Hauliers Must Fight for Future Security
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By " Tantalus "
RECENTLY "The Commercial Motor" drew the attention of its readers to a matter which is of paramount importance to hauliers. So much so indeed that every haulage contractor should have a copy of the particular statement referred to _pasted up in his office or garage to serve as a reminder and to stimulate action when the time for this is ripe.
The paragraph in question referred to the future position of operators in respect of the vehicles which they may be permitted to run in post-war years. It was pointed out that, so far back as March, 1940, the M.O.W.T. sent a letter on this subject to the S.J.C. stating that the position is governed by the provisions of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, but opportunity has been taken of discussing this point with the Licensing Authorities, and the Minister is informed that careful records are being kept of all vehicles deleted from licences during the war. This with a view to giving the most sympathetic consideration, in
-• the circumstances then prevailing, to applications at the end of the war for the reinstatement of an equivalent number of vehicles.
No apology is necessary for the detailed repetition. Indeed the significance of the reply of the M.O.W.T. in itself provides ample justification for such repetition; for, in fact, it provides nothing whatsoever in the nature of a specific pledge to hauliers. It forms an excellent example of what is generally known as a " Parliamentary reply " in that it is evasive in character, contains a dash of appeasement and is entirely lacking in definite commitment. So far as is known, no advancement in the position has been made since the date of the M.O.W.T. letter.
So haulage contractors in May, 1943, know no more than they did in March, 1940, so far as this particular issue is concerned, but, in the majority of cases, they are sadder and wiser men because, in the meantime, a great deal has happened in other directions which has affected their position in the industry.
An Official Way of Escape Reverting to the M.O.W.T. letter, special attention is directed to the phrase "in the circumstances then prevailing" .which, obviously, can have but one meaning. No one can possibly predict when the war will be over or what will be the future social and economic system—whether the major basic industries will be nationalized or become controlled monopolies, or whether freedom will be restored to private enterprise. Such problems may provide the main issue in the political field of the future. Be that as it may, the fact remains, so far, there is no enlightenment whatsoever regarding,the future position in fespect of the number of vehicles which may be operated in the post-war period.
Obviously the letter in question was sent to the S.J.C. in response to a request from the latter for a statement agi, to official policy in the matter under consideration, bur all this took 151ace three years ago, since which time nothing further has been heard regarding the subject. Doe' this mean, then, that the S.J.C. accepted the statement of the M.O.W.T, as the final word and, consequently shelved the matter, or did the S.J.C. regard the principle as one of sufficient importance to press the Ministry to give a definite pledge that the pre-war operating rights would be restored to hauliers? If no such action has been taken, should not this point be included as a priority item in the policy of the National Road Transport Federation.
In this connection there is much cogitation as to the extent of the progress which may have been made regard-ing the finalizing of the scheme, also as to the date when the Federation actually will commence to function. It may be recalled that the initial meeting concerning the proposals took place about two years ago. This was followed by a number of meetings of both the Conference and sub-committee. Surely, sufficient time has elapsed ior the completion of negotiations and for agreement upon matters of detail between the contracting parties.
Negotiations for Unity Unduly Protracted It is, of •course, apparent that such a comprehensive scheme entails much work of an involved nature. Never theless, this does not provide any adequate excuse for the Protracted negotiations. Schemes of a much wider character in respect of other large 'industries have been completed and put into operation in a quarter of the time and—more important still—are functioning successfully.
In reviewing the war-time history of the road-transport industry—with the many problems, difficulties-and vicissi tudes with which it has had to contend—and recognizing that it has lacked the aid and support of a centralized and fully representative body, one can only wonder whether the burdens might have been lessened appreciably if such support had been available. When the.position'of the trades unions is compared with that of the industry, the difference is extremely marked.
It will be remembered, in the case of the unions, that when certain privileges were surrendered in the national interest, the leaders were sufficiently astute to obtain from the Government a definite pledge that all pre-war rights and privileges would be restored after the war. If only our industry had been in a. similar position regarding leader ship and strong and unified representation, it is safe to assume that the war-time lot of the hauliers would have been easier and happier.
In some respects, unfortunately, the position is such that it cannot be retrieved; in others, more happily, there is still time to act. It is all the more important, therefore, for the Road Transport Organization Joint Conference to increase the tempo of action. It is essential at this juncture that the rank and file of the industry be informed how matters stand. This prompts the question: Has the scheme been accepted by all the contracting parties or are there still dissentients? In the latter event will the Conference still continue to press forward to put the scheme into operation?