Heal Commentary
Page 63
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Mote and the Beam •
By JANUS
T this time hauliers want all the prae they can get and as little criticism as possible. It is regrettable that an unjustified slur is cast upon them merely se of the form in which the Minister of Labour's nal Joint Advisory Council have chosen to present report on " Practice S impeding the full and efficient f manpower." Either the task of dealing with so subject was hopeless from the outset, or the council out it in the wrong way.
y tried to cover the whole range of industry at once. inquiry began with a request from the Minister in 1956, and by the time they were preparing their a little over two years later they had received nation about 112 industries. Reading between the of the report, one may suspect that much of the nation was meagre and one-sided.
council divided the replies they had received into categories. There were industries claiming to have ablems in the way of the effective use of manpower; ries withmachinery in existence or projected for g with problems; and industries that needed more Ind in Some cases had been unable to undertake a examination. An appendix gives the names in each fry, .but there is no list of the industries that are nably most at fault in that they have given no proper to the council's request for information.
a.prOcess not fully explained, the council selected six izations, including the Road Haulage Association, lade them into the third category of industries that failed to get to grips with their restrictive practices. haulage is included because of the difficulties that prevented the full 'implementation of the increase 20 m.p:h: to 30 m.p.h. in the speed limit.
A State of Chassis .
add to the confusion, British Road Services, who , perhaps, an even worse predicament than the indent hauliers, arc placed in the second category. This be taken to mean that the council believe that the nery that deals with labour problems in the ialized transport organization is superior to tatutory Road Haulage Wages Council and the nal Joint Industrial Council. It is more probable le council, as a body, are unaware of what machinery although individuals on the council, such as Frank Cousins, of the Transport and General zrs' Union, and Sir John Benstead, of the British port Commission, must know the position. composition of the council makes them unsuitable le task they were set. They represent so many its that no positive statement could be expected. The fries into which they divide industries are unreal, and port stops just short of being meaningless. It begins 1. reference to the Restrictive Trades Practices Act, introduced legislation to deal with practices operated anufacturers and trade associations. The council, are far from accepting that their own task is to vith the restrictive practices instigated, sanctioned or Led by the trade unions. Instead, they maintain that practices should not be dealt with by legislation, but joint consideration by industry itself." This preii the council from having to make Lents about any of the practices, or even from mning them except in extremely vague terms. nore rewarding approach would have been for the
council to have investigated and classified the actual practices rather than the industries affected. Unfortunately, from the point of view of the council, the mere description of a practice may often seem indistinguishable from the expression of an opinion on it. This might raise obvious difficulties with a body composed of representatives of the British Employers' Confederation, the Trades Union Congress and the management boards of the nationalized industries. Inability to grapple on proper terms with the problem set them, however, has led the council into the absurdity of suggesting, or giving the impression, that somehow hauliers are responsible for the refusal of their drivers to' go on record as driving any heavy goods Vehicle at a speed exceeding 20 tr.,p.h.
The definition of a restrictive practice favoured, by the council is one that goes " beyond what is necessary for the reasonable protection of workers." As so often happens, there is no attempt to suggest what is meant by "reasonable," so that the definition is not of much use. Is it reasonable for drivers to expect more pay because they are covering a greater mileage? If so, is it reasonable that they should get the extra pay irrespective of mileage? Or is it reasonable that drivers of light vehicles unaffected by the change in the speed limit should also have a rise? In view of the likely reply to these questions, the T.G.W.U, should have been in the list with the R.H.A.
Doubtful Encouragement
Fortunately, perhaps both for the.R.H.A. and in general, the report of the council has created little stir. Their conclusion is that "some encouragement can be derived from the results" of their inquiry. There are many people with a wide knowledge of industry who would disagree with 'this. They maintain strongly that there are far too many restrictive practices among workers, and Would regard as somewhat naive the council's satisfaction "that so many industries felt able to report that they were meeting no real difficulties in their efforts to ensure that manpower was efficiently used."
The council might have begun their proceedings by reciting the parable of the mote and the beam. Their inquiries might have produced very different results had they asked each industry to say what restrictive practices it found irksome in other industries. Hauliers and their drivers, although they cannot be completely happy about the position on the speed limit, may well feel more sinned against than sinning. Time is money to them, and many of them find the greater part of their time spent in waiting at docks and in markets.
All that the council's report proves is that an industry • can bear its own restrictive practices much more tolerantly than those inflicted on it from outside. If they had asked for general observations, the council might have been deafened. They would at least have had a list of complaints that could have been classified more usefully than a list of industries. They would at once have circumvented the industry that, possibly with good reason, declined to give information. If there had to be categories, they might have been arranged in accordance with the frequency with which each practice received dishonourable mentions.
The council propose to issue further reports on the subject of restrictive practices. They would be well advised to start again, and to concentrate on the actual practices, with the ultimate object of establishing general principles for dealing with them_