WILL THEY?
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WON'T THEY?
ill you, won't you, will you, won't you, will you join the dance.. .renewed talk of a possible marriage between the FTA and the RHA (see page 6) reminds us of the Mock Turtle's invitation to Alice. The associations are rather like elderly spinsters who've tried, unsuccessfully, to get each other up the aisle. Now RHA chairman Bob McKinnon has bravely said the Iwo would be better off wed. We agree with him. Divided trade associations signal divided intentions, no matter how hard the FTA and RHA might argue otherwise. It ill-serves an already fragmented and under-represented industry like road transport to have two trade associations fighting for the rights of truck operators, while fighting each other for members. And despite all their different services and benefits, neither has been successful in persuading the vast, silent majority, of 0-licence holders to join them. Even allowing some benefit of the doubt, their combined membership is little more than a third of all 0-licence holders. So on what statistical mandate do they claim to speak For the industry? Meanwhile, the thousands of operators who are members have one simple thing in common with the thousands of who aren't: they all run trucks as part of their businesses. Ample reason, if reason were needed, to join forces. Both associations might claim, with justification, that you can't represent an industry that doesn't want to be represented. But to accept that premise is to surrender to apathy. If the industry is to have the unified voice it so desper ately needs it must hove a uni fied trade association. Now, more than ever before, an FTA/RHA marriage is not just desirable it's vital. "If any man here knows of any just impedi ment why these two should not be joined together let him speak now, or for ever hold his peace..."