the staff size and within a work day while following both traffic and labor laws- which was before even factoring in traffic or other things. They fired the manager. Plausible deniability.