AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Roads to professionalism in road transport

31st October 1969
Page 65
Page 66
Page 65, 31st October 1969 — Roads to professionalism in road transport
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

THERE ARE many signs that the Road Transport Industry Training Board is running into some very heavy weather. After listening to two attacks on the Board's competence last week it seems reasonable to suggest that some people in the industry are deliberately sowing mines with the firm intention of sinking the Wembley-berthed RTITB ship without trace.

In last week's presidential address by Mr. Gordon M. Steele to the National Association of Furniture Warehousemen and Removers he described a recent visit to Motec 1, at High Ercall, for the -official opening by Princess Anne. The official opening was a merely formal occasion: the centre was fully described by the technical Press months ago (CM February 28). Hundreds of students from all parts of the industry, including foremen and other staff from removals firms„ have passed through the first

• Motec in recent months. I should be very surprised indeed if all the students have not profited greatly from the experience. If this is so, their respective employers—and the customers served—will have benefited to some degree from the facilities and instruction provided at High Ercall.

But Mr. Steele—and by inference Mr. John Tarsey (BAOFR president), Mr. Geoff. Pygall (IFWRI chairman), Mr. Hugh Wilson (general secretary NAFWR) and . three other representatives of the removers—was somewhat horrified, by what he saw, He summed up his impressions of his conducted tour of Motec I in these words in his presidential address last week: "I can only say, gentlemen, that in my opinion, and that of my colleagues, the 'set-up' was most lavish, and the whole cost of Motec must have been appalling—possibly getting on for Lim at a quick guess.

"I will not hazard a mess at the annual operating cost of this Motec, but, of one thing I am certain—it is a great deal of money and that, gentlemen, is our money—yours and mine. I shudder to think of the cost as and when more Motecs are created. I strongly deprecate a system whereby our money is spent so freely, and without us having a say in the matter, and we are then politely presented with a bill, in the form of the levy, which we have a statutory obligation to pay." Educational facilities Mr. Steel's broadside is understandable in that the removers have for long taken education and training seriously. He reminded the conference that the removal trade had provided educational facilities for clerical workers since 1929, and one of the first tasks of the industry's Institute—on its foundation in the Thirties—was the provision of instruction for estimators and junior management. Operative schools, commenced in 1959, were still held in eight areas of the UK annually. Since 1963 foremen-instructors' courses had been held, and the Institute now sponsored general management courses at Leicester Polytechnic.

One would not wish to dissent from Mr. Steele's praise for the voluntary effort of many devoted individuals in providing and staffing courses long before the Industrial Training Act was on the statute book. How far, however, should criticism go?

In pointing out the apparent unfairness of the levy system which involves the road haulage and removals sector in the 'paying out of £3.13m for a return, in the form of grants, of Pim, Mr. Steele was in good company. Many leaders of the industry have also condemned this imbalance. What seems particularly galling to road transport spokesmen is the splendid bargain achieved by the motor trade. This sector of the industry received in grants last year £5.8m in return for a levy contribution of £4.4m, Levy structure Mr. Steele argued that haulage, removals and warehousing was in effect subsidizing the motor trade—"a state of affairs which is completely unacceptable to NAFWR," he said. "The logical deduction, therefore, is that the RTITB levy should be put on a proper differential basis immediately, not on the unrealistic basis of company size, but on the realistic cost of the training given to the three quoted sections of the transport industry". Mr. Steele, very angry by now, did not merely ask that Mrs. Barbara Castle at the Department of Employment and Productivity should review the levy structure immediately. He demanded it, with all possible emphasis.

Natural as it is that the road haulage sector should wish to halve its levy contribution, allowing other sectors to pay their full whack for the training they are receiving, on a wider view it is possible to argue that there are many precedents for apparently inequitable financial treatment.

The Government is currently preoccupied with the age-old problem of subsidies for rural and off-shore island transport of goods and passenger transport. Furniture removers in the Orkneys and similar remote islands will no doubt hope that taxpayers are compelled by the central Government to subsidize shipping freight costs, thereby softening the impact of many imported supplies.

If strict logic applied, occupants of remote rural communities would pay the earth for the privilege of being on the telephone. Water and electricity costs would be prohibitive. That this is not so is due solely to the good sense of generations of legislators. London Transport's fares deficit has been liquidated by the general body of taxpayers.

No doubt when Sir Rowland Hill introduced the penny post many economic pundits condemned the plan as grossly unfair to some section's of the community. Why charge residents in the Home Counties Id, postage when the real cost may have been less than td? The benefit to populations hundreds 'of miles from London who would otherwise have had to pay Is or more to meet the real cost of the letter post was soon apparent to the people deriving benefit from a' socialized activity. The RTITB's TASC force has already discovered that the efficiency of garages studied is generally appallingly low. Any improvement in the efficiency of workshop organization will contribute, directly or indirectly, to the efficiency of the road haulage industry. Until both the garage trade and road hauliers can recruit sufficient competent fitters the real challenge of the Transport Act 1968—to operate vehicles safely and within the law—cannot be faced with much prospect of success on an industry-wide basis.

Manpower survey The recent manpower survey carried out by the RTITB revealed that the vehicle distribution and repair side of the industry will need to recruit an additional 100,000 staff between now and 1973; 25,000 of these recruits will be in the craft /technician grades; 19,000 Managers and supervisors will be needed on the maintenance side alone. Who can say how many of the necessary recruits will be poached—or will freely move—froM the road transport sector?

The survey shows that the removals sector of the industry enjoyed-4f that is the word—a labour turnover (wastage) rate of 48 per cent in 1968. On any count, such losses are prohibitive, for the incidence of the loss goes right across the removals industry—management, drivers, commercial and clerical staff and "others" (presumably parkers and porters). How many of the staff so laboriously trained by removers have gone elsewhere? Robust as was Mr. Steele's criticism of the RTITB, .Group Captain T. Trotter, of ahtay Ltd., Aldershot, in almost the final words spoken at the conference, went much further. After commending the vigour of the president's attack on the RTITB and on the size of the levy, he said: "Surely we want complete dismemberment of this naive experiment? Ile dream was splendid; the actuality is disaster."

'Empire-building'

Get:11'p Captain Trotter referred to the .unrestricted empire-building of the RTITB, and he poured scorn on the quality of its staff, implying that all were "throw-outs" from their original industries. He ended by quoting the story front Gulliver's Travels in which Gulliver describes an uncomfortable night in a flea-ridden bed. "If all the fleas had beet" unanimous they could have pushed me out of bed." "Therefore," said Group Captain Trotter, "if we are unanimous the RTITB can be pushed from their self-made featherbed."

British audiences are generally tolerant to a fault; Group Captain Trotter's effective oratory was applauded. No one shouted rtibbish. Yet can it be seriously entertained that the RTITB—and all the other 30-odd Training, Boards—can be swept away by rhetoric?

That these attacks on the RTITB should have occurred on the very day the removers had listened to, and greatly appreciated, a lecture on "Professionalism in Road Transport," bk Mi.. G. K. Newman, director-general,, Road Haulage Association, may seem a paradox. .for I know of no profession that does not take training and education' seriously. F How can-the road transport industry-1 quote Mr. Newman—"gain acceptance, by hard and patient work, of the highest standards of competence, honesty and integrity in all transactions, and to create an atmosphere of trust and confidence without which .no trade or occupation can hope to graduate to itrofessional status", if it is not only distrustful of the RTITB ,but—as Group Captain Trotter urges—wants to abolish the Board completely? Has the RIM no part to play in developing "the highest standards of competence?" Of course it has.

Mr. Newman referred to the effects of the new operator's licence "with its criterion of ability to operate responsibly in substitution for the old and sometimes spurious 'proof of need'." The TML, said Mr. Newman. , "with the education and training which will increasingly be involved, will prove perhaps the most potent of all the generators of

professionalism in transport. . ." Does anyone seriously suggest that the RTITB will have no part. to play in training for the higher standards of professional transport management that must stem from the TML concept?

One asitect of professionalism discussed by Mr. Newman concerned labour relations: "The professional Will Certainly have to play an active part in establishing and keeping in thorough repair his relationship with his employees. Industries, more than ever today, are partnerships, and perhaps the future professional will be more inclined than his forebears to examine very, seriously indeed schemes of profit-sharing and co-partnership which, I believe, will ultimately do more than anything else to establish and perpetuate the sort of relationship which a professional employer ought to have with those who work with and for him."

Despite Mr. Newman's plea for co-partnership, with which I have some sympathy, the sad fact remains that in the last 40 years such schemes have been thoroughly canvassed and in a f6/ isolated cases they are tolerably successful. As Mr. Newman stressed, the trade unions are very hostile to the concept. By saying "there is a devil of a lot in it from the employers' point of view" Mr. Newman—in these days of "participation" when the trade unions are an estate of the realm--,--ruled out any possible large-scale adoption of co-partnership schemes, though that is not to say there is not a future for such schemes in the small and medium-sized firms, predominating in road transport.

Co-partnership,

But propagandists for co-partnership ventures must fade the justifiable scepticism of trade unionists. Employees have no objection to sharing in profits, but what about the losses? Are wages to be pegged, or even reduced, because a co-partnership firm, however well managed, meets a rough patch? I confess that I have not heard of any road transport firm that is run on co-partnership principles; perhaps Mr. Newman has converted some of the 18,000 RHA members to his philosophy without my knowledge,. If so, I will gladly make amends if details are made available.

A ' final, comment 4. Mr. Newman's 'deserves to be pondered by those in the industry who do want to move towards professiorialism. It referred to the preparation of a code of conduat for member firms—a customary feature of professional bodies. It might be necessary to kick people out of associations if they don't comply with minimum standards, said Mr. Newman. He added: "The RHA is beginning to think about that".

I hope the deliberations will not last until the next century, Mr. Newman! There are a number of roads to professionalism in road transport. There may be some justifiable doubts about some aspects of RTITB policy, but any criticism of the standards of training of the competence of individual training officers should surely be tempered with understanding and tolerance. It could be argued that the Board—as for example with its TASC approach—is leaning over backwards to ensure that the medicine it has to prescribe is really fitted to the needs of the 60,000 patients. I cannot conceive of a professionalized road transport industry without the RTITB—or something better and more expensive.


comments powered by Disqus