AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Furniture men plan

14th May 1971, Page 36
14th May 1971
Page 36
Page 37
Page 36, 14th May 1971 — Furniture men plan
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?

tounify by John Darker THE annual conference of the National Association of Furniture Warehousemen and Removers at Torquay this week overwhelmingly endorsed their executive's recommendations for merging the home and overseas sections of the removals industry. A tripartite committee, representative of NAFWR, BAOFR (the overseas removers) and the Institute of the Furniture Warehousing and Removing Industry had recommended this course. The vote, 147 to three in favour, means that "resolutions of intent" will be on the agenda of the annual meetings of BAOFR at Dublin on May 24 and of the Institute at Weston-super-Mare on June 5.

If these resolutions are carried it seems likely that NAFWR, which is a company limited by guarantee, will take over the assets of BAOFR and the Institute and change its name and articles of association to meet the wishes of the new united membership. The current rules of the institute and of BAOFR do not permit them to be merged into any other organization; hence rule changes will be called for, probably at the same time as the extraordinary general meetings of the three bodies in the autumn.

If the detailed resolutions are accepted by the three memberships in the autumn the new unified association could be established on January 1 1972. The name tentatively suggested by the tripartite committee is British Association of Removers. Mr Arthur Edwards and other members of the BAOFR council have agreed to contribute towards a cash prize for the winner(s) of a competition for the best name for the new body.

Despite the overwhelming vote in favour of proceeding towards a merger, Mr E. J. White (White's Removals and Transport, Birmingham) made a powerful plea in the early discussion for leaving things alone. In his view those present at Torquay represented "the big boys". He suggested that only 69 of the 900-odd member firms in NAFWR were deciding future policy. "You don't know the arguments against this policy," said Mr White. "It is a tragedy that this should happen after 71 years of independent existence with no opposition voiced in the Association's Journal or at area meetings."

Mr White suggested that wholesale resignations would follow if the merger proposals were implemented. Subscription (now £8 a year) would have to increase tw( or three times in the next two years. Fift: per cent of the firms in membershil operated only one or two vehicles and it wa quite wrong to ignore their views Concluded Mr White: "It is not hard ti imagine what will happen to our £28,001 assets when a merger has been put throug and additional staff are employed".

Mr Geoffrey Pygall (Pickfords Ltd) sai NAFWR and BAOFR must either cam together or go so far apart that there was n contact at all. There had been an unhapp conflict between the Association and th. Institute in talking to the Training Boarc He felt the majority of people on th tripartite committee represented the sma: firms in the industry. If there had been ni change in the status quo for 71 years the was no case for doing nothing for anothe 71 years.

The annual meeting confirmed th appointment of Mr G. J. Over (R. P. Ove and Sons, Camberley) as president, and M R. 0. S. Barrett, (Old House (Seaford) Ltd as senior vice-president. Mr John Tarse (Frank Hibbs Ltd, Acton), currentl president of the BAOFR, is to serve z junior vice-president of NAFWR.

On Tuesday, Mr Ralph Cropper presentation of his prize-winning essa "Efficiency through good stafr relations prompted a vigorous discussion.

Mr Cropper drew attention in his pap( to the human relations aspects c employment today which contrasted sharp with the atmosphere of harsh materialisi that had been manifest in relations betwee

aployers and workers in past years. Mr Pygall (Pickfords Ltd) said he as not impressed by the efficacy of icross the board" bargaining for wide ctions of road haulage staffs. Was there tt a case for separate machinery for rniture removers? Mr Cropper said he ought the question implied an analogy to e charging scales applicable in various eas of the country. It was difficult to put a ir price on a product or service without gard to particular circumstances.

Mr C. S. Elliott (White and Co Ltd, rirt smooth) felt that in the removals .lustry the driver was merely an ancillary wker. No one could take the place of port packers or porters. Any nationally reed machinery had to bear this in mind. Mr Cropper said he felt that any national ales for such grades would need to have ;ard to local wages rates and pay trends. 'our industry," he said, "is already facing were competition from small men. If you . national scales of pay you're still up ainst this competition.

Mr C. V. Gordon, (Michael Gcrson Ltd) ced whether .employers studied staff tctions to orders sufficiently. How far uld participation go, especially in relation maintaining standards of discipline and Auctivity?

Mr Cropper said this was a question of igment, there was no science about it. In own business his son, who largely )ked after the operations, said he (Mr

opper senior) was too soft. prefer the vil you know to the devil you don't ow," said Mr Cropper.

Mr Gordon asked whether in the right circumstances management decisions on discipline or productivity could come from discussion with workers.

Mr Cropper said the more discussion the better, especially—with disciplinary cases— if that avoided recrimination of other staff. Bonus schemes were best if fully supported. Workers decided the merits of a bonus scheme very slowly and this could be very frustrating to management, who would often arrive at decisions very quickly.

To another question as to whether training contributed to improved staff relations, Mr Cropper said training was important but training boards did not help. He felt all training should be on a voluntary basis. Some of his drivers took vehicles abroad on a trip basis. The men chosen for this job were selected and trained carefully, being given perhaps a 10-minute briefing on one point and 10-minute instruction period on another day. This practical method of instruction was not recognized by the Training Board and his firm got no benefit in terms of grant. I want to control training and pay for it," said Mr Cropper to applause from the meeting.

When Mr C. S. Elliott introduced .a well-documented paper on warehousing costings, he stressed that many current charges were ludicrously low. Recent assessment showed an inadequate provision for general overheads; removal revenue, already a loss leader in many places was subsidizing warehousing in certain firms. The recommended rate for London was now 50p per 100 cu ft per week and 35p in the provinces. The aim was to maintain steady and realistic profitability giving fair return on capital.

The final session of the conference on Wednesday was notable for a blistering attack by Mr T. J. Lalonde (Lalonde of Bristol). Mr Lalonde called for the abolition of the RTITB which operated as "legalized financial vampires"; the Board's officers acted as an industrial spy network passing information between firms. Training should go back to practical people in the industry. The removals industry was tired to death of being dictated to by incompetent staff, akin to Fred Karno's Army. Eighty per cent of the removers in Bristol had written off the Board as an abject failure. While there was some hope the Board would have "the stamina and spunk to reorganize itself." its staff morale was very low.

Mr John Budd, assistant divisional manager, RTITB,. replying to this attack as "a Government-sponsored rapacious parasite", gave details of the increased use of the Board's training facilities by the removals sector.

Mr Lalonde was also answered by Mr Hugh Wilson, general secretary of NAFWR, who said criticisms of the Industrial Training Act and the Boards should be directed at the politicians responsible. "We should be highly practical," said Mr Wilson. "We now have a Tory Government and the two Ministers responsible for the original legislation were Mr Edward Heath and Mr Robert Carr." The basic theory of the Industrial Training Act was highly unlikely to change in his view, although detail improvements in administration were possible.


comments powered by Disqus