1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152 
k brighter image for removers Ind concern about membership
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The justification of spending nearly 10,000 a year as a subscription to FIDI — re international association of removers — as well ventilated at the annual meeting of le British Association of Removers at [arrogate on Monday. Some overseas tembers felt that BAR could provide an iequate forum for international removers rid that it was ludicrous for BAR members ) contribute a third of FIDI's revenue while nly exercising perhaps one-seventh of oting control.
Others thought that FIDI — which had een founded largely on the initiative of the ritish overseas removers — could be constituted if a fairer voting system were itroduced based on proportional represenition — yielding more power to larger ountries to determine policy.
English-speaking
Mr Michael Gerson, a BAR apresentative on the governing board of ID!, said BAR had over 1000 member rms but only 56 were represented at Iarrogate. There were over 300 overseas ompanies in the organization but only 33 rms were represented. "We are an 7.nglish-speaking forum. We are dreaming if le kid ourselves we're holding an -rternational conference."
k new sub-committee BAR could not take over the work done )y FIDI, said Mr Gerson. It should be emembered that FIDI, with 900 members, nanaged to attract 150 or 200 firms from ill parts of the world to its meetings.
The conference decided to appoint a ;Jib-committee of seven members to nvestigate the shortcomings of FIDI and to nake proposals for reform.
When the home section of BAR met, tribute was paid to the sterling work of the first president, Mr Gilbert Over, who had helped to consolidate BAR from its constituent bodies NAFWR and BAOFR. Mr Roland Barrett, of The Old House (Removals) Ltd, Seaford, installed as new BAR president, said the theme for the year was a better public image for removers. Public relations consultants (Quarrington, Curtiss and Company, Southampton) would stress the reliability and justification for public confidence in the work done by member firms. The association's journal, Removals and Storage, would also be produced by the PR firm.
The continuing threat
Mr Barrett said the menace of the small, under-30cwt vehicle operator continued to worry established removers. He was convinced removers could best safeguard their reputation by retaining experienced. staff, by paying good wages.
Reporting on the work of the overseas group, Mr Roy Taylor said a major decision had been to join FEDEMAC — the removers' federation in Common Market countries. To influence the EEC officials at Brussels it was essential for British removers to play a prominent role in FEDEMAC since legislation was imminent in various fields affecting removers.
Mr L. J. Terry (LEP Transport Ltd) was elected chairman of the Overseas Group of BAR and Mr F. W. Hoult (Hoults Ltd, Newcastle) vice-chairman.
Where now?
Arising from earlier discussions on the annual accounts of BAR (which had shown a deficit of £234 despite two recent increases in members' subscriptions) a debate: "Where should the BAR go from here?" was introduced by Mr Michael Scott and Mr Max Godfrey.
Mr Scott outlined the scope for full or affiliate membership and suggested that the ethics committee, and particularly the area committees which vetted new applicants for membership, should be more flexible.
He felt that the only relevant qualification, in practice, was the willingness of a member to obey the by-laws. Other factors, such as the possession of vehicles for particular kinds of premises, were irrelevant.
BAR, said Mr Scott, should require of new members: 1, Knowledge of removals practice, including transport and insurance aspects; 2, the ability to provide reliable services to the public; and 3, an assurance that new members — even if part of a larger grouping — were free to make their own business positions.
Given such simple criteria and much more rapid "vetting" of prospective newcomers, BAR could expect to cater for much more than a third of the people actually undertaking removals today.
Mr Max Godfrey, a member of BAR's ethics committee, said his views coincided with those of Michael Scott but were at variance with the traditional views of BAR members on expanding the membership.
Falling membership The annual accounts showed disturbing trends, with increased costs of £12,000 despite £8000 more from subscriptions. The membership had fallen by 10 per cent in the past two years. If nothing was done, said Mr Godfrey, BAR could be an operational branch of the Road Haulage Association quite soon. The only way to avoid this fate was for BAR to grow.
In the discussion following, Mr Hugh Wilson, general secretary, said new recruits came through areas, and HQ had not, in the past, concerned itself with recruitment. If members in the areas wanted HQ to canvass firms for membership they must realize the implications. Removals firms which some members would regard as unsuitable might be admitted. A meeting of area officers in June, said Mr Wilson, could usefully discuss the question of expanded membership.
One member present said the old NAFWR insignia (soon to be replaced by a new BAR symbol) was still painted on a removals vehicle operated by a junk shop proprietor. Mr Godfrey said it was surely commonsense to paint out the membership sign when disposing of the vehicle. Mr G. J. Skelton, managing director, Pickfords Removals Ltd, said one objective of membership was increased profitability. He was seriously concerned at the cost of BAR membership compared with its benefits. He was also worried by the number of removals firms contemplating joining one of the van lines. He believed such firms could more sensibly support BAR and not encourage van lines to spread in Europe like that other pest from America — bubble gum.
Mr Michael Scott (who is secretary of Eurovan, a new European van line), in a tart retort to Mr Skelton, said van lines existed to help member firms to work together more effectively in their mutual interests. "As the head of one of the biggest van lines in the country you're well qualified to talk about this."
(A further report from the BAR conference will appear in CM next week).