QUELLING THE COMPETIT( NACE IN BEET HAULAGE
Page 22
Page 23
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Final Schedule of Rates for the Haulage of Sugar Beet, The Problem of Dealing with Unfair and Uneconomic Competition ISHOWED, in the previous article that weather conditions and occasional stoppages at the factory were all that could be included in any upward correction of the theoretical schedule of rates. I demonstrated that a fair allowance to cover those two factors would amount to an addition of 10 per cent, to the calculated rates.
Of the other conditions, one of the most important is that which arises when the farmer neglects to stack the beet on hard ground and in a place where it is accessible from a hard road. That can be met by specifying that the standard rates can be expected to apply only When the beet is properly accessible and is on hard ground.
If that condition be not present, then the standard rates should be subject to an addition of not less than 10 per cent. . Another difficulty—that of 'uneven spreading of the loads available within the week—is being tackled by the factory organizations, to which it is almost as much a bugbear as it is,to hauliers. They are providing for it in the permits, specifying that so much beet must be delivered before Wednesday of the week and so much after. That trouble, therefore, is likely to disappear automatically in those districts in which it has hitherto been present.
• Rates that Are Fair to All Parties. • That being so, I submit the rates which are set out in the accompanying Table III, as being fair to all parties to the contract. They show no more than a fair and reasonable profit to the haulier and are not exorbitant to the farmer, or out of proportion to the price he is getting for his beet.
The stumbling block in the way of stabilizing haulage rates is present in beet haulage to, perhaps, a greater extent than in many others. I refer to unfair and uneconomic competition.
Of these, the first to be considered is that of the railways, where they set themselves out to carry beet throughout by road. Experience has shown that in such places they are as ruthless and as utterly regardless of, economics as any. Perhaps, of course, under the new scheme of road and rail co-ordination, things will be different. We shall see. If they be not, then I cannot, £20 any more than anyone else, suggest a remedy for that form of competition.
Next comes the problem of dealing with hauliers who enter any particular area from other districts. This is liable to happen only when, as in the previous campaign, the sugar-beet crop is short, so that there is a Surplus of haulage facilities.
There is a remedy for that, and it is the same as that which I suggest as a means for dealing with the next
example of unfair competition, namely, the incursions of hauliers who are engaged for the greater part of the week in hauling some other commodity, but are able to detach lorries once or twice a week and rush them on to beet haulage.
Before presenting what I believe to be the solution ol these problems, I wish briefly to refer to two other
troubles of the bona-fide beet haulier who knows what rates should be and who would stick to them if he could. The first is formed by the owner-driver who has nc proper idea of what rates ought to be, whose ideas oi profit and loss are nebulous in the extreme. He makes no provision for depreciation, for proper maintenance, or for tyre renewals. He bases his ideas of costs on the money he spends on petrol and oil, and on a minimum wage for himself.
When he has taken his share of the beet that it available—and it is only a small proportion—the rest
will still have to be carried by the more busirress-likt operators at rates upon which they have agreed. II is an easy matter, in these days when the exact tonnagt of every operator is a matter of common knowledge to assess the mischief that can be done, and to dea with it accordingly.
Next, in this tale of troubles, comes the farmer whc has vehicles of his own and who may, therefore, bf
in a position to convey his own beet to the factory, anc who will do so if he imagines that hauliers art endeavouring to oyercharge him for that work. He is obviously, in a position to carry at considerably lest cost than any haulier, quite apart from the fact tha the haulier has to make a profit on his work, for he pay: wages on a scale much lower than any haulier. More
wer, his insurance premiums are less, his Road Fund ax is less, he has little rent to pay (for the vehicle is loused in the farm buildings) and he rarely makes irovision for establishment costs or overheads of any zind.
My own view is that the menace of the farmer is ouch overrated. Few farmers have vehicles suitable or the work, and those who have them have purchased hem, as a rule, with other objects in view. They may Ise them for an occasional load of beet, but not for he whole crop.
A farmer whose holding is sufficiently large to justify iim in owning a lorry big enough to be of any use for leet haulage will have at least 50 acres down to that rop. That means he will have about 550 tons of beet nd dirt to haul to the factory. He will wish to have : moved in about 10 weeks, for it is seldom that the ldividual farther is lifting beet throughout the whole eriod of the campaign, which means that he will have 3 haul an average of not less than 55 tons per week, nd, probably, up to a maximum of 100 tons in a reek. That is not a practicable proposition.
A problem not mentioned in the list I drew up preiously is that of the haulier who, by cutting rates, btains contracts for. the haulage of considerably more eet than he can convey. He upsets any scheme of des stabilization at the beginning of the campaign, nd the fact that he finds himself in trouble later, and as to lose money to those of his competitors to whom e sublets some of his work (assuming, as should be le case, that they refuse to do the work for him at is cut rates he has accepted) is not of much help.
The proper thing to do, with a man of that kind, is to refuse to accept any work from him, so that the farmer is made to see that he is not one to whom he can safely entrust his haulage.
It is my firm conviction that all these difficulties can be eliminated by one method. .I believe, too, that it is the only way in which they can be overcome.
In principle, the method provides for organization of beet hauliers, and the banding together, in respect of each factory, of those who haul to that factory. In detail, the scheme goes farther than that: it involves collaboration with the National Farmers Union, through the representative of the Union at the factory concerned, and with the factory officials.
/ The solution of the problem, in the long run, will be found in Service and organization. It is to the interests of the factory, as well as the farmers, that the beet should be conveyed from the farms to the factories in the most efficient and economic manner.
• How Contracts for Haulage Would be Fixed • Each local association would appoint an executive officer selected from its members, paying him for his work. He would be responsible for the arrangements for the haulage, so far as timing of deliveries is concerned. Contracts for haulage would be entered into only with hauliers approved by the joint committee of this executive officer, a representative from the factory and the representative of the N.F.U.
In this way, over-contracting by rate-cutters would be stopped ; incursions by hauliers not mainly interested in the work could be eliminated; the incursions of hauliers from other districts, in times of shortage of crop, would be made impossible; rates would be fixed, and, eventually I believe, as the result of the more economic and efficient working, the fixed rates would be lowered to such an extent that even the C-licensee farmer would hardly consider it worth his while, except in rare instances, to use his own vehicles for the work.
The scheme is practicable. Hitherto, only jealousy amongst local hauliers has prevented it from being brought into being. I suggest that the minority which is in the way should, for the present, be ignored. The majority, comprising the more responsible hauliers, should make a start. In their dealings with the problem they should not interfere with those who, for the moment, stay outside their organization. S.T.R.