Taboo
Page 75
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HAULIERS and trade unions are not to be deprived of a bone of contention by anything so simple as a Government regulation. The 20 m.p.h. speed limit for heavy goods vehicles provided a practice ground for endless skirmishes between the workers demanding safeguards and the employers suggesting that the law should first be changed. It was exbected that the long-delayed increase to 30 m.p.h. last May would force both sides to come to terms. Instead, the game of march and countermarch goes on, and it could continue indefinitely.
In pressing for the change, trade and industry encouraged the Minister of Transport .much as if they were calling upon him to charge a fortified position single-handed. At the same time, they reassured the-unions that the higher speed limit would be Merely " permissive." Nobody would be compelled to travel at 30 m.p.h., they pointed out. When the time came, the Minister found that only the decision required courage. Once it was taken, the opposition melted away. On the other hand, the unions took seriously the suggestion that the higher speed was legal, but not compulsory.
The taboo they have been partially successful in imposing is remarkable in that it achieves what the majesty of the law had previously failed to do. Many thousands of drivers are obstinately adhering to schedules appropriate to a 20 m.p.h. limit, although they did not keep to that limit even when it was an offence to exceed it. Their restrictive practice has another peculiarity. It is not primarily intended to prevent people from being thrown out of work, but has been adopted as a device to enforce an increase in wages.
Illogical Request
What the unions have demanded is an all-round 15 per cent. The request is completely illogical. Only about a quarter of the road haulage vehicles in Britain were heavy enough to be affected by the increase in the speed limit, so that the rise in wages would for the most part benefit drivers who have no reason to claim it. Even the operators of the heavier vehicles find differing advantages from the change in the law. Some have hardly noticed it, but a few others have runs on which they stand to gain much more than 15 per cent. It is the drivers on these runs for whom something ought to be done, but under the union's plan they would be treated the worst.
Logic is the last thing one would expect in the tangled discussions on a tangled subject. The unions would be justified in pointing out that, if the drivers of the heavier vehicles alone have a rise, it would be only a question of time before the other drivers began to demand a similar increase for themselves. Another argument, although not one likely to be advanced by the unions, is that the heavyvehicle drivers have for many years behaved as though they were entitled to drive at 30 m.p.h. in any case, so that there is no reason why they alone should benefit because the law, so to speak, has caught up with them.
As usual, there is some doubt about what will happen next. In their eternal quest for higher .wages, with or without the help of such gimmicks as the 30 m.p.h. speed limit, the unions have at least four possible lines of approach. On April 9, they will be resuming their attempt to get the agreement of the Road Haulage Wages Council to an increase of 10s. in the basic weekly wage and of 2s. 6d. per night in subsistence allowance, as well as one or two other changes in wages and conditions. The claim is a straightforward one, based chiefly on the rise in the
cost of living since the last wage increase in May, 1957, and on a comparison with wage scales in other industries.
No similar request has yet been made to British Road Services. It may be thought, however, that the unions are nearer reaching agreement with B.R.S. than With .the independent hauliers on the wages that ought to be paid as a result of the increase in the speed limit. Progress ought to be easier because a very much greater proportion of B.R.S, vehicles are of the heavier type and, in theory at least, these should do more work at the higher speed.
As long ago as last June, B.R.S. announced that they had practically settled with the unions the whole question' of the wages that should be, paid by way of compensation for legalizing the activities of the heavy vehicle drivers. The working day would be reduced by one hour. with a maximum working day of ten hours, "but without loss of earnings or present work content." There would be a bonus payment of 15 per cent. added to basic rates. The announcement added that negotiations were continuing, to revise schedules and iron out anomalies.
Nearly a year later, the negotiations seem as tar away from a conclusion as ever. The unions have had no better luck with the independent hauliers. The Road Haulage Association has stressed continually its agreement to two principles: that no worker should be paid less for doing, the same work, and that workers should have some share in any increase in productivity that results from the increased speed. Whether the unions also agreed that these two points cover the subject adequately is not completely certain, but it is known that a fairly lengthy meeting of the National Joint Industrial Council on January 8 failed to come to a satisfactory conclusion.
Where advantage is being taken of the higher permitted speed, the policy of the R.H.A. is to urge the employers, by means of a bonus or similar scheme, to put into effect the two agreed principles. That some driployers are not doing this is the contention of the unions. Their taboo is still working to their satisfaction in some concerns where their membership is strong. They would prefer that no driver maintains a schedule at the higher speed until a
satisfactory general wage agreement is reached. The hauliers lean to the view that the only possible solution lies in individual agreements.
Inflationary Step
The unions may yet be glad of this solution. A general wage increase, especially of the order of 3s. in the £, must seem like another step towards inflation, unless there is some equally obvious advantage in the form of higher productivity. Even the comparatively modest rise to be discussed again on April 9 will need a good deal of justification. There were substantial increases less than a year ago, ranging from 7s. to 16s. on the basic weekly wage. There has since been no great rise—roughly only four points—in the index of retail prices.
The employers' panel of the Wages Council must certainly have been fortified by the first Cohen report on prices, productivity and incomes, which expresses the opinion that the objective should be to stop, and not merely to moderate, inflation, and the hope that, if any wage increases are granted in 1958, they will be substantially below the average of the last few years. In the face of these opinions and hopes, it will be harder than ever for the unions to get taken seriously their claim to a very considerable all-round increase in return for the possible benefits accruing from the higher speed limit.