Labour relations in road transport
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I BELIEVE that labour relations in road transport in the 1970s.present the prospect of a retrograde situation that could literally bring the industry back to the middle 1930s and the "area board" atmosphere. Such a situation is not inevitable, as I hope to show later in this article, but if it is to be avoided there will have to be considerable changes in attitude among both employers and trade union officials.
Before taking a detailed look at these future possibilities, however, let me explain the beliefs and experience upon which my views are based. In my early days in the Transport and General Workers' Union I was inducted into the principles of British trade unionism in the climate created by such men as Ben Tillett, Jimmy Sexton, Ernest Bevin, Harold Clay, George Gleave, Stanley Hirst and John Cliff. I saw in the specialized trade group system a basic formula embracing a fight by the strong, not only for themselves and for their improvement but also to assist materially the weak —or "green fields", as we term it—section of the membership. It is, I feel, a sad day for a movement to which one has devoted one's whole working life, when these principles and aims are replaced by the sort of policies we see today.
Retrograde development Following the 1939-45 war and the passing on to the Statute Book of the Wages Councils Act, which set up the Road Haulage Wages Council and repealed Part 1 of the 1938 Road Haulage Wages Act, the industry moved to a set national pattern and periodically examined the then current basic wages and working conditions as set out in the appropriate Wages Council Order.
This followed the usual pattern of Wages Councils, to which at regular intervals approaches were made by the trade unions for improvements, which were automatically opposed by the employers' representatives and deliberated upon by independent members; from this policy there slowly emerged a completely unrealistic and mainly inoperable set of wages and working conditions, and the proceedings became a complete farce.
Following my experience of setting up bodies regulating wages and conditions in West Africa, both Wages Councils and Joint Industrial Councils, and having acted as secretary and chairman of these bodies respectively, I rigidly opposed the Wages Council machinery and consistently agitated for the abolition of the Road Haulage Wages Council and its replacement by a responsible JIC. On the trade union side this was not supported, notably by the leadership at the time. In my view this was because control of industry by the Wages Council machinery makes the job of a national leader considerably easier than is the case with the JIC pattern, and also because there appeared to be a fear, born of lack of knowledge and experience of negotiations outside the world of enforcement, of carrying out a policy that called for strength of membership to bring to fruition. And possibly it was particularly a result of the .fragmented style of industry which is true of road haulage to the present day.
Out of touch
By 1959 the situation had become completely out of touch with the facts of life in the industry, and the "old records" trotted out regularly at the Wages Council had become completely worn out; all the old claptrap about the Index of Retail Prices, and prices chasing off ahead of wages, failed to make sense, and there was simply no progress at all. I felt it was necessary to make a personal study to try to evaluate what a realistic future policy should be, and to do my best as an individual to bring it into effect.
This, of course, is always unpopular in the trade union movement if the policy chosen does not suit the "top brass" and, since toeing the line seems to be an essential to promotion in the movement, my suggestion later had to become a one-man crusade to prove that the cancer in the body of wages and working conditions was, and still is, the stupidly antiquated and unrealistic "hourly rate of pay" formula.
Three-stage plan I carried out a lone campaign for a policy of ultimate salaried status for lorry drivers, based on a three-stage plan. First, consolidation of earnings; second, a progressive "cost element" basis and participation policy; and finally salaries, after the industry had been brought to the standard of efficiency which is so necessary if it is to provide a service to the community based on the payment of reasonable wages and the provision of good working conditions.
The C-licence field of operation was eminently suitable for such an excercise, and agreements based on "consolidation" proved beyond doubt that the policy was sound. So I made attempts to promote it across the board. In June 1965 I convened an employers' conference at Transport House, Salford, and my plan was very well received by a large gathering of management representatives.
This was followed by active negotiation, and at the request of the employers a further conference was held in June 1967. Again, there was evident enthusiasm about the principles outlined, and successful agreements which had been negotiated between the union and some quite large operators were examined in detail and accepted as the pattern that should emerge.
National failure
At about this time there was a national move to establish a form of JIC negotiations, and a measure of agreement was reached which, given honest endeavour and integrity, would by now have brought considerable progress for both sides of the industry. But this was not to be. Personally, I deplore the situation which now has brought us to the present position of an apparently complete lack of real national progress, and the falling back on to what are supposed to be local negotiations.
We are now in a situation influenced by four major factors: the Donovan report, the Transport Act 1968 and its implications, the White Paper "In place of Strife" and Government intervention, and, by no means least, the breaking down of the trade group structure in my own union. The latter I personally believe to be a colossal blunder, and is one of the factors which led me to the view expressed in my opening forecast. In this situation, and with an industry which is probably the most fragmented in Britain (for example, in the North West alone there are some 1,800 transport firms) the only road open appears to be one of area or district agreements. This would be a reasonable and possible solution if there were some form of national guidlines—but there are not, and are not likely to be.
It would go a long way to solving the policy problem for the future if "consolidation" was accepted as a basis for all negotiations in the transport field and also if the policy was very clearly understood by the negotiators, which in most cases it does not appear to be. Unhappily, this does not appear to be an acceptable basis, for we see a policy in which action in selected areas consistently creates an unbalance.
But if the picture is black at the moment, there are good reasons for believing that the circumstances and the climate in the industry will change. Managements will be compelled to become more economically efficient and professional, and objective operations must become the order of the day. To some degree the Industrial Training Act could assist in bringing this about and, as the new national plan for freight begins to bite, some uneconomic undertakings will certainly go to the wall. Government participation in the field Of transport planning will also play a part.
High-earnings formula
On the trade union front (and, as a lifelong and still enthusiastic trade unionist this is my greatest personal hope) there appears to be an opportunity for the bringing to fruition of a policy of participation based on a high-earnings formula. Particularly relevant to this is the need for officials to find a basis on which to cope with the new circumstances of the transport industry. There must, however, be an appraisal of the national situation, and the present climate of mistrust must be removed. It is to the advantage of all decent people in the industry to see an end to the "law of the jungle".
Trade union officials and lay representatives, particularly at regional level, can help in this by devoting time and effort to working out acceptable productivity agreements based on consolidation of earnings at a high level and coupled with a much more productive and economic use of capital equipment and manpower. There is also a need for an honest drive to reduce the maximum working week (and I mean working week, not simply legal limits) to realistic proportions. It is essential that all these proposals should be put forward through constitutional channels that are accepted as trustworthy, and that both sides honour the agreements which are arrived at.
Consolidation schemes What does a consolidated earnings scheme entail? Basically, it involves fixing a sum to be paid to a man for a five-day week and then negotiating with the management on the amount of "profitable production" that is necessary to enable the company to meet the sum proposed. In negotiating like this, it is essential to see that earning potential is not reduced, that more productive use of equipment and manpower is realistically possible and that, where feasible, weekly working hours are reduced.
I believe that shop stewards must be trained in work study, and that such study should be carried out by both parties. There are ways and means of introducing consultants. too. It is no use ramming their suggestions down the men's throats; the employees should always be consulted first, and when their suggestions run out of steam a work-study consultant's plan is a useful thing to have ready as a basis for discussion. Making an agreement is only a start. Once it is in force, it needs intelligent attention, to see whether targets are being met, whether adjustment is needed, and whether there are opportunities for further progress.
With agreements which incorporate high consolidated earnings and realistic targets based on work study it is surprising how much more quickly and efficiently some jobs can be done.
I am convinced, too, that if road haulage is to make big strides in productivity it must aim at big reductions in the relative number of vehicles on the road. I recall a case in which a company running 36 vehicles was planning to replace the six oldest. I suggested that they might try taking the old ones off but not replacing them. I reckoned that the work of 36 could be done with 30. Of course, it meant changes. Two-shift operation, for a start, with the employment of 14 more men who cost the company an extra £18,000 a year. But there was an immediate saving of £60,000 on the cost of the six new vehicles which were not needed, plus running costs of about £38,000 a year. After deducting the cost of the extra drivers from the savings, the company showed a net gain of £80,000, while they benefited from the much better delivery schedule which doubleshifting made possible. There was, moreover, a 22 per cent improvement in productivity which provided a platform for rising earnings.
Some people will say that such an exercise is only possible where an industry is expanding. Maybe so, but where the reverse is the case there is still room for producing more quickly and cheaply by saving over
time costs or reducing the hours worked weekly, and there are ways of saved time being made available for other productive work so that the employee does not lose his earning power.
Tailored to suit
It is also essential in any productivity approach to consider each firm's individual situation. In the North West we co-operated in this way by making our suggestions flexible. For example, when consolidated earnings had been decided, we offered a management a choice of ways of doing the job: they could have a five-day week at eight hours a day, or four 10-hour days or any four or five days they chose in the week, excluding Sunday. And it was our practice to go to managements with a suggested scheme that fitted their particular case.
And on salaried status for drivers there are some factors which are all too often overlooked. If the industry wants high standards of staff—particularly in the cab —then it must take a wider view of what that entails. Let me just give one example; Not so very long ago I was regularly approached by drivers who wanted to move into better accommodation than the appalling houses they were renting. They were all earning, with overtime, £1,350 to £1,500 a year and could well afford the houses they wanted, but they were refused mortgages by the building societies because their basic rate was £14 a week. One man, who was making about £28 a week, lost the house he wanted to a salaried clerk earning £15. Can you wonder that I want to see salaries accepted in road transport?