I ao imiT OJT
Page 24
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
If it doesn't pay they won't do it
I WAS SURPRISED at your unqualified editorial support (CM, December 8) for Mr Ridley's bus licensing proposals. Liberalised haulage licensing and the tachograph did not prove to be the disasters predicted by so many — though not by CM. But that proves nothing. Similar doomladen predictions are made about the GLC lorry ban. Would you dismiss these on the same grounds?
Haulage is a purely commercial transaction, with rates and services negotiated by professionals on both sides. Regulation, other than normal commercial law, rightly has no place in this.
But all sorts of social considerations complicate decisions on local public transport. What services should be provided, by whom, and at whose expense? Unlike freight shippers, bus passengers have no negotiating clout. And private operators, quite properly, are in business to make money. So if it doesn't pay they won't do it.
You confidently assert that competition will benefit the aged, infirm, poor and isolated. Why should it? By definition these groups are unlikely to generate the profits which are a private operator's reason for existence. The "frustrated entrepreneurs" you mention who try to make a living out of those markets are likely to end up even more frustrated, as well as poorer.
So the aged, etc, will be neglected. And since most of them have no alternative they will suffer deprivation.
I do not dispute the need for major licensing changes to provide more opportunities for new services. And I agree that vested interests or party political motives underly many of the protests. But the same is true of attempts to treat local public transport as though it were a branch of commerce. It is much more complicated than that.
If he gets away with it Mr Ridley will go down in history as the Marie Antoinette of Transport Ministers, with "Let them eat cake" replaced by the equally heartless "Let them use cars".
REG DAWSON West London
The right pay for the job
WE ARE frequently told that "comparisons are odious", but this advice must rightly be ignored in the cut-and-thrust of business life, and particularly so when it comes to road . haulage. The many facets of this industry now contribute in large measure to the life-blood of this nation.
Recently, considerable publicity was given in the national press to a report comparing the earnings of high and middle management in this country with those in Europe and elsewhere. The United Kingdom did not appear highly in this table.
Covering a wide spectrum, it is impossible to pinpoint senior and middle management in our specific industry, but this is hardly an essential exercise because the role of senior people in road haulage, storage and distribution does not yet rank as highly in the echelons of power as it should. This reflects in pay and conditions, and while there are some notable exceptions, the average does not measure up to the responsibility and importance fleet executives merit.
Looking through the national, trade and miscellaneous advertisement media, one finds the terms offered, if such is the case in the original advertisement, far from over generous. Our role in the future will be increasingly vital to our nation's well being, and the terms and conditions applicable to our key management must be on a level with management in production, administration, etc.
Norms related to inflation must not be' savagely applied. Salaries should fairly represent the responsibility and productivity of the job, both in hard cash and the normally recognised benefits.
Competition in business is healthy and good for the customer. "Competitive salary", as worded in a post in our industry recently, had me wondering if the phraseology was appropriate. My Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary describes "competitive" thus: "Pertaining to or characterised by competition: (of eg, price) such as to give a chance of successful result in conditions of rivalry".
Sentiment? No. It all comes down to competition, and this is a battle to be won.
NIGEL BREEZE Southend-on-Sea, Essex.
Bloodied but unbowed
I AM writing with regard to a report (CM, December 1) with particular regard to the reference made in respect to the Ebro vehicles that were displayed at the recent ICE.
I am amazed that Commercial Motor should make such an issue of the "piggy-back" display which resulted in some "flexing" of one of the two chassis and at the same time virtually ignore the rest of this excellent exhibition. While it is true that the weight of the concrete mixer unit, coupled with the rear overhang of the chassis cab, did cause some flexing of the chassis I am pleased to confirm that there was no permanent damage done to its normal position. This clearly shows that the Ebro chassis has considerable strength and is a credit to the vehicle. You may care to inform some of the less charitable rivals, quoted in your article, of this fact and, furthermore, from the knowledge we have of some of Our competitors, it is questionable whether their products would have performed in quite the same manner. At least one manufacturer, as we are aware, is suffering considerable problems with chassis cracking.
Despite the petty comments made in your article I am pleased to say we took four orders for the short-wheelbase unit incorporating the concrete mixer and the chassis cab, which incidentally is the only line-manufactured model on the UK market, and which, received tremendous interest from many quarters, in particular builders and recovery agents. The vehicle in question is currently being fitted with a recovery-type body and Commercial Motor is invited to examine the chassis member of this particular vehicle at any time.
D. RICHARDS Director Nissan Ebro UK Worthing