OPINIONS and Q UERIES SHOULD'EXTRA VEHICLES GO TO EX-SERVICEMEN ?
Page 37
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I DO not share your editorial views, expressed in a leadLing article "Cutting 'Excess Haulage Capacity," in the issue of your journal dated August 31, in connection with established hauliers having priority in retaining the additional vehicles obtained under defence permits.
Newcomers to the industry during the war, who have had DO war service or similar part-qualifying service, must fight their own individual cases, but demobilized, men, who are capable of running one or two vehicles on their own account, should be given preference to any established haulier.
The argument' that these established people have done good war work, under hardship conditions, is very thin. Their employees may have done so, but their greatest hardship has been E.P.T.
Hauliers who had three or four lorries before the war, and now have eight or more, have, in the majority of cases, made large profits (not merely reasonably profitable business). Many of these proprietors are not above military age, have enjoyed a good living, freedom from serious enemy attack, and are in a position to retire with a comfortable income for life.
These men will be brought to earth if ex-Servieemen be permitted to,acquire the additional licences for the district which will be necessary when all lorries on defence permits have been taken from the "established " hauliers.
The ex-Servicemen could be given the opportunity— if they be found suitable in business experience—of purchasing, at an economic price, any lorry, on " permit " surplus to hauliers' pre-war status, thus involving no capital loss to the vendor, and avoiding any surplus tonnage coming into being.
In conclusion, I am dead against any war-tip-to haulier
having any advantage over' the Service man. Any privileges going should be the exclusive rights of the men who have fought for them under terrible conditions,
."Bognor Regis. L. M. COLLYER (Ex-Service). WHO SHOULD PAY FOR V.E. AND V.J. HOLIDAYS AM a haulage contractor with 13 employees. I give
my workers a week's holiday with pay and pay them for every Bank Holiday.which make a total of 14 days' holiday every year.„. It recently cost me £50 for Y.E. and V.J. days, with another day to come. The Government has allowed other 'concerns the money necessary, so why not thc haulage contractor? We have carried on through the war years the same as other firms.
Some weeks ago I had the wages inspector at my garage to ask all my men what wages they were getting and if I paid them for all the holidays and V.E. days; but when I asked him who paid me, he said that this had nothing 'whatsoever to do with him. I do not think that we are being treated fairly over this matter.
St. Helens. W. HANcock.
A HAULIER'S VIEWS ON GOVERNMENT WITHOUT wishing to start a political argument in " " our " journal, I would like to comment on a subtle insinuation in your leader of September 14, which seems to be a worry to quite a number of people in view of the change of government, viz., the effect of the trade unions on future policy.
Could we be grieved, really, if the T.Us. did actually control the Government to a large eictent, bearing in mind the fact that they represent roughly' 75 per cent.' of the people?
I submit that the governing of this country has, for centuries, been in the hands of big business—combines, stock exchanges, banks, etc.—who, together, form a small minority.
I nearly used the word "privileged," but on second , thoughts it is misleading. I must have been privileged to scrape a living in a rotten world for close on 40 years/ . Hull. ALST. E. JAMESON
(for Eadon Haulage). MAJOR PALMER REPLIES TO HIS CRITIC I WOULD like you to convey my sincere regards to 'Captain P. B. W. Cox for his criticisms, which are ever welcome, be they kindly or otherwise.
My letter in your issue dated July 27, to which he refers, was posted on Jelly 13—two weeks before anyone would have been rash enough to bet on a clear majority for the Labour Party. My forecast of nationalization was not made in anticipation of this, as I am perfectly convinced that it was a certainty, whatever might have been the result of the Election.
My views were provoked, by some comments in this journal on the question as to who should service vehicles of the haulage industry, and it seemed to me that here was just another example of internaldisagreement which has strengthened the argument against our indei5endence.
Had the interior economy of the industry been above reproach, it would not have been necessary for the enforcement of the Road Traffic Act (1930) and the Road and Rail Traffic Act (1933) to pull us into line. During those years, our house was definitely in disorder, as witness the rate-cutting policy indulged in by operators of every class and kind, regardless of the elementary principles of economics.
1 agree with my friend that the war effort of the haulage industry has been magnificent, but would point out that the co-operative value was brought into effect through government influence and direction.
I would like to assure him that, whatever my views may be, they do not presume to represent those of a mythical body of hauliers. They are based on 17 years' contact with the industry as an operator and a hirer. They are also based on nearly six years of hard fighting in the traffic courts throughout the country.
If Captain Cox has the opportunity, I would like him to read my article in " The Commercial Motor" of August 10, in which I submit an alternative to the policy of nationalization.
I would remind him that my efforts and sympathies have always been on the side of the little man—the victim of monopolies and exploitation—and that I would prefer, for that reason, to see the industry turned over to public control rather than that it should disappear into the pockets of, say, half a dozen combines.
London, S.W,11. (MAJOR) E. W. N. PALMER
(late 60th Rifles).
MORE SUGGESTIONS TO BRITISH MAKERS WHEREVER I go, my one and only interest is road 1'Y transport. Lately I have been transferred to the Middle East, and it grieves me sorely to see so few British trucks in Palestine, Egypt and Syria. Surely they are the equal of, or often better than, many foreign vehicles, so why are they not more prevalent?
After a little talk with local hauliers, I have found that British makers lag behind mainly in propaganda, advertising, the supply of spares, and, so far as design is concerned, in suspension and steering. There seems to be a general complaint from foreign and Empire users regarding these two points in design.
It is frequently claimed that the engine-change plan, as operated by several American makers, is superior to ours. The paintwork and finish of American vehicles are also made to stand up to all climates and last longer than do some of ours. Here in Egypt it is comparatively easy to obtain American spares; but to ask for a spare for a British vehicle is like demanding gold.
The average contractor believes that Britain will not be able to find a ready market unless our manufacturers can produce vehicles more revel, as regards price, with "I
those of America and other nations, make much better arrangements for the supply of spares, send more representatives and experts to give suitable and reliable information, put more power underneath the bonnets, and arrange for better engine-cooling systems.
On our trucks of 5 tons downwards, the braking systems ought to be improved, and two-speed rear axles would be a great advantage in hilly country.
There is a big demand and a large scope fox refrigerated trucks to carry fruit and meat. They are needed far more here than in cool climates.
American makers are advertising fairly extensively in our Empire markets, but I see little publicity concerning
British products. J. W. BATEMAN. Levant Forces.
TRANSPORT NATIO NALI ZATIO N WOULD BRING DISASTER I HAVE read, in your issue dated September 7, the reply 1-of Mr. J. A. Dunnage to my criticisms of his previous article. Obviously he had read into my remarks, regarding his disruptive policy, a good deal more than they were intended to convey. The purpose of my previous letter was to refer to two questions, and only two, namely, nationalization and the need for unity among all operatorg.
On the question of nationalization Mr. Dunnage has (in his own words) revised his thoughts and his forecast for the next few years. All the same, he still implies that nationalization is farther off than I imagine it to be.
For the first time I am accused of being a defeatist. I will leave it to others who know me better to be my judges in this matter, but would suggest that the person who is afraid to face up to the facts and would prefer to put off the fight until it be too late, can be more correctly described as such. For my part I would see the whole road-transport industry bring itself deliberately to a standstill rather than submit to the policy of transport nationalization, which I believe would bring disaster to this country. With action, following upon complete unity in our industry, I believe that we should win our fight for free enterprise in a very short time, but if we are to do so. complete unity is essential.
For several years we were told by the Government and the Trade Press that we should unite our trade associations and speak with one voice, as this was our one hope of survival. Now that something very nearly approaching the desired unity has been achieved, we find people like Mr. Dunnage trying to split our industry into two sections, which is only playing into the hands of the advocates of nationalization, As for suggesting that I would like to silence all who disagree with me or to request "The Commercial Motor" to suppress news of fresh developments, nothing is farther from the truth.
The new Road Haulage Association is still very young, and within this Association there is always room for the free expression of opinions, for fresh developments, for new ideas and for new leaders if need be. As a Briton, I (and many others) would always be prepared to subordinate my own views and accept the majority viewpoint in order to secure unanimity in public action and policy. This being so, I decline to start a controversy with Mr. Dunnage on all the variety of themes upon which he would like a disrupted industry to fiddle while Rome burns.
So far as discussion outside the R.H.A. is concerned I prefer to stick to the two main points which I mentioned, namely, the great questions of (a) nationalization and (la) unity. London, S.E.1. LEONARD V. WARD, Director (for L. V. Ward and Co.; Ltd.).