FURNITURE REMOVAL: , CRITICISMS ANSWERED
Page 26
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Solving the Problems of the Carrier
rIONSIDERABLE interest was aroused by the series of articles on furniture removal which terminated some three weeks ago. I have had more than the usual number of letters criticizing, or at least commenting upon, what I wrote. Further, most of these criticisms and comments are of general interest and it seems reasonable, therefore, that I should return to this subject so as to be able to give publicity to them.
The first comes from an authority on the subject, the editor of " Removals and Storage," the official organ of the National Association of Furniture Warehousemenand Removers.
I have frequently referred to this Association as being one which does a good deal for its members and has not been afraid to tackle the problem of rates assessment; moreover, it has done so in an efficient and helpful manner. It appears that there is a sub-committee at present dealing with rates for furniture removal, principally with the object of reporting to the Central Price Regulation Committee, which, I gather, is a Government Department interested in ensuring that the public is not called upon to pay excessive prices for having furniture removed.
One point stressed in the " Removals and Storage " editorial is, quite naturally, of importance in this connection, and it happens to be something upon which I did not touch in the series of articles already mentioned. It is pointed out that no two jobs of furniture removal are alike. An opeiator may move the goods and chattels of one custotner from a house to some other district or town and, quite possibly, he may have effected a similar removal a few weeks previously. An inexperienced furniture remover might quite easily make the mistake of using the first job as a basis for pricing the second.
It is almost true to say that this is never a safe course to "take. In this, or in any other case, the furniture is different, the amount of preparation and detail is not the same, neithei are the residences nor the staff. Above all, the customer is different, being either more exacting or more easy going, and, in consequence, there is little comparison between any two removals.
All this has to be borne in mind as effecting the practicability of rates standardization, and should tie stressed in any dealings with Government Departments as indicating the difficulty of deciding, from a superficial knowledge, as to whether the price for any removal is excessive.
Different Quotations for Seemingly
Similar Removal Jobs
A Government Department, looking upon two consecutive removals of this kind, in which the second was priced much higher than the first, might think that it was a case of extortion whereas, on the contrary, it is quite likely that the operator may make less profit from the second and seemingly more expensive removal, than from the first,
The editor then refers directly to a problem which I discussed in "The Commercial Motor" dated August 25, in which, according to my figures, I was able to justify an apparently high charge for a removal of furniture. He criticizes me for allocating, in that particular case, a profit of 25 per cent. whereas, normally, I argue that 20 per cent. is fair and reasonable It is pointed out that the N.A.F.W.R. accepts, as a principle, the necessity of adding a standard profit on all costs and deprecatesany suggestion that there should be a variation in that standard as between one job and another.
The article goes on to point out that there is no justification for regarding any job of furniture removing as being special because they are all of that order, being exceptional and intimate inasmuch as they deal with a householder's most cherished possessions.
My answer is that, whilst, in principle, I agree that the Association takes the right attitude, there is, nevertheless, justification for making an exception, as I did in this Instance.
Ihave always taken the line in assessing percentage profits that there are three sets of conditions, each of which justifies a particular profit percentage. Where the work is regular and consistent, needing the minimum of clerical and administrative duties, and where the operator knows for certain that he is going to carry on with this particular job of hauling a more or less regular tonnage over a period of not less than a year, then 15 per cent, is a sufficient margin.
Where the job is, by -nature, special aimd occasional, and the probability of its repetition is remote, and when, as is usual in such cases, the operator has to go out of his way in order to be able to satisfy the customer, the profit percentage sh.Ould be 25.
In assessing rates for work of a give-and-take order, of the kind to which the operator is accustomed, but which is not so certain or regular as is contract work, then 20 per cent. is the proper margin.
I regard furniture removing, in the ordinary way, as being in the last-mentioned class. An operator 'of this order, when carrying out furniture removals, is doing work to which he is accustomed and which, subject to the peculiarity mentioned, is practically of a routine character, and a profit ratio of 20 per cent. seems to rue to be appropriate.
When the Conditions of
Operation are Exceptional
Notwithstanding ail that has been said, however, about every job of furniture removing being exceptional, I still insist that inithe job described in the article, which, in my opinion, should receive, as profit, an allocation of 25 per cent. on cost, there were conditions of an exceptional nature. The operator was called out of his usual routine and had to make all sorts of special provisions, such as, in my view, justify the additional profit percentage.
Another point raised in this same leading article, asks why, in costing furniture removals, labour costs are tabulated at the same hourly rate paid to the workmen, whereas every furniture remover knows that, day in and day out, there are so many hours wasted in finding a man a job, checking in or out, waiting for the removal to start, and so on. Actually the rate for labour should be far more than the actual hourly rate for the work that may be on hand.
There can be no question, of course, that, in assessing costs for labour, this wastage must be taken into account, otherwise the operator is inevitably going to be at a loss.
An analogy is present in dealing with rates for road haulage, and I have frequently pointed out, in articles dealing with that subject, that in assessing fixed charges per day or per hour, the operator must not overlook the fact that the average number of days worked, per annum, by a motor vehicle is 260 and his standing charges, taken on a yearly basis, must be scaled-up when he is assessing the amount it costs him to run a vehicle for a working day.
It seems to me that the same method should be applied in assessing labour costs in furniture removing. The furniture remover should take out an average figure for the number of hours worked per annum, as against the number of hours for which he has to pay his operatives, and should scale up his basic labour charge in proportion.
Suppose, for instance, he discovers that he pays one of his men for 2,800 hours work per' annum, whereas, his net working hours on furniture removals total only 2,000 hours. If the basic rate of wage is, say, Is. 10d. per hour, then he must multiply that Is. 10d. by 2,800, divide the result by 2,000 and debit each job at the rate of 2s. 7d. per hour, per man, adding his 20 or 25 per cent. profit as well as his other costs, including administrative and overhead charges.
• Next I had a letter from a small operator whose attitude may best be summed up by his concluding paragraph in
which be states: " I think you must admit that the small removal contractor has his niche in the same way as the small haulage contractor."
Of course he has, but the fact that there is a niche for him does not justify him in imagining that because he is a small operator, he can escape the responsibilities, the risks and the problems which affect the larger operator. Judging by his letter, such would appear to be his view. Referring to my articles on furniture removals, he says that be considers my remarks rather sweeping, and continues: " I posse-ss a lift van of about 700-800 cubic ft. capacity with which I have done quite a lot of general removal work, and so far have not had any serious complaint. Before the restrictions were imposed I have moved furniture for distances up to 200 miles. My vehicle is a long-wheelbase 2-3-tonner, originally costing 4300.. The van cost me £35. I have no elaborate equipment except wrappers, rollers and a piano bogie.
" I should imagine that the people who move around the most are of the working class who do not possess antiques and, other than the best tea-set, the crockery and glassware are negligible. Do you consider it is necessary for them, even if they were in a position, to pay for hiring equipment of the probable value of 2900 and, maybe, have a terminal run of 15 miles, for this is the distance from my place to the nearest concern owning a furniture van, to move a distance of, say, 10 miles?
" Coming to the question of extras, if the customer has just received her 5 cwt. of coal, are you justified in leaving it, to say nothing of the children's rabbits and the bit of stuff' in the garden? "
To be Covered Against
All Risks a Wise Precaution Although this operator may be almost exclusively occupied in removing the furniture of people whose worldly possessionsare not of great intrinsic value, I -still hold . that ha would be wise to take the precautions against risk of claims, accidents and other risks appertaining to furnitqre removal, by applying the conditions of removal as recommended by the N.A.F.R.W. and as roughly oatlined by me in the articles to which he refers.
On the question of cost of equipment, there is no suggestions in any article of mine that an operator should adhere rigidly to my rates and charges, whatever may be his own personal experience of costs. If, as he says, his equipment cost him £350 instead of £900, he is entitled to take that fact 'into consideration in assessing his rates, but I do, nevertheless, strongly advise him to make sure that, in calculating his costs, he is neither in ignorance nor, deliberately evading the issue by omitting or underestimating some of these.essential items of cost.
If be be careful to include everything and to assess it at its proper value, and if, after doing so and adding a fair and reasonable amount for profit he still finds that he can work at rates less than any which I have suggested, then I say he is entitled so to work. It is because I • .knolhv there is considerable differentiation between the costs of one operator and those of another that I have such grave doubts as to the practicability of standardized, let alone statutory, rates for any branch of the inchistri.
Another operator raises the question of bad debts. He says that these are liable to arise most frequently in connection with the smaller householder, particularly of the type who habitually does, what is called in corrirnon parlance, a " moonlight. flit."
He points out, that, whereas it is the rule for the foreman to ask for payment of the bill on completion of the job, he, the foreman, has no means for enforcing his demand, and as the furniture is delivered and out of his hands, there is no lien upon it and, often enough, before the tithe has come to have recourse to the expedient (of doubtful value) of putting the law in motion against this debtor, he has probably carried out the same manceuvre on another furniture remover and communications are returned marked " address not known."
So far as the item " bad. debts " is concerned, I have always _provided for its inclusion in my recommended schedule of establishment costs. The amount to be set down under that item necessirily varies with the experience of the operator, and upon the type of work on which he is engaged. I. was not aware that, in furniture removing, the liability to had debts was particularly marked. It seems likely that it may be greater than in some other. branches of road haulage, but if it be, then the operator should guard against loss under that heading in the Way I have suggested, although there is a limit to the extent to which he can take that step.
A Liability That Should Not be Passed On!
If, for example, he is careless in his collection of debts—
not sufficiently alive to the risks of his particular industry— it is hardly fair that, by including bad debts amongst his establishment costs, he should pass that liability on to his other customers who are more honourable in the method of meeting and settling their bills. That; however, is something which will sort itself out inasmuch as an operator who is inefficient in his collection of accounts is likely to be equally so in other directions, and will therefore lose the confidence of his customers as well as the money to which he is justly entitled.
This brings me again to a point I endeavoured to make in an early article of the series, wherein I pointed out that furniture removing was a specialist branch of road haulage, not lightly to be undertaken by the uninitiated. I am, in that connection, reminded of a conversation I had, some time ago, with a leading member of the furniture removals and warehousing Association.
The first question I asked him is of topical interest, as there Ilea been, quite recently, some correspondence in " The Commercial Motor" concerning the difficulties which appear to be put in the way of operators becoming members of that Association.
I asked him what qualifications were necessary for a man
or a company to be accepted as a member. He told me that any applicant for membership must satisfy the Association that he or the company is suitably equipped in respect of both vehicles and storage accommodation, as the member, if accepted, is expected to maintain the standard of work laid down by the Association.
The next question follows, I think, from the first. " How long," I asked " does it take to train a man of
average ability to become an expert furniture remover? " " That," answered my informant, " depends on the capacity in which you intend to employ him. From my experience it is impossible to train some men at all for the
chief position, that of foreman. Many men acquire a standard of efficiency fairly quickly, and are absolutely reliable, as packers or porters, but lack those powers of control and supervision which are so essential, especially in the case of a large job of furniture removal. In any case, each man would have to pass through a period of probation, during which he would be initiated in the work of a porter or packer, and I should say, that, at least, eight or ten years would be necessary to enable him to arrive at
what could be termed the expert period of his activities. Other grades could be trained in a much shorter time.
S T.R.