AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

PI B wants Government action on busmen's pay

24th May 1968, Page 34
24th May 1968
Page 34
Page 34, 24th May 1968 — PI B wants Government action on busmen's pay
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• Government action in the field of municipal busmen's pay was firmly requested by the Prices and Incomes Board on Wednesday. Mrs. Castle was expected to take up the challenge by calling both sides of the industry together to begin talks on a "tiered" system of basic rates, giving more for busmen in big towns and cities where the effort and strain of running the services is the greater than elsewhere.

The P and I Board's request was the central recommendation of a report dealing with agreements concluded in Liverpool, Glasgow and Belfast which were outside the recent general report on municipal busmen's pay.

For Liverpool, where busmen have been on strike for 11 weeks, the Board found that the proposal for an increase of 18s 4d in basic rates plus an extra average 4s BrI on premium rates for Saturdays (hoisting average platform earnings by about 31s a week) was not warranted on grounds of productivity, manpower or low pay.

But the Board accepted that there was a case for an exceptional pay increase on the grounds that the pay of Liverpool platform staff was seriously out of line with that for similar work, for instance in Manchester and Birmingham.

The Board strongly preferred that the problem should be solved through the "very early" conclusion of an agreement closely related to the creation of a tiered system of basic rates. But it accepted that any adjustment resulting from this would not differ radically from the 31s increase in earnings which would come from the implementation of the present Liverpool agreement.

The Board added there was "substantial scope" for quickly increased earnings from single-manning in Liverpool, and from changes in working practice proposed by the management last November.

The Board came to broadly the same conclusion in the case of Glasgow, where the agreement for an increase of 15s in basic rates for platform staff (hoisting weekly earnings by an average of Ms( was not warranted on manpower or low pay grounds.

But, as in the case of Liverpool, there was a case for a comparability increase based on the recommendation of tiered rates for effort and strain. As the Glasgow agreement contained no productivity provision, the Board pointed out again that singlemanning and changes in working practices and productivity could also bring pay rewards.

In Belfast, where the agreement for a £1 basic increase would hoist average weekly earnings by about 26s for platform and non-craft garage staff, the Board found that "useful" productivity provisions which were included still did not justify an increase of this order.

Neither was the agreement justified on manpower, low pay or comparability grounds.

But there was considerable scope for increased earnings from the extension of single-manning and agreed changes in working practices, taken together. And the Board recommended that Belfast Corporation should immediately request the Northern' Ireland Government to amend the law to allow the use of both decks of double-deckers when they were single-manned.

Footnote: Although the long strike in Liverpool was not within the Board's terms of reference, it expanded its comments on the Liverpool agreement by indicating broad lines for a settlement, aiming for higher rewards related to higher productivity. Mrs. Castle was expected to take up these proposals almost immediately.


comments powered by Disqus