1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160 
911 awaited
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Referring to letters in CM January 27, they make interesting reading for me, as I have attempted to preach the very matters concerned, and which now appear to begin to be treated as seriously as they deserve.
About three years ago, I tried to bring such matters up at an area PHA luncheon, but with little effect. I then concluded that the higher echelon could be in cahoots with whatever colour government was in power, even to the extent, as we have often seen, of inviting a socialist Minister of Transport to be the guest of honour, and main speaker, at national dinners.
Since that time, of course, we have had a regular deluge of rules and regulations showered upon us, and still we experience the meek and mild reactions of our Association, whereas it should be obvious that the powers that be understand only the militant attitude as provided by the trade unions.
It must, therefore, be agreed by the majority of those in the industry that we are not going to get this from the Association, and it follows that most of us agree with what is in the letters you have recently published.
I doubt very much, if there are many operators who understand, or even attempt to digest, much of all the bumph presented to our industry over the last few years, or even care unduly about it all.
They are probably content to carry on in isolation and ignorance in the knowledge (rightly or wrongly) that it will be time to become concerned when they are brought to book for breaking some regulation in which, at present, they are not particularly interested, and which they feel they can get out of, perhaps, by paying; which is what we have been doing now for years.
If, of course, we were all making our fortune, the situation might be different, in that we might not wish to forego something worth retaining.
This fact appears to be entirely beyond the comprehension of politicians, which should, on reflection, not surprise us, in view of their past record, especially where competitive business is concerned.
It would be impossible to imagine an industry being encumbered with so many idiotic regulations if it were not fact, and most of us thought up such rubbish as the Employment Protection (Prevention) Act, which can, at best, be of interest only to people not worth employing anyhow? No good employee (and there are still many of them around) has ever needed such absolute tripe.
This industry is still the only one where a person can be convicted and fined for working too long and too hard — we cannot move a load for export unless we have a piece of paper IA whatever the politician think, is only fit for the toilet.
It is perfectly true, at or your correspondents that we should certainh do the amount of worth work we do if we paid absolute attention to all laws that exist, and non us perhaps would engel sufficient profit to rema business.
Of course, basing a decision upon socialisti preachings, this is prob, exactly what they wish only because private enterprise always shovv the failings prevalent w those nationalised, evei those holding a monopc we were out of the way they would have the pla themselves.
There should, howev be some consolation to owner-drivers, in that it appears likely to be a proposition for hauliers pass work to them in preference to engaging labour themselves uncle current regulations, pluo fact that I have worked that it costson employe around £900 or more pe year just to cover Natio! Insurance and holidays, the "privilege" of provil a man with a job.
There could be many operators who, having become perverted over years of biased, idiotic restrictive actions, relea their feelings by simply telling those who inveni all that they are stoppin! operations forthwith, ar them attend to compliar with all the laws they hi produced, and finally ha over to them the residut for them.
This might not, of col be much, but it could be much, maybe, as they IN get by continuing under present legislation, bear in mind that we shall continue to see more as goes by, if only to warra the jobs of all these peol who have nothing bane do.
Finally, I am waiting 1 see results ensuing from 281 miles per day with r tachograph; this could b interesting, if only that could relieve the monott A. G. SAYERS, Director, Sayers Transport Servit I (Newbury) Ltd, Newbury.