to pic
Page 58
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Training course for the training board
by Janus
REACTION by the Road Transport Industry Training Board to recent criticism has been a blend of anger and reproach. It would be of more advantage to the' Board in the long run to examine the present discontent dispassionately and see what lessons can be drawn from it. Even the educators can profit from education and this is one item of training for which hauliers might be pleased to make a grant.
Hauliers certainly see nothing wrong in biting the hand they feed. Many of them are ready and even eager to reinforce their own condemnation by a refusal to pay the levy on the next turn round or at least by withholding whatever amount they consider due to them in grants for current training. They would receive no encouragement from the Road Haulage Association and if it came to a direct confrontation the Board would have the law on its side. To have driven its clients into an open revolt in this way, however, could not be construed as anything other than a mark of failure.
Whatever operators may believe, the Board is anxious to win their goodwill and co-operation. It may not have sufficiently appreciated the extent of the obstacles. The rot set in with the very first levy of 1.6 per cent of payroll. This may have appeared to compare reasonably well with the levies by other boards although some of them were prepared to make do with a good deal less.
But road haulage is a labour-intensive industry. For most operators the wages bill is something between one-third and one-half of total costs. The need to pay the large amounts demanded had a serious effect on the capital available as well as on the profit margins. A more modest beginning might have been better for the Board's reputation.
The collection of £12m produced an embarrassment of riches. There must have been a temptation to disburse it as quickly as possible so as to avoid the accusation that the levy had been excessive. Perhaps as a consequence the Board acquired the reputation of a big spender.
NOBODY in the road haulage industry was impressed or pleased. Even the operators who gained from the transaction did not at the same time respect a Board that seemed such an easy touch. There is no need to describe the feelings of the much larger number of operators who got nothing.
. The spending spree had to end some time, leaving operators disgruntled and more than ever of the opinion that no organization foisted on them by whatever government can be of any use. If the Board hopes to win its way into the favour of hauliers it has to overcome their ingrained dislike of official bodies in general and at the same time redeem its own past errors. Last week's comprehensive statement by the RHA shows how much ground there is to make up.
Some of the reforms demanded by the RHA are outside the control of the Board. Only Parliament can amend the Industrial Training Act so that the union and education representatives will be excluded from voting on the annual levy and so that expenditure on large items of capital equipment such as Motecs can be spread over a number of years. It is for the Department of Employment and Productivity to accept or reject the oft-repeated plea for a differential levy and for the setting up within the Board of more or less autonomous sections for the various interests.
Most of the other criticisms are mainly due to the activities of the Board itself. The indictment is uncompromising. It leaves little doubt that in some quarters the Board is considered inefficient, mismanaged, extravagant and inconsiderate. Hauliers have been known to use even stronger epithets. They accuse the Board of being more concerned with its own organization than with the industry it is supposed to serve and of being arrogant in its dealings with operators.
THE BOARD tends to confirm this verdict in some of its public utterances. To some extent this may be inevitable. Clearly the Board is not going to beat its own breast for all to see. It will be silent on its mistakes and otherwise take as much credit as possible. It does also, however, often neglect to give a proper explanation for steps which may seem sensible and right at the rarefied Board level but to many operators seems a foolish waste of money.
Much has been made by the Board of a 13 per cent increase between 1968 and 1969 in the number of people undergoing training. But it cannot be known to what extent this increase is due to the efforts of the Board and to what extent it would have taken place in any event. Plating and testing, the introduction of the heavy goods vehicle driving test and the Transport Act 1968, with emphasis on higher standards and on licensed management, would without further prompting have compelled operators to take the problem of training more seriously. The Board can perhaps more plausibly take a fair share of the credit for the substantial increase in off-the-job as compared with on-the-job training. This is described by the Board as "another favourable trend" but no explanation is given of the advantages of training off the job. Many hauliers might not agree that it is preferable.
Even apart from the objections raised by the RHA there are items in the grant proposals for 1970-1971 which, seem almost calculated to arouse opposition particularly among the smaller operators. One example taken at random is the proposal for a grant at an annual rate of £1,500 which will be paid to an employer who recruits a graduate and provides him with an approved programme of practical training.
HAULIERS are cynical about academic qualifications. To their mind the graduate in the firm is like the encyclopaedia in several volumes in the sitting room. It may be cultural and even decorative but it is of no practical use. The haulage business that can find a place for a graduate would have to be of the size and standing that makes it well able to afford the extra money for his training without a grant.
Possession of a degree does not necessarily bring with it commonsense or wisdom or those attributes with which the haulier likes to imagine his industry is well endowed. Whatever aura may once have surrounded the university product has been largely dispersed by the much publicized antics of undergraduates. The haulier believes them to be liberally subsidized from the taxation he pays and suspects from what he has recently read that he is also keeping their girl friends for them.
HE is hardly lilctly to agree readily that after so much money has been lavished on a student there should be a further grant of £1500 a year out of the pockets of operators who have not enjoyed the sweets of a university education. If £300 a year is sufficient for an apprentice why is a graduate worth five times as much?
The Board must believe there is a place for him in road haulage and admittedly it is no counter argument to say that the industry has managed without him in the past. The development of more sophisticated techniques and the widening of horizons which sees road transport as part of a distribution complex call for a more academic approach.
If this is a proper assessment one would have thought that suitable candidates would come into the industry in any event. The task not so much of the Board but perhaps of the RHA is to show what opportunities are available. The company with the most need will press its claim most strongly and the graduate who finds himself in the right place is most likely to stay. He will not do so if the company's aim is mainly to qualify for a grant and perhaps acquire a certain prestige.