1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200 
TAPERING THE PAY RISE
Page 149
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HESITATION shown by the road transport unions in pursuing their avowed intention of seeking a wage increase may not be without good cause. Any decision reached by the Road Haulage Wages Council over the next few weeks or months is likely to be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board, which has already shown itself to be critical of wages councils in general and of some recent
awards in particular.
In a report on the pay of workers in the retail drapery, outfitting and footwear trades the Board proposes that the Government should make changes in the legal constitution of statutory councils so that they have to take account of national incomes policy when recommending minimum wage rates. The Board also speculates on whether the wages council system is serving its original purpose and is suitable for modern conditions.
There is a Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations looking into this very subject. Its report may very well follow the Board's line of thought. Certainly from the point of view of employers, Mr. John Davies, DirectorGeneral of the Confederation of British Industry, has welcomed the Board's proposals for "bringing up to date a type of wage settlement to which pre-1914 concepts still cling".
Mr. Davies draws attention to the demonstration in the Board's latest report that "many workers whose rights seem to put them among the lowest-paid are in fact taking home average earnings". He spotlights an issue which is likely to have immediate repercussions in the road transport industry. The negotiations in the drapery trade have a familiar ring to hauliers and to the unions.
THE ORIGINAL CLAIM
The original claim was for a 30s. a week increase for all adult workers. This was reduced to 15s. when it came up for consideration by the retail drapery council. The employers made a counter offer. In the end the independent members voted with the workers for increases of 15s. to men and 12s. 6d. to women over 21 years of age with smaller increases to younger workers.
The Board has recommended that the proposed increases should be reduced by 3s. for men and by 2s. 6d. for women. This in itself was sufficient to arouse the anger of the unions. Their indignation has been even greater against a further recommendation which no doubt to the Board seemed wholly reasonable.
In the opinion of the Board any worker receiving no more than the statutory minimum at present applying in certain categories within the drapery trade would correctly be classified as among the lowest paid of all workers. It is the man or woman in this category who suffers the most hardship in a period of wage restraint. He (or she) deserves the full increase of 12s. (or 10s.) a week.
if the average earnings of a worker for a normal working week are above the appropriate statutory minimum laid down by the wages council, says the Board, the proposed increase, already cut down from what the council proposed, should taper off up to the point where earnings are £3 above the minimum (or £1 for women). Beyond this point there should be no rises at least for the present.
The Board concedes that differentials should not be disturbed by this drastic modification of the existing practice. If a manager is entitled to earn, say, 35s. 6d. more than a sales assistant, he should have an equivalent wage increase, tapered or otherwise. The criterion of aiding the lowest-paid workers does not apply in this case.
Evidently the Board believes that the principles it has observed in reaching these recommendations could well be applied outside the lm. or so workers directly affected by what happens in the drapery trade. The repercussions on the Road Haulage Wages Council and the comparatively new National Negotiating Committee might well be interesting.
With justification the road transport unions have made a good deal of play with the fact that the statutory minimum rates of pay for certain categories of road haulage worker are low and might even be criticized as below a reasonable living wage. A powerful lever for a percentage increase is thus always available. Whatever figure is ultimately agreed is applied not merely to the differential but also to payments for overtime and a variety of extra bonus payments including those resulting from changes in operating schedules to match increases in the legal speed limits for vehicles.
According to the Board, future 'wage agreements should not apply right across the table in this way. During the wage freeze only workers earning perhaps £3 more than the statutory minimum for the work they are doing should receive any benefit. One may well imagine that the tapering principle might continue to apply and might even become a feature of normal wage negotiations procedure.
According to the Board the increases it is proposing for the drapery trade would affect only up to a fifth of the male workers and about a third of the women. The proportion in the road transport industry if the same principle were adopted might be even less. It has long been suspected that the lowest-paid driver shown in the road haulage wages tables is a statistical myth. Nobody actually redeives so little. Most drivers are paid considerably more.
DISCREPANCIES
There are still what, to a body like the Board, may seem inexplicable discrepancies. The base on which road haulage workers are paid is a logical if somewhat penurious structure organized mainly in accordance with the kind of work done, that is to say the size of the vehicle, and the number of hours. The many other considerations which determine the final weekly pay packet do not seem to be all equally justified to the disinterested eye.
When it looked into the question of road haulage rates the Board had some criticisms of the failure to adopt measures to improve productivity. If it was called upon to examine the wage structure its criticisms might be even stronger.
Much as the unions would object the employers in the road transport industry might well be pleased. Some of them had hoped that a more rational method of rewarding drivers would be worked out by both sides of the industry perhaps within the National Negotiating Committee. Lack of progress would certainly be noted by the Board which some time ago expressed its pleasure that the committee had been set up. If as suggested there is also to be some discussion on rates, hauliers may yet be found praising the name of Aubrey Jones, a possibility that seemed very remote indeed as recently at 12 months ago.