Battling with the Board
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WE are in violent disagreement with the Road Transport Industry Training Board, which was set up under the Industrial Training Act, we thought to assist, but we now realize, to hinder and hamper our industry.
These people have the temerity and effrontery to inform us that Messrs L. Gardner and Sons do not conduct an "Approved" course of instruction upon the repair and maintenance Of their own engine, which, of course, is such utter balderdash as to be not worthy of discussion.
We sent two fitters to undergo Gardner's course, and have been endeavouring to claim a grant from the Training Board ever since, but so far without avail.
We enclose copy of a letter which we have dispatched to the so-called Training Board, from which you will observe that we have invited them to sue us, as we refuse to pay the current levy until we have received satisfaction in this matter.
F. ANNIS, Director, p.p. Annis and Co. Ltd., Hayes, Middx, We publish below an extensive extract from Mr. Annis" letter to the RTITB.—Ed.1 "We are in receipt of your letter of the 30th ultimo re the current demand for the Training Levy.
Your people have been repeatedly advised that we flatly refuse to pay this sum until we have received reasonable consideration and the courtesy of a reply to our many and various approaches to you re our claim for the reimbursement of the costs of sending two of our fitters to Messrs Gardners to undergo their course upon the repair and maintenance Of Gardner oil engines, which we use exclusively.
Last time we approached you, somebody at your end had the temerity and the audacity to inform us that Gardner's was not an approved course. Messrs L. Gardner and Sons Ltd., of Barton Hall Engine Works, Patricroft, Manchester, are the manufacturers of the best road transport diesel engine in the world, and as Gardner enthusiasts of 35 years' standing we resent the imputation that Gardners are not capable of operating a good and useful training course, which they have been doing since long before the war, and to which we have resorted all the way through.
Messrs Gardners inform us that they have had a lot of trouble with your people, who make appointments to call at their works to inspect their training facilities, but do not keep them, or turn up; they further advise us that they know of 60 or 70 other Gardner engine operators who are in the same position apropos yourselves, and somebody has got to do something to bring you folks up to the scratch.
Our solicitors have been instructed to accept service of any proceedings which you may care to bring against us, and we shall kick up such a shine over this deplorable example of Government muddle and mismanagement that you might wish finally that you had taken up a more reasonable attitude in the whole matter.
We have paid your demands for levy heretofore, and have not asked for, or received, a penny from you; but when we come along at last to proffer a reasonable request to make a claim, we cannot even elicit the elementary manners or politeness of a reply to our repeated requests for the necessary forms upon which a claim can be made.
We paid you a sum of £860 for your year 1967-68 (we had a fitter at Gardners during this period), and you now demand a sum of (477 for your period 1968-69, but this we decline to pay until something is done about our legitimate and just claim for the two fitters who went to Gardners.
We very much regret the necessity of approaching you in this intransigent manner, but copious correspondence, many, many telephone calls and two visits here on the part of your inspecting officer, do not appear to have evoked the receipt of the requisite claim forms, without which, we are advised, our claim validity cannot be entertained. We are forwarding a copy of this letter to Messrs Gardners, who are just as incensed in the matter as we are. We started this business in 1923, and have never before received such abominable treatment from a Government department.
Frank Annis, director."
Too old at 21
I am 45 years old and have been in transport all my life; I have nothing against the youth of today and I have sons of my own, but I think it is madness to let 18-year-olds handle 32-ton-gross or, even later, 40-ton-gross vehicles. Mind you I would agree on some points which Mr. Williams stated ("Too old at 21?" CM October 10).
What I think is this: put say, 15-year-olds into workshops; show them how a vehicle performs when it's not handled right; train them how to load, rope and sheet a lorry. Don't merely show them how to load containers or oil drums, but load, say, 2,000 cartons of butter—that's graft, and it's still done today. As for this talk about what chaps in the Forces did during the war, driving heavy lorries, flying planes, the point is that when you are in uniform you haven't much choice. I have experienced this myself, But I would say this: we have plenty of good drivers at 18 now. As we know, they can't drive heavy goods vehicles until they are 21. But there's plenty of 16-ton-gross vehicles on the road which are mostly four-wheelers. Why not give these chaps a chance at the middleweights, say up to 6 tons unladen, as surely that roust give them the experience they need? Then when they are 21 they must surely have the competence to drive .the big stuff—anyway, that's how I started.
As regards drifters, I think that when you get in a rut you can't get out; a man takes the job on its conditions of work—he doesn't have to take it. I hope I haven't offended anybody but as an h.g.v. driver I had to speak my mind, I know you can't stop progress but let's bear in mind the safety factor.
A. ELSDON.