EDITORIAL
Page 17
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Dock brief
Mr Michael Foot's determination to bring private enterprise ports within the dock employment scheme has been predictably welcomed by the Transport and General Workers' Union, which was its main instigator; but, if it goes through, this is a development which industry and the nation will live to regret. And, as in so many other instances, the road haulier and (ironically) his driver may bear the brunt of its effects.
The non-scheme ports have prospered precisely because they have not been shackled by the kind of restrictive practices which have bedevilled the older ports to the point where traders and shipping companies removed their traffic in sheer exasperation. Years of bad industrial relations, stoppages and disputes made dock traffic through the major ports an unhappy and excessively time-wasting business for very many hauliers; and the results of that inefficiency and instability have been reflected in cost to the customer.
By contrast, the established non-scheme ports such as Felixstowe and 1-farwich are profitable, flexible -and have good labour relations. It is clear that the owners and dockers at these ports are not keen to enjoy the "benefits" which the extension of the employment scheme would bring them. Nor are the customers.
Hauliers and their employees stand to suffer, too, if the definition of dock work is extended in the way that Mr Foot now envisages. We are not alone in seeing this as a means of stifling competition from container and groupage depots which operators have built up at considerable cost and effort. Fortunately, the road transport industry will have powerful allies in resisting these new moves. Already the Chamber of Shipping has made known its objections and it is up to road hauliers to see that, for example, the newly outspoken CBI is fully briefed.