One Too May
Page 33
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ACRACK has appeared in the solid facade of organized free-enterprise road haulage. At present it is no greater than a hair's breadth, but unless it is quickly repaired, it may penetrate the surface and begin a process of disintegration in a unified industry.
It has been caused by the proposal to revive and extend the sphere of the Wholesale Meat and Provisions Transport Association, a war-time organization that has been dormant since the end of hostilities. It has been composed mainly of London meat carriers chartered to the former Meat Transport Organisation, Ltd., and claims still to have about 100 members, many of whom also belong to the Road Haulage Association.
The decision of the W.M.P.T.A. to canvass meat operators throughout the country was taken at the annual general meeting, and the executive committee of about 12 members was instructed to set the wheels in motion. The Association will not, however, divulge its reason for doing so.
Watching the Cat The proposal came to the notice of the R.H.A., which, on September 25, asked the London Association to meet the meat contracting hauliers' functional group committee to discuss ways of representing the interests of W.M.P.T.A. members in the proceedings of the functional group committee. The reply, dated November 1, was that they were "not quite ready" for such a meeting, and that the Association's Attitude towards the invitation would depend on the response of hauliers to the suggestion that it should be expanded into a national body.
This answer implies that if adequate support is found, the W.M.P.T.A. will snap its fingers at the R.H.A., but if its canvass is unsuccessful, it may 'be willing to discuss airy dissatisfaction that its members may feel with the R.H.A.'s work.
The circular sent last week by W.M.P.T.A. to meat carriers is singularly uninformative. It gives no indication of the services proposed to be 4 offered to prospective members, and The Commercial Motor has failed to obtain any information on the subject. In the letter, the main justification for the proposal to create a new national organization seems to be that the " sacrosanct " minutes adopted when the 20 or so road transport associations were amalgamated in 1945, provided for the continued existence of the W.M.P.T.A.
This is a poor reason for seeking to drive a wedge into tke meat carriers' group of the R,H.A. It is hardly supported by the statement that "meat operators are facing many new problems, and some operators have been suggesting that discussion, one with another, would often prove most profitable, and that some organization is required to represent their joint interests."
The Cold Shoulder There is already a national body to look after their joint interests—the meat carriers' group of the R.H.A.—although the circular ignores its existence. A lame disclaimer of any intention of harming the major Association, whose members are admitted to include meat carriers, does nothing to soften the condemnation of the work of the R.H.A. implied by the invitation to all meat operators to join the W.M.P.T.A.
Ostensibly it is suggested that they should continue in membership of the R.H.A., but should subscribe also to the W.M.P.T.A. for the benefit of occasional cosy chats. Whether carriers would be willing to do so would depend on the amount of the subscription, a subject on which the W.M.P.T.A. is also silent.
If the R.H.A. has been dilatory towards its meat-carrier members, they have their remedy. They could form new sectional committees and demand action. That is an obvious step to take before embarking on the dangerous course of trying to overthrow the meat carriers' group of the national organization.
It is, perhaps, significant that many of the members of the W.M.P.T.A. are subscribers to United Carriers, Ltd., the successors to the Meat Transport Organisation. The R.H.A. National Council declined to endorse the continuance of collective operation in the meat trade in the belief, rightly or wrongly, that a monopoly was to be perpetuated, which was inimical to the intentions of the Transport Act, 1953. A monopoly created by private enterprise was regarded as no less objectionable than one set up by the State, such as British Road Services.
Members who were influenced by the Association's policy refused to join U.C.L., although others recognized practical advantages in pooling meat-transport resources and are satisfied that they reached the right decision. Nevertheless, the attitude of the R.H.A. has not assisted the development of U.C.L., who, no doubt, believe that their interests would be better served by a new association based on a nucleus of their supporters. The allegiance to the R.H.A. of members who at present straddle the fence is now to be tested.
The reply of the national Association has been to call an emergency meeting, today, of the meat carriers' functional group, and to advise members not to reply to the W.M.P.T.A. circular until the whole matter has been discussed. Wise hauliers will heed that warning.
If the W.M.P.T.A. spread its• net beyond the Metropolis, encouragement would be given to other sectional interests to branch out on their own. The acrimonious squabbles of pre-war years would then recur, and much of the goodwill with Government departments established since 1945 by the R.H.A. would be dissipated. That organization cannot claim perfection for itself, but it has done fine work for the whole of the road haulage industry and its constituent parts.
If the confidence of the Government in the orderly conduct of the road haulage industry is to be preserved, there must be one mouthpiece for hauliers. There is no place in the industry for a new national association, and little room for a local one, and it is to be hoped that provincial meat carriers will ignore the attempt of a London Association to build itself an empire.