AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

New Pay Policy

16th February 1962
Page 36
Page 36, 16th February 1962 — New Pay Policy
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?

UNEASINESS is likely to be the first reaction of road transport operators to the Government's White Paper on incomes policy. By no means would it be agreed that the present machinery or the present wages structure is perfect, but almost invariably the negotiations have produced agreements that neither side in the industry considers grossly unfair and that both sides are prepared to honour. The unions can show for their efforts a fairly regular succession of increases which most of the employers agree that their men deserve.

Government intervention has not been appreciated by either side. When asked to confirm the most recent increase, the Minister of Labour chose a date for implementation that was six weeks or so later than most people expected. His decision, no doubt influenced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pay pause, caused difficulties out of all proportion to the amount of money involved. it was equally possible to argue, either that the Minister's decision must be binding, or that he was taking advantage of the machinery to suit his own ends.

Inevitably, the alignment in the argument was between the two "sides" represented on the Road Haulage Wages Council. In this case it was not possible to adopt the usual procedure of asking the independent members to resolve the deadlock. Asa consequence, the unions were tempted to use the only other means they knew of getting their own way.. In fact, one or• two fairly small stoppages were reported, although for the most part the good sense of both sides prevailed.

What remained was the uneasy feeling that it ought not to have been necessary to invoke good sense, an uncertain commodity at the best of times. The whole purpose of having wages machinery was to cut down, or preferably eliminate, the number of occasions on which good sense ,was needed. The wages council over the years have developed a procedure, a code of conduct, that has made their decisions generally acceptable in spite of occasional grumbles. There is bound to be apprehension on both sides, therefore, when the Government set up a somewhat gimcrack apparatus that may cut across the work of the council.

AS with many other industries, the proposals in the White Paper, if adopted, would remove most of the props that have been found useful in the normal discussions on wages. Veterans on the wages council have been able to predict the arguments that would be put forward from both sides,. and have even been able to assess with reasonable accuracy the agreement that would finally be reached. Their experience may no longer stand them in such good stead. The White Paper makes plain that "some arguments which have in the past been widely used to justify higher wages and salaries certainly ought not to 1st given the same weight as hitherto."

Examples of factors that would no longer be valid, except to a limited extent, if the Government's policy were accepted, include increases in the cost of living, the trends. of profits or productivity in a particular industry, and the principle of comparability, or comparisons with levels or trends of income in other industries. Such factors have been the staple diet of the wages council, and no doubt also of similar bodies throughout the length and breadth

o6 of industry, so that one may wonder what they will have left to talk about.

The Government can hardly suppose that they will sheathe their swords for lack of argument. The great anxiety is that deeds will replace words. The hope remains that the Government's proposals will be given a fair examination. Their purpose is both simple and admirable. It is to keep costs and prices stable, and by so doing promote a faster rate of economic growth and a more vigorous development Of the export trade.

FOR road tramport the lesson is clear. The last wage increase for road haulage workers accounted for about half of the 74 per cent. that the hauliers found. it necessary to add to their rates. In addition, the pay rise had a widespread effect on the wages.of drivers employed by C licence holders. As a result, many traders found themselves faced with two distinct Additions to their own costs, and sooner or later their prices will reflect the changes. There is nothing novel in this. It is yet a further example of the familiar costs-and-prices spiral. The novelty is that the Government are at last trying to do something about the problem.

However clumsily they may be put forward, the points in the White Paper all have substance. A rise in the cost of living, as measured by the official index, may seem a natural reason for a rise of at least as much in wages; but • there is no point in this if it merely pushes the cost of living index further out of reach. Comparability has meaning only if it is adopted rigidly, which could hardly mean anything else than a national wage structure with the payments in each industry geared to all the rest.

Increases in productivity as justification for an increase in wages are not entirely ruled out by the White Paper. There may be cases, it states, where the rise would be part oran agreement under which those concerned made a direct contribution, by accepting more exacting work, or more onerous conditions, or by a renunciation of restrictive practices." This appears to be a point not much discussed by the wages council. They have never taken into account, for example, the possible extra productivity that could have accrued from the increase as long ago as 1957 in the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles.

If the more familiar themes are to be silenced, more might be made of the subject of productivity on the next occasion that the council meet. It might even give the employers a chance to put forward a proposal of their own, by way of a change. The important question is whether transport operators are getting more or less out of their drivers each year. There is the usual lack of statistics to prevent a precise answer being given; but, from what scanty information is available, it may well be true that the number of drivers is going up at least as fast as the volume of traffic carried, which means in effect that productivity (or transportivity) is not increasing.

The possibility of such an increase should be there, what with motorways, higher speed limits and improving equipment. It is the method of applying the reward for such an increase that causes the most difficulty. What may happen in road transport, and especially in road haulage, may be the more frequent payment of bonuses and other benefits where they can plainly, be seen to be earned.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus