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
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220 
Form filling
Page 153
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I have not followed in close detail he progressive development of the 3oard's administrative policies in .ecent years. It is possible that the .oad transport industry has become nured to the form filling inseparable rom the levy/grant situation which • tems logically from the desire Of the 3oard to be manifestly fair to all. ;urely few people concerned with raining a mere five years ago could ver have imagined compiling the omplicated rigmarole contained in he RTITB's Employers' Guide for he period August 1, 1974 to July 31, 975.
In this document you will find eferences to all sorts of grants — levy ebate, specific training, key and ther grants — applying to small, mployers with a wage bill of under £30,000 in road and passenger transport.
It is evident that the Board have undertaken considerable research in determining the "weighting factors" relative to particular forms of training for we are told that "a formula has been adopted which takes account of priorities set by the industry in the past, and the typical duration of training in each occupation." The Board's decision in determining levy rebate grants will be based on the manpower data supplied by employers. To the extent that employers "fudge" their returns the tedious sums of the Board's accountants will be inaccurate.
What solid statistical data went into the Board's calculations of occupational weighting factors? If it is accepted that road transport needs more well qualified managers, not everyone would agree that a weighting factor of 100 for managers and professional staff is justified when a craftsman only ranks for 15 points. Who decidef, what constitutes "professional star? Does it make sense to rank a newly qualified, but very taw, accountant as worth 100 points against a promising clerk at 10 points? Designations and titles mean little. Do you put a senior traffic operator down as a supervisor worth 20 points or as a clerk — he may be called a traffic clerk — at 10 points?
Arbitrary judgments abound. At a time of worrying business decline, when many vehicles will be de-taxed or sold, does it make sense that a salesman is rated at a mere 8 points — less than a quarter of the 35 points allotted to a skilled driver, even a fork-truck operative? What is the difference between a salesman and someone slotted into the "commercial staff' category?
Employers with staff adept at the numbers game will have a diverting time maximizing their points score. Each firm's occupational weightings must be totted up and 90 per cent of the proportion of the total attributable to jobs for which training is satisfactory constitutes the proportion of levy credited.