Training standards
Page 58
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
As John Darker in his article (CM October 31) associated me with the NAFWR president's criticism of the RTITB. I would appreciate an opportunity to put the Institute's point of view.
Normally, we try not to get mixed up in the political issues that the Industrial Training Act has introduced on the training scene but as nowadays, perhaps unfortunately, training is invariably mentioned in the same breath as levy/grant, we have little option but to get involved on occasions, this being one.
From the start I must make it quite clear, as indeed did the article, that we have no argument at all about the value of training or the need to put it on a more sophisticated basis. Without doubt, proper training can increase efficiency and in time, profitability, but in the short term the benefits are difficult to quantify and this is the real problem insofar as attitudes to the Training Board are concerned. All too many people still see training merely as a means of obtaining a grant and nothing more—so. who is to blame? In my view the blame can be apportioned fairly between the legislation which dictated the circumstances in which Training Boards are set up, the RTITB itself, the present economic climate in which the industry is operating, and the training history {or lack of it) in the transport industry in general.
The Training Board should have been allowed sufficient time to set themselves up and, as important, time to introduce acceptable training standards before a levy was imposed and by the same token, grants awarded. The embarrassment of riches suffered by the Board in the early days is well known as is also the understandable attitude of many people who saw the grants systern as a Heaven-sent opportunity to add to their profitability. In fact, I heard it said that training was more profitable than work and the not so light-hearted comment that the latter might he given up in favour of the former. Of course, the honeymoon had to end but the damage was done, and it could have been avoided had the Board had training standards to apply before the levy was imposed. Now the grant screws have been tightened considerably against the background of an increased levy, creating much bitterness in the process and whilst I do not argue with the principle, the screws should have been tight from the start.
The Board itself cannot be blamed for the setting-up procedure but there is one area in which, had it shown a greater degree of priority, it might have circumvented some of the criticism caused by the failure to appreciate the value of training. The area is in management training and if one accepts that with managers properly trained all else is likely to follow, this criticism can perhaps be understood. Why has not the same energy and direction been put into management training as has been put into that for operatives? If anyone has to be really convinced that training is worthwhile, and this is vital if the levy/grant complex is to be ousted, it is the manager who alone can lend the enthusiasm and drive necessary. Obviously the apathy and sheer lack of understanding would not have disappeared overnight but a determined attack by the Board from the start would have avoided a lot of problems.
Another factor mentioned earlier is the economic climate in which the industry is operating and whilst it may be only the removal section which has suffered a reduced demand for its services, all sections have been on the receiving end of an unprecedented increase in costs. The details are too well known and certainly too painful to go into but the point is that at such a time no-one is likely to look with too much favour on an Institution which has the apparent authority to extract hardearned money by means of an easily adjusted payroll percentage. Whatever the Board might protest about its cost consciousness, and this has often been evident the consciousness not the protest) or the fact that the Board is submitted to fairly critical examination by the DEP, it will cut little ice with the contractor who sees just one more claim on what little profit is left to him. At the same time with his background in what has traditionally been a shoe-string industry he will take a look at the magnificent (by his standards) building at Wembley and the facilities at Motec and cast a judgment which may or may not be regarded as superficial depending on the angle from which it is viewed.
Finally, the very absence of training from the industry's past is bound to produce many who will say they have managed very well without—so why not now? Only time, of course, will tell how much better the industry will be for training. We in the removal section have to a very large extent been able to convince the Board that we are capable of carrying out our own training, thereby keeping the cost down and in saying this I must acknowledge the Board's help and encouragement to the Institute in raising training standards. At this point it may be relevant and certainly fair to say that G. C. Trotter must have been particularly unfortunate in his dealings with the Board's employees to justify his critical comment on their quality—my experience in general has been quite the opposite.
However, had the remainder of the industry been able similarly to convince the Board of their ability to train there might not have been the need for Motec or for such a high levy, and I am sure the NAFWR president had this in mind when making his remarks. What, of course, really bothers .us is the danger of empires being built, the possibility of training courses being expanded to fill the increasingly available facilities (apologies to Parkinson), the duplication of facilities. between Board and Board and existing educational institutions and, of course, the cost of it all. The RTITB will need to constantly demonstrate that these questions bother them also.
G. F. PYGALL, National Chairman, Institute of the Furniture Warehousing and Removing Industry.
Rates mystery
The letter (CM October 17) on drivers' hours proposals contains an accurate picture of what is happening now. But a far more interesting question. I think, concerns how operators can afford all these delays, while still remaining in business, and apparently cope with all the vicious, added costs.
Those of us who believe that an operator has to be super-efficient just to keep going, are more and more mystified,when we know of operators not only continuing to operate at ridiculous rates, but even running well over half their total mileage empty. I can cite one opetator running a 20 tons gross vehicle over a round mileage of 340, and earning not more that £26 for it, and doing a round trip each day. According to any knowledgeable operator, people like this must be losing anything from is to is 6d for each mile travelled, and that over a relatively high mileage of around 1,750 per week--£87 10s loss or even more per week. Yet they still keep going.
Consider operators who deliver or collect from notorious places such as some docks and warehouses. Even if they obtain demurrage to cover these delays, the whole matter is a negative one, and besides this, someone, somewhere, must he making a lot of money, in order to be able to pay the demurrage.
Another very important factor is that even if an operator obtains recompense in the form of demurrage, how does he manage to regulate the work of his vehicles and satisfy other customers who are waiting, maybe, with labour, etc, to load a vehicle which could be held up for hours, even days? To many of us. it must be a total mystery how these operators can allow it.
The time is opportune for pressures to be really brought to bear, not only to obtain demurrage charges which do not just cover costs but also inconvenience. plus being also a deterrent to delays. It is not of much use charging say, 35s per hour. for a vehicle which should earn, say, a minimum of 60s per hour, for every hour that wages are paid. Particularly should this be so, when, in general, very generous loading/unloading times are allowed, very often for traffic which could well be handled in not more than half the times of around 15 minutes per ton often accepted.
Many of these matters will have to be attended to seriously before operators can hope to contain the proposed reduction in hours of work.
In my humble opinion, at the moment too much is being made of costing. While appreciating, of course, that costing has, and always will, play an important part in operations, I think that due to the fact that no two machines will operate at any set amount, what is of more practical use is to know what vehicles are earning, bearing in mind mileage and/or time. This way, the more efficient operator will make more profit than others, which could perhaps, for instance. allow him to better the return for his drivers, or better his equipment, or both.
It just does not add up that because, for instance, it may be impossible for one operator to compete with another on costs, that he should mislead himself to the extent that he should therefore be able to obtain higher rates, presumably to cover his higher costs. The answer should surely I -tat the mote is in his eye, and that he must extract it if he wishes to become competitive with his neighbour.
W. A. G. SAYERS, Newbury, Berks.