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
201
202
203
204 
Off the Rails
Page 114
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Political Commentary By JAI'S
THE long-drawn-out dispute over the wages of railway workers is not something to which road transport operators should be entirely indifferent. The difficulty in reaching a decision shows that there is much to be said on both sides. There is sympathy for the railwaymen, who are generally regarded as underpaid. There is an equally clear appreciation that the British Transport Commission cannot continue indefinitely meeting increasing demands out of revenue. When they have made their highest offer and the unions their lowest, a gap remains of approximately am. per annum.
While the gap exists, the dispute may be patched up from time to time but will not heal completely. The problem of the missing am. has exercised many minds recently, and some of the answers that have been put forward might, if adopted, have important, and not necessarily favourable effects over the whole field of transport.
Consistent Profit One suggestion gains much of its force from the supposition that the gap is very much the same as the profit made by British Road Services in 1953. If only road haulage had remained nationalized, it is said, the tabour troubles of the railways would be over. The theory is precarious and Speculative. It would depend upon .B.R.S. consistently making an adequate profit. It ,assumesalso that, public -opinion would not object, to the permanent diversion of that profit.
Certainly the customers would not bepleased. Under the original Transport Act, B.R.S. were given something near to a monopoly for tong-distance traffic. Regular high profits under these conditions might reasonably be taken to mean that prices are too high. If the trader finds they do not come down, he may adopt some other tactic, such as the licensing of vehicles of his own, to show that the B.R.S. monopoly is not absolute.
Objections would also come from B.R.S. workers. They would like to regard as their due a proportion of any profit resulting from their. efforts. It would be hard for them to see the money spent on other people.
Too Much to Say In view of the dismembermerat of B.R.S., the representatives of the railway workers may feet safe in taking for granted that every successive year would have been one of bumper profits, and in distributing those profits to suit their own ideas. It may also be felt that the views of B.R.S. workers, and even customers, could be disregarded. Although the Commission's road passenger undertakings—with the exception of the London Transport Executive—make profits much more assured than those a B.R.S., nobody suggests that these profits also should go to alleviate the staff troubles of the railways. Perhaps it is realized that the passengers, not to mention the Licensing Authorities, would have too much to say on the other side.
Another proposal that has recently been strongly pressed by the general secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen is inspired by the profit of over £100m. that the Government made from the railways during war-time control. Some of this money, it is argued, should he returned to help the railways in their present crisis. It could be paid over a period of not more than F24 five years while every effort was made to imp efficiency so that thereafter the railways could pay own way.
Ingenious though the argument is, it amount nothing more than a request for a Government sub There can be only one reply to such a request. sidies have their uses in these complicated ti perhaps to help an essential industry or se threatened by competition from abroad, or for tea of national defence. On the latter score there tenuous grounds for contributing towards the co maintaining a stretch of line needed for mil purposes although not much patronized by the pu but even in such a case there is room for doubt there is no justification for a general subsidy tc railways.
Double Interest Road transport operators have a double iniere the various proposals that are being put forw-ar help the Commission and the railway workers oi their predicament. A subsidy is a sickbed subje: conversation, and its introduction gives the impre: that the railways are slowly expiring. This is far being the case. The railways are formidable com tors still. If necessary, they can cut a rate as n as anybody else.
The road operator who suffers finds difficulty in plaining when the traffic is taken from him under. ditions of fair competition. He would always ha strong argument if once the railways were grant subsidy, presumably paid from taxation to which contributed.
Whether or not helped by -a windfall from p funds, an increase in railway wages under preseni cumstances invariably has ominous repercussion the road operator. The pattern has become particu familiar on the goods side. Extra pay for railway wo is followed by a request on behalf of B.R.S. worker similar concessions. The Commission can scarcely fish of one and fowl of the other, and find it al impossible to resist the demand for immediate act
Cycle Starts Again
In the meantime an application will be lodged the Road Haulage Wages Council. Before the Co can meet, B.R.S. have approved an increase, and singularly hard to argue that workers not employe B.R.S. should be paid less. Whatever the Wages Co grant becomes generally applicable to most drive goods vehicles, whatever the type of licence. By time, it may be that the cycle has started again.
Very likely there are excellent reasons for increas the wages of both road and rail workers. The tia is that, in the negotiations as at present conducted, reasons lose their importance just as much as the ments on the other side. What other people are I paid becomes the main criterion. It would be better if each set of negotiations could he kept sem. The result might be the same, but there would Ix danger of the people affected losing confidence it procedure. One useful step might be to detach B from the Commission and return them to the jurisdi of the Wages Council,