John Wells stirs removers
Page 26
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
tf road transport doesn't put its own house in order,
the Government will do so'
BAR conference reported by John Darker
THE ANNUAL conference of the British Association of Removers at St. Helier, Jersey, got off to a good start on Monday when Mr John Wells, past chairman of the Road Haulage Association, gave a brief opening address but then faced a barrage of questions.
Mr Wells said he greatly welcomed the opportunity to talk to a spezialist section of the industry; he was an exmember both of the RHA and of various other bodies and he hoped soon to be an ex-consultant—he stressed that he was speaking in a purely personal capacity.
Mr Wells said there were furniture removers present from all over the world and he was not aware of their operating conditions, but in the UK road hauliers were talking a fair amount of doom and gloom. In transport this created classic conditions for rate cutting.
Despite the economic conditions, said Mr Wells, newcomers still wished to enter the industry and such people were often the worst rate cutters. They knew little about costing and the proper use of costs. But despite the difficulties he wished to preserve the free market concept; he did not wish to see licensing on the pattern operating before 1968 to be reintroduced, as that would create a "cartellized" structure.
What was needed was the restoration of an adequate profit situation. The freedom known by the industry since 1968 had been a heady draught. Some firms had extended too fast He felt the transport industry itself should control its newcomers and he advocated publication of a register of operators. Thereafter the industry should say to the world: these are the people who observe the best standards and are able to give the best possible customer service. Continuing, Mr Wells said that high professional standards required rates that were truly relevant to cost. The industry for years had not been paid enough, for it worked in a difficult environment of constrictive laws. That was what he meant by the title of his address: "What price the future?"
Who shall control ?
Mr Geoff Pygall, Pickfords, said his ideas on licensing differed from Mr Wells', What Mr Wells said about the necessity for profit had been urged in the removals industry for the past 50 years and it was still a matter for concern. Removers were especially vulnerable to new, small competitors often working from their awn home. He felt strongly that licensing on the old basis, requiring proof of need, was called for. Too many vehicles chased too little traffic. Government regulation for the industry was the only solution.
Mr Wells said that Government control would be the worst thing that could happen. Unless the industry could conStruck its own rules and conducted itself responsibly, Government would undoubtedly intervene and road haulage would not like the result. If proof of need for ownaccount operators as well was introduced he would be inclined to agree with Mr Pygall. Four fifths of the industry was covered by the own-account sector. The one fifth of professional haulage carried half of the traffic, said Mr Wells.
Mr G. Skelton (Pickfords) said we might have to face quantity licensing on the lines of the EEC rules. Mr Wells said •he thought that Brussels was moving towards the British position of a liberal transport policy. The German ideas on tariffication were tempting —though rail protection was the basis of them—but we should continue to press for a liberal transport policy in Brussels. More permits were needed for British operators. Brussels muSt be convinced that we needed a free transport market.
• Mr Michael Gerson (Michael Gerson Ltd) wondered whether, if harmonization continued, forked tariffs would help us.
Mr Wells said he thought we should stay in Europe though he believed little progress had been made with transport policy in the past year. He hoped that forked 'tariffs would be abandoned in international traffic for there were so many exceptions that the concept was meaningless. The multiplicity of operations would make it a nightmare to administer in Britain. But it was still necessary to make operators aware of the importance of costs and their relevance to rates.
Mr Pygall asked how this was to be done. The removals industry, he said, had a fine record in educational and training matters but there were still 'many examples of absurd rate cutting.
Mr Wells said a two-pronged attack was called for. The industry would not save itself by increasing rates that were already iinadequate as .a basis. That would not produce sufficient profits to renew the vehicles that in two or three years time would be prohibitively expensive.
The second point, said Mr Wells, was the creation of a register of approved hauliers and Other bodies such as forwarding agents and warehousemen; with this must go a large-scale publicity campaign encouraging the public to buy transport only from approved concerns. Eventually a better industry would be formed but it would not be a closed Shop. Government control, said Mr Wells, would not solve the problem. lit must be remembered that many transport firms began as one-man enterprises.
Mr G. Steele (Martells) said removers sold packing skills as well as transport. He was greatly concerned that any unqualified person could set up as a remover arid advertise in the Yellow Pages in telephone directories. He thought the situation would be better if the register required firms to give proof of skill.
Mr Wells said that was What he meant by register qualifications. The building trade with their National Housebuilders Counoil had been a great success in that home buyers could not get a mortgage without buying from an approved builder. Though it would take a long time he wanted to see a similar system in operation in road transport.
Mr Arthur Edwards (Bullens) asked Mr Wells about the Transport Manager's Licence idea. Mr Wells said that this used the registration requirement to bring about a situation the industry should achieve on its own. He added that if a system were introduced it would not be very onerous initially. Mr David Trenchant (Trenchards (Bournemouth)) said 'the public that removers dealt with was unsophisticated. The industry needed legislative protection from the operators of under-30cwt vehicles.
Removers were in no worse plight than parcels operators, said Mr Wells. BAR issued booklets on charging and pricing and from this platform it should be possible to devise an advertising campaign persuading the public to use reputable firms in the same way as the travel industry had done.
Mr Michael Scott (Pitt and Scott Ltd) said it was wrong to compare removers with the travel industry, which was subject to licensing. Mr Wells had not told the conference very much as yet, Removers already had minimum standards for membership and much work had been done on costings but it had not prevented competition by newcomers with little knowledge of the industry. Whilst it might be possible for more group advertising to be done this would depend on the response of individual firms.
Mr Wells said he still felt it would be nonsensical to bring back licensing legislation. It would frustrate entrepreneurial drive.
Nationalisation ?
Mr F. E. Porter (Stuttafords International, Johannesburg) felt that firms producing an adequate standard could set their own price, He felt South African competition was at least as great as anything experienced in the UK. Mr I. Wilson (J, Wilson Pty, Australia) suggested that any encouragement for the Government to regulate the industry would probably induce the Government to nationalise it.
Mr Wells agreed. Nationalisation, he suggested, was an almost dead duck. But in transport State ownership operated under the discipline of competition with the private sector; this was to the benefit of NFC companies and the private hauliers.
Mr Jerry Cirker (Cirker Moving and Storage Company, New York) said upstart operators were something of a problem in America but an official of their regulating body was able to argue against new men entering the industry without proper credentials. Some newcomers charged $12 instead of $40 an hour. There were doubts in America as to the future course of policy to prevent this kind of thing.
Mr K. Darvall (Robert Darvall Ltd) suggested that inflationary wages greatly contributed to the industry's problems. In Scotland, Scottish hauliers had wanted to dig in but their customers said "We're being strangled, you must settle with the delvers."
This reminded Mr Wells of constant battles with dock labour. Ship owners eventually urged dock management to settle, because they could not otherwise berth their ships, Mr N. McIntosh (John McIntosh and Son Ltd) complained of the competition experienced in Scotland by English removers travelling over the border and cutting rates. This was despite the 30 per cent rise in wages enforced upon Scottish employers.
Mr Wells thought there was more commonality in wages throughout the country today than ever before.
Mr John Hollander (Hollander Storage and Moving Co, Chicago) said of regulating bodies that they were composed of human beings. They were no more honest or motivated than other people, they represented many interests including the Government.
Heal thyself
Mr Wells said be came back again and again to the point that the road haulage industry must regulate itself or endure unpoplar Government control.
Mr J. Luxford (H, F. Luxford and Sons) said he hated discipline but removers were subject to heavy goods vehicle licensing, plating, etc and what upset him was that the "30cwt boys" could operate day and night with virtually no red tape. If a Luxford or Pickford vehicle was on the motorway at night it might well be stopped, to query drivers' working hours. The small competitors were lucky to escape the controls of the established operator.
Mr Ken Berger (Alfred Bishop and Son) said that •the crucial point was that removers had to search for new customers every day, unlike road hauliers Who could often rely on a continuity of work.
Mr D. Trenchard (Trenchard, Bournemouth Ltd) said he could not understand why the law was so lax in relation to the under-30cwt operators. His company had tried to stop lightweight operators going to Scotland and back with removals in two days. No way could be found to prevent this abuse.
Mr Wells thought the answer was to persuade customers to patronize qualified removers. The answer was not more regulation.
In a panel discussion on labour relations with Mr Tony Richman as chairman supported by Don Bishop, Jack Johnson, Joe Luxford and Hugh Wilson, Mr Neil McIntosh said he felt the industry needed more help from BAR to combat professional union activity.
• Mr Richman said that if the industry operated together he feared they would create a rod for their own back.
Mr D. Trenchard asked what could be done to prevent a deterioration in the "us and them" situation.
Mr Luxford said that speaking as an operator in the poorer part of Surrey he felt that the gap between masters and men was tending to widen. It was necessary to remember that employees were also people.
Mr Jack Johnson (Sells of Hull) suggested that, up to six men firms, experienced few labour relations problems but big firms with a series of depots were in a difficult position.
In his 30-vehicle depot where half the vehicles were on the move there was a healthy relationship brought about partly by profit sharing and everyone was on Christian name terms with the boss. Money, said Mr Johnson, was not everything. At least five of his staff of 60 had earned more money with other firms.
Mr Don Bishop said it was necessary for employers to understand the domestic problems faced by workers today.
Information, please
Mr J. Tarsey, the new president of BAR, asked whether the labour relations committee was getting enough information from members for the compilation of the regular quarterly survey of wage rates. The chairman, Tony Richman, regretted that the response of members had fallen off and he urged members to complete the forms and send them via the area secretary so that headquarters were aware of the relative wages paid in various areas.
In a closing debate on "removers and the public" introduced by Mr Len Cox (chairman, fair-trading committee) the 'likely consequences of tougher legislation protecting consumers was discussed. A speaker from the Office of Fair Trading had addressed BAR at the recent autumn conference. It was clear that the Fair Trading Act would not go away, and removals came under the very Wide scope of services covered by the Act.
Next week: A second report on the BAR conference discussions.