Anyone who regularly engages with social networks, industry forums, or comment sections around the transport sector will eventually encounter the same recurring discussions. The industry is suffering from a driver shortage. Working conditions are often far from attractive in many places. Competitive pressure is rising. At the same time, politics and authorities seem to take years to address even obvious problems.
Debates rage over the causes. Even more so over the solutions.
It becomes apparent that many discussions keep circling around the same fundamental question: Why aren’t these problems finally being solved?
The answer is significantly more complicated than many believe.
For the real difficulty does not lie in recognizing the problems. Most shortcomings have been openly visible for years. The harder question is which solutions actually work and which, while sounding good, would fail in practice.
The transport sector does not have a single problem
When viewing the industry from the outside, people often search for a main cause. Sometimes it’s said that the driver shortage is the biggest issue. Other times it’s low wages. Then bureaucracy, cabotage, the EU, politics, or lack of parking spaces.
In reality, all these explanations fall short.
The transport sector today is the result of decades of economic, political, and societal developments. It operates within a tension field comprising European markets, national laws, international supply chains, customer requirements, and immense cost pressure.
Therefore, anyone who believes they have identified a single problem will almost inevitably fail.
Take the driver shortage for example.
Of course, pay plays a role. Anyone taking responsibility for a 40-tonner wants to be able to live decently from it. But if money alone were the solution, professions with high incomes would long be free of recruitment problems. Reality looks different.
Many drivers leave the industry not just because of their salary. They leave due to working conditions. Due to lack of parking spaces. Due to unpredictable working hours. Due to increasing traffic. Due to bureaucracy. Due to the strain on family and private life.
There is not one single reason.
And precisely for that reason, there is also not one single solution.
The driver shortage is not a natural disaster
When discussing the driver shortage today, it often creates the impression that the problem suddenly fell from the sky. Reality looks different.
The industry had decades to react to the development. Long before widespread talk of a driver shortage, warning signs were already present. Many experienced drivers left the profession. Recruitment remained stagnant. The age structure increasingly shifted toward retirement age.
Anyone speaking with drivers who have been on the road since the 1980s or 1990s often hears similar stories. It’s not just about working hours or increasing traffic. It’s about the feeling that while the importance of the profession was regularly emphasized, this appreciation rarely reflected in pay slips or working conditions.
Especially the period around the introduction of the Euro is perceived by many drivers as a turning point to this day. While companies faced increasing competitive pressure and the industry changed, many drivers felt their purchasing power was gradually eroding. Whether this perception can be statistically fully substantiated in individual cases plays an almost secondary role here. What matters is that it has had a lasting impact on the trust of many employees.
Added to this was a development that can hardly be ignored today. Instead of increasing the attractiveness of the profession in the long term, attempts were frequently made to offset rising cost pressure through ever-new savings measures. Not every logistics company took this path. There are still companies today that treat their drivers fairly and consequently have fewer problems finding personnel. But many drivers can report other experiences.
Anyone who has experienced over decades that burdens increase while recognition declines will hardly recommend the same profession to their children.
Precisely for that reason, the driver shortage is largely self-inflicted in large parts. Not because individual companies deliberately acted wrongly. But because the industry as a whole assumed for too long that new drivers would more or less find themselves.
Today it shows that this calculation did not pay off.
Many drivers of my generation still remember the time of the Euro introduction well well. While the industry spoke of modernization and European competition, numerous drivers felt their purchasing power was left behind. I myself earned around 3,600 DM gross before the Euro introduction. A few years later, figures suddenly appeared on pay slips that read significantly less impressively. Whether every development was objectively measurable or partly a matter of perception plays almost no role here. What matters is that many drivers have felt since that time that they had to pay the bill for changes in the industry again and again over the years.
The market has produced not only winners
In many discussions today, it is pretended that the problems of the industry were caused exclusively from the outside. Politics failed. The EU failed. Authorities slept on the development.
The story is not that simple, however.
Part of the current situation is also the result of decisions made within the industry itself.
Those who were already active in freight transport before the 1990s still remember a time when competition was significantly more regulated. Fixed tariffs applied to many transport services. Freight rates were based on route lengths and types of goods. Whoever executed a transport order generally knew what price had to be paid for it.
This system was not perfect. It had its own weaknesses and offered little room for competition. At the same time, however, it ensured that companies could not permanently undercut each other with ever-lower prices.
With the liberalization of the market, everything changed fundamentally.
Many companies welcomed this development at the time explicitly. More competition promised new business opportunities, larger markets, and greater entrepreneurial freedom. The hope was that efficient companies would prevail in the market.
But competition always has two sides.
What initially appeared as an opportunity developed into increasingly fierce price competition in many areas. Freight rates came under pressure. Margins shrank. The ability to pass rising costs on to customers diminished.
The consequences of this development are still visible today.
If companies can only compete on price, other areas inevitably come under pressure too. Investments are postponed. Personnel become a cost factor. Working conditions fall behind.
Of course, not all companies bear responsibility for this development. There are numerous freight forwarders who pay their drivers reasonably and think in the long term. Nevertheless, it would be too simple to place the blame solely on politics or authorities.
The industry itself has supported the desire for more competition over many years. Today it shows that while competition can foster innovation, it does not automatically lead to better working conditions or more stable markets.
Precisely for this reason, it is worthwhile not to forget one’s own history. For some of the problems complained about today did not arise despite the liberalization of the market, but partly also through it.
The Longing for a Grand Answer
Nevertheless, people often like to look for simple explanations. This is not a phenomenon specific to the transport industry. It is human.
Complex problems create uncertainty. Simple answers convey control.
If someone claims that the industry simply needs a Europe-wide collective agreement, a certain minimum wage, or a change of some laws, this initially seems attractive. Suddenly, a complicated problem appears manageable. There is a clear culprit, a definite cause, and an apparently obvious solution.
Reality, however, is rarely so kind.
Whoever looks more closely quickly realizes that many of these proposals are based on the assumption that one can fundamentally change a complex system with a single measure.
But exactly that has rarely worked in the history of transport policy.
European freight transport is not a switch that can be flipped. It is a highly complex web of economic interests, political decisions, and societal developments. Every change in one place creates effects in many other places.
That is why one should always be cautious when someone claims to have already found the solution to a decades-old problem.
When symptoms are confused with causes
A pattern can be observed again and again in the transport industry. Instead of eliminating the causes of a problem, the discussion often focuses on its symptoms.
A vivid example of this is the current handling of the driver shortage. While companies increasingly recruit drivers from third countries, it is often done as if the real problem were thereby solved. In fact, however, an open vacancy is usually just filled.
The question is not whether drivers from the Philippines, India, or other countries do their job well. The real question is rather why fewer and fewer people in Germany or other European countries want to take up this profession or pursue it permanently.
Whoever discusses only where new drivers should come from is ultimately discussing the consequences of a problem, not its causes.
I have already addressed this in my contribution on recruiting Filipino drivers. The origin of the drivers is not the decisive point. The decisive question is why so many people are leaving a profession that is indispensable for the supply of our society. The answer is not found in another country, but often right at our own doorstep: in working conditions, infrastructure, appreciation, and economic pressure.
For readers who would like to delve deeper into this aspect:
Read more: Why drivers from third countries do not solve the driver shortage
Why equal pay does not automatically ensure justice
This contradiction becomes particularly clear with the recurring demand for Europe-wide uniform wages or collective agreements.
At first glance, the idea sounds convincing. If all drivers earn the same, there would be no more competitive distortions. Wage dumping would end. The market would become fairer.
But problems begin even upon closer inspection.
Europe is not a single economic area with identical living conditions. Between a driver in North Rhine-Westphalia and a driver in Romania lie not only geographical differences but completely different economic frameworks.
Living costs differ considerably in some cases. The same applies to taxes, social contributions, housing costs, and purchasing power.
That is why the immediate question arises: what exactly is meant when speaking of a uniform wage across Europe?
Some want a uniform gross wage, others a uniform net wage.
But what about uniform purchasing power or a uniform standard of living?
The longer one thinks about it, the more complicated the answer becomes.
Above all, it becomes clear that equality does not automatically mean justice.
An identical wage for everyone sounds fair at first. In reality, however, it would inevitably create new imbalances. While some regions would benefit from this, others could face significant economic pressure.
The idea may seem appealing.
Its practical implementation would be far less so.
The Fallacy of the Court as Problem Solver
Another thought that frequently appears in many discussions is: if politics and authorities fail, then a court must intervene.
This notion is understandable.
Courts enjoy trust. They are regarded as independent. Many important societal changes have been initiated through judicial decisions.
However, especially in the areas of transport and economic policy, the role of courts is often overestimated.
- Judges can interpret laws.
- Judges can identify legal violations.
- Judges can order authorities to act if a concrete legal obligation exists.
What courts cannot do, however, is replace politics.
- They cannot conclude collective bargaining agreements.
- They cannot develop economic policy programmes.
- They cannot create Europe-wide wage systems.
- They cannot simply resolve societal conflicts through a ruling.
Those who expect a court to solve the structural problems of an entire sector are often asking for something beyond its remit.
When Beliefs Become Stronger Than Reality
It becomes particularly interesting where people have been intensively engaged with a topic over many years.
Expertise is actually created in this way.
One gathers knowledge. One reads laws. One follows rulings. One analyses developments.
But sometimes something else emerges from this process as well.
One develops one’s own conceptual framework.
Within this framework, everything suddenly seems to fit together. New information is evaluated primarily based on whether it confirms the existing theory. Contradictions are explained away. Counterarguments lose significance.
The problem here is not a lack of knowledge. Often, the opposite is true.
People who have been dealing with a topic for years often possess enormous detailed knowledge.
The critical point is only reached when conclusions are no longer questioned.
Then arises the conviction that one’s own solution is not just one possible answer to a problem, but the only correct one.
And it is precisely at this point that many debates go out of balance.
Why Experts Often Disagree
Misunderstandings therefore often arise in discussions about the future of the transport sector.
When lawyers, entrepreneurs, economists, or association representatives criticise certain demands, this is frequently interpreted as rejection of the problem itself.
In fact, they are often criticising something entirely different.
They do not criticise the diagnosis. They criticise the proposed therapy.
That is a significant difference. One can regard the driver shortage as a serious problem while still doubting that a Europe-wide collective agreement is the solution.
One can demand better working conditions while simultaneously assuming that these cannot be enforced through contract changes at the European level.
One can recognise distortions of competition while still doubting that a uniform wage is the right answer to this issue.
Criticism is often not directed against the goal, but against the path to achieve it.
What Would Actually Happen?
At this point, a change in perspective is worthwhile. Instead of discussing whether a Europe-wide collective agreement or a uniform wage level would fundamentally be desirable, one should ask the much more important question: what would actually change in practice?
Let us assume for a moment that the demand were implemented tomorrow. All professional drivers within the European Union would be paid according to the same tariff provisions. At first glance, this sounds like a huge step towards fairness. After all, the discussion around wages has been one of the central points of contention in the sector for years.
However, after only a short time, it would become clear that many of the problems complained about for years would remain unchanged.
The driver who desperately searches for a free parking space in the evening might indeed have more money in their account. However, they would still not find a parking spot as a result. The overcrowded rest areas would be just as full the next day as before.
Road networks would also not be less burdened. Traffic jams on motorways would not disappear simply because the wage structure had changed. Nor would bureaucratic documentation requirements suddenly become easier or approval procedures faster.
Even the often-cited driver shortage would by no means be automatically eliminated. Anyone who believes that the attractiveness of a profession is defined exclusively by wages is grasping too short. People do not decide for or against a profession solely because of salary. They consider the whole package. This includes working hours, predictability, family life, working conditions, appreciation, and future prospects.
That is precisely why the notion that a single instrument can solve the structural problems of an entire sector falls short. Higher wages can be part of a solution, but they cannot replace a functioning infrastructure, practical transport policy, or attractive working conditions.
The key insight is therefore this: Even if a demand is well-intentioned, it does not necessarily mean that it addresses the root causes of a problem. Often, it merely addresses one aspect while the real challenges remain.
When even opponents recognize the same problems
A particularly interesting aspect of the debate is often overlooked. While social media platforms frequently seek simple culprits, looking at the actual actors in the industry reveals a much more nuanced picture.
Remarkably, representatives from vastly different interest groups arrive at similar conclusions in many analyses.
Entrepreneurs face shrinking margins, rising costs, and increasingly fierce competition. Drivers complain of a lack of appreciation, high stress levels, and difficulties balancing work and family life. Trade unions warn of social maladjustments and increasing pressure on employees. Industry associations, meanwhile, are concerned about the future viability of European freight transport.
Naturally, the proposed solutions often differ significantly. This is not surprising, given that the stakeholders represent different interests. What is more remarkable, however, is that many of them describe the same structural problems.
It is at this point that it becomes clear why simple explanations often fall short. When actors who disagree on many issues still recognize similar warning signs, it suggests strongly that the causes lie deeper than individual political decisions or specific legal regulations.
Therefore, those who wish to understand the development of the industry should look less for quick blame and instead examine more closely where different perspectives overlap. It is often there that truly relevant clues about the causes of the problems can be found.
I have already addressed this tension between employee interests, corporate reality, and European transport policy in greater detail:
Read more: When trade unions and entrepreneurs issue the same warning
The uncomfortable truth
Perhaps this is exactly where the real challenge for the transport industry lies. The problems currently being discussed have emerged over decades. They are the result of political decisions, economic developments, societal changes, and not least, decisions made within the industry itself. Anyone examining such a complex situation should therefore be cautious when presented with simple answers.
The notion that a single law, a collective agreement, or a court ruling can solve the fundamental problems of European freight transport is tempting. It gives the impression that complex challenges can be traced back to a clear trigger and thus eliminated with a corresponding measure. But reality is rarely so simple.
Driver shortage is a good example. It did not appear suddenly, nor will it disappear overnight. The industry has lost attractiveness over many years. Working conditions, lack of infrastructure, economic pressure, and societal developments have all contributed. Those who do not understand the causes are bound to fail in their solutions.
That is precisely why it pays to look more closely. Not every demand that seems plausible at first glance stands up to closer scrutiny. Not every well-intentioned idea automatically leads to a better outcome. And not every criticism of existing conditions already provides the answer to how things could be improved.
Truly effective changes are often less spectacular. They do not arise from one big push, but from many decisions that interlock. Through better infrastructure, practical rules, consistent enforcement of existing regulations, and working conditions that make the profession attractive again in the long term. Above all, they emerge where political demands, economic reality, and the experiences of people come together who travel Europe’s roads every day.
Perhaps this is the most uncomfortable insight of all: The transport industry does not need promises of salvation. It does not need a miracle cure or a magic lever that eliminates all problems at once. What it needs is an honest look at the causes of its difficulties and the willingness to engage with often arduous but realistic solutions.
In the end, the future of the industry will not be decided by which idea is loudest. It will be decided by which measures actually improve the daily lives of drivers and entrepreneurs.
