Removers Plan for Future
Page 65
Page 66
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By S. BUCKLEY, ASSOCANST.T.
TRAINING schemes, labour relations and profit ratio studies were discussed at the autumn conference of the National Association of Furniture Warehousemen and Removers held in London on Thursday of last week. Appropriately for an event held on Election Day, the conference was primarily concerned with forward planning. In particular the success of the " prototype " area training scheme was shown to auger well for the removal industry should an official scheme under the Industrial Training Act forecast for 1965 become a reality.
Area representation on the executive council was the first topic to be discussed by the general secretary, Mr. E. A. Harris. Reporting on developments since the last annual conference, he said that the committee set up earlier this year to consider the several suggestions recommended that there should be no change in the composition of the executive council, although some adjustments were suggested. These recommendations were approved by the conference.
The main subject for discussion at the morning session was the second profit-ratio study. Introducing this, Mr. G. F. Green recalled that the subject was first discussed at the Association's annual conference in 1961, and subsequently a committee under the chairmanship of the then immediate past president, Mr. George E. Pearson, arranged for the first study to be Undertaken in which 50 concerns participated.
Further comment was made by Mr. C. S. Elliott, who declared that the 1964 study must be considered a failure, with only 18 returns out of a membership of 1,100. There appeared to be an inability of most members to complete the forms circulated and to deal realistically with rents on premises and the return on present-day value of premises. A skeleton set of accounts was needed for each member to fill in his own figures. At present members were putting their own interpretations into the forms, which was influencing the average percentages.
Because of the need for a new approach to this subject the conference committee arranged for Mr. L. Taylor Harrington, deputy director of Inter-firm Comparison Ltd., to address them.
Mr. Harrington first explained that the Centre of Interfirm Comparison was a non-profit-making organization set up by the British Institute of Management and the British Productivity Council. It was now carrying out comparisons • in some 40 British industries and trades.
The object of these comparisons was to enable each participating firm to improve its profitability and efficiency by showing how it compared with others and where there was room for improvement. The acid test was whether participants obtained positive values.
Enunciating six principles which distinguished " good " inter-firm comparisons, Mr. Harrington said that they should aim at giving practical help to individual businesses and not simply be statistics of general interest. The subjects chosen for comparison should therefore correspond to the real interests and needs of firms. Specific objectives for the comparison should be chosen and clearly stated, whilst comparability of figures must be a prerequisite.
Because the provision of accurate and comparable data involved participants in some work and to encourage maximum contribution of data, the results should be made available to participants only, said Mr. Harrington. If there was to be a central organization there must inevitably be some expense. This technical aspect was the essence of the exercise, including the ability to evaluate reports accurately. The results should show the figures of each individual participant (under code numbers) with a report interpreting the significance of the results.
Commenting on the Association's profit ratio study, Mr. Harrington suggested that it could be improved by some additions: for example, the relative operating efficiency in terms of costs per ton-mile. Greater emphasis should be laid on increasing comparability of figures and he repeated that results should go only to participants.
Regarding the actual preparation of a comparison Mr. Harrington said that they normally asked clients to enter figures on appropriate forms, but in the case of small firms they might send representatives to a client to discuss their report on the spot. In conclusion he strongly recommended the Association either to undertake such a study properly or give up the idea all together.
Replying to subsequent questions Mr. Harrington said that from experience in other industries such studies seldom produced even 50 per cent of the maximum possible return but a 10 per cent return could give just as reliable figures as a 30 per cent return. Regarding fees, a minimum per client was around £50, with an average amount of £75.
After the discussion on profit ratio study the conference passed a resolution that the executive council should consider setting up such a scheme as outlined by Mr. Harrington.
The morning session concluded with a resolution introducing a new scale of subscriptions being adopted. This is to take effect as from March 1, 1965, and the main provisions relate to minimum and maximum subscriptions.
The afternoon session of the conference opened with a talk on "Labour Relations" by Mr. H. F. Marks, chairman of the labour relations committee. He recalled that there had been a slight change in the atmosphere between the two sides of the industry resulting in members from both the employers and employees meeting in informal discussion prior to a full Meeting of the Road Haulage Wages Council. The chairman of that Council had praised the two parties for initiating this development.
The next topic was "The industrial Training Act, 1964 —scope and objectives ". The junior vice-president of N.A.F.W.R., Mr. 0. J. Skelton, introduced Mr. T. H. I. Field, training and education officer of the British Road Services Federation, who then proceeded to give his views on the possible impact of the 1964 Industrial Training Act on the removing industry.
At the outset he warned delegates that they would have a training board for the road transport industry far sooner e31 than many thought likely, although he emphasized that he was giving his personal opinion only. The Act had yet to be implemented, but some action had already started. The Central Training Council had been established and was already in business. Training boards had been set up for four industries—engineering, construction, iron and steel and wool. Additionally, boards were now being established for shipbuilding, construction materials, cotton and the public utilities of electricity, gas and water.
As recently as September 26 a senior official in the Ministry of Labour had intimated that among the next four industries to have training boards would be those of vehicle repair and road transport—passenger and haulage. This implied that before the end of this year delegates could expect discussion to start between the Ministry of Labour and the various organizations representing the employers and workers over the formulation of a training board for the road transport industry. Moreover, this could be established early next year, with the first levy being made by the end of 1965. Mr. Field anticipated that one of the first points to be discussed would be whether one board would cover both road transport and vehicle repair or whether there would be two boards.
This development added a sense of urgency to the topic and in anticipation of the N.A.F.W.R. being invited to the preliminary discussions, it would be desirable for the removing industry to have their own training policy clearly formulated before entering such discussions. He added that the Institute of Furniture Warehousing and Removing Industry with its tutorial and examination system together with the training centre (which was being extended), was ahead of other sections of road transport.
The training Act was a completely new concept in this country so that there were no precedents. Referring to the general guide to the Act, and particularly regarding the levy, no answer was given as to the actual amount to be paid, but the implication was that such levy would not be small. In making any estimate there was, unfortunately, no guide, as none of the existing training boards had yet made a levy. But in his considered opinion, Mr. Field suggested that delegates should think in terms of a per capita levy of £25 each year, although it could be more. It was unlikely to be less, but the removing section of the transport industry might possibly have a slightly lower levy than an operator of passenger vehicles or haulage vehicles who employ maintenance and engineering staff. He added that the Act Permitted such variations, although refinements might nOt be possible in the early days of a board's activities.
Training Board The Act also permitted a training board to decide whether small firms should be exempted. Thus the engineering training board might exclude firms who employ five people or less. In the construction industry however, there was a possibility that all employers might be included and Mr. Field considered this latter procedure more likely in the transport industry. As a result a removals firm employing 20 people would pay an annual levy of about £500, whilst the group of companies he served might pay nearly £1m. Mr. Field then rhetorically asked: "Why should we suffer thus?" For a reply he referred delegates to the objectives of the Act, which briefly were to ensure an adequate supply of properly trained men and women at all levels in industry; to secure an improvement in the quality and efficiency of industrial training; and to share the cost of training more evenly between firms.
A trained staff could lead to efficiency and success in a competitive industry, while efficiency brought higher proB32 ductivity and with it the ability as a nation to maintain our standard of living and, indeed, to improve it. These fundamentals must be borne in mind when considering the defects of the Industrial Training Act, went on Mr. Field. The Act would provide a pool of money from which employers who gave proper training to their star would have the cost of that training refunded in the form of a grant. The good employer would not suffer, but only those who provided no training would pay their levy without return.
Mr. Field then commented on the type of training activity which would qualify for grants. The answer must await the setting up of a training board with its subsequent definition of schemes and standards. But it would be bound to take note of existing facilities, and here the removal industry would have an advantage. He believed that the major part of the expenses paid towards the education of staff under this scheme would be recoverable. So would be the cost of attendance and instruction at their new training centre. Whatever arrangement was made for financing the centre this would come under the inspection of the training board. It might even be desirable to place the centre under the aegis of the training board provided they were adequately represented on the governing body. Whatever happened the training board would be only too ready to accept constructive suggestions from the removal industry as they would be more involved with those sections of road transport where training was virtually non-existent. It could be that a senior member of the removal industry would be invited to serve on the training board, whilst there would be special committees to consider their particular problems.
Regarding the training of drivers, Mr. Field suggested that if the training board set up a driver training centre it may not be financed soleley from the levy. There was a provision in the Act for the Government to make grants to training boards for particular purposes. He also thought it was likely that two or three centres, perhaps on a residential basis, would be set up for short training courses for managers and supervisors, as only the very largest employers could organize this for themselves.
In conclusion he encouraged the removal industry to maintain its position in industrial training, having already set the pattern and the pace. The force of example could mean much to the majority of managements in the road haulage industry who had little or no idea of the extent of the contribution that effective training could make in increased efficiency and raising productivity. In thanking Mr. Field for his address, Mr. Skelton commented on the present position of training within the removal industry. The institute had advised the Association that it considered it of first importance to have in existence a scheme for the formal training of manual operatives on a national scale as opposed to the uncoordinated training in certain areas. Because of its geographical location the residential school at Knuston Hall was regarded as the best medium for development of a national school. He was glad to say that both approval and promise of .financial support had already been given. Following on the disclosure at the annual conference that insurance companies in America made grants to the warehousing industry for such purposes, Mr. Skelton disclosed that the position to date was that they had definite promises of sums totalling £250 with assurances of further contributions. It was apparent that 1965 would be an important year so far as education was concerned, and their aim was to "slip into gear at the new momentum The conference concluded with reports by area delegates on the topics of local labour problems, hiring, advertising and association organization within their industry.