Political Commentary By JANUS
Page 69
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Prison Without Bars
T0 be taken at one's word, particularly when it is a long word, can sometimes be surprising. When the supporters of the increase in the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles were putting forward their case, they wisely thought it necessary to reassure the drivers. The favourite formula was to point out that the higher speed limit, when it became law, would be " permissive and not mandatory." Any hope that the drivers would fail to understand what was meant disappeared as soon as the speed limit was raised. The drivers, or the unions on their behalf, understood only too well, The 30-m.p.h. limit has been ignored almost as much, if that were possible, as the 20-m.p.h. lirriit that it replaced.
The reason has been clear from the first. The unions, who in spite of their frequent excursions into politics, economics and world affairs do not forget that their main duty is to improve the lot of their members, saw in the increased speed limit an opportunity to lift up wages. Under the old law, an average speed of 16 m.p.h. was alt that could be expected in theory, whatever might happen in practice, and most schedules of work were based on or around this figure. The increase in the speed limit brought the average up to about 22 m.p.h. The drivers would be doing nearly half_ as much work again while they were on the high road.
The unions were therefore justified in asking for compensation on behalf of those of their members likely to be affected by the increase. It was natural to begin by attacking the Aand B-licence holders.. For tackling the independent hauliers there was the statutory machinery of the Road Haulage Wages Council and of the National Mint Industrial Council. The unions were in the habit of negotiating directly with British Road Services.
Two Principles . From the outset the hauliers realized that they, would, have to make concessions. They agreed among themselves on two principles. The first was that no driver should be paid less, after the speed limit was raised, for doing the same amount of work as before. The second was that a driver should be allowed some share in the increase in revenue that it was expected would follow the increase in productivity—or transportivity might be the more appropriate word.
So far this important pledge has failed to satisfy the unions. Their objection might be that they would have little control over the extra payments to drivers, which would almost certainly have to be given in the form of a bonus. On some journeys, or on some jobs, there would be a considerable saving of time, on others the effect would be negligible. Much would depend upon whether the driver was prepared to make the effort. It would be impossible to give statutory force, by means of a Road Haulage WageS Order, to the kind of arrangement envisaged by the employers.
The unions preferred to look for a formula. By an arithmetical calculation that has not been made completely clear, they decided that the change in speed limit was worth an extra 15 per cent, on wages. From some statements, although not from all, it would appear that the increase is intended to apply only to the basic wage for a 44-hour week, and the position is further confused by an additional claim from the unions for an alteration in the law to reduce the maximum working day from 11 to 10 hours.
Difficulties would arise over the general grant of a 3s. in the pound rise to the drivers of heavy goods vehicles.' The statutory wages scales are drawn up in accordance with carrying capacity, and the dividing line. at 5 tons might be held to correspond roughly with the dividing line of 3 tons unladen weight that formerly separated the slower and the quicker vehicles. The basic wage for the driver of a vehicle up to 5 tons carrying capacity is already 7s. less than if his vehicle were over 5 tons. The 15-per-cent. increase would bring the differential up to a little over £1 10s. This would be bound to' cause discontent among the drivers of the lighter vehicles.
The solution put forward by the unions appears to be to make the increase general. There is no logic in this. Owr the industry as a whole, the heavy goods vehicles are in the minority. About a quarter of those operated by independent hauliers come within this category, and among C-licensed vehicles the proportion drops to 10 per cent.
Higher Productivity On the other hand, the majority of B.R.S. vehicles are heavy and are engaged on work that ought to show at least some return in higher productivity. Either for this reason, or because B.R.S. are more vulnerable to pressure, the unions negotiated with them almost to the point of agreement. There was to be a 15-per"cent. increase on basic rates, described as a " bonus payrnent," and applying to all vehicles of over 5 tons carrying capacity; a working day of 10 hours; and 'a revision of the duty schedules before the agreement came into force. An announcement to this effect was made in June, 1957, and it would appeal. that the duty schedules are still being revised.
The situation remains ambiguous, not to say stagnant. Where the writ of the unions runs, the position is as though the speed limit had never been raised. The drivers keep to the same schedules and practices as before. The owner-drivers can hardly be expected to act in the same way, and in numerous other cases, particularly among small concerns, the drivers have changed their ways, in return for appropriate bonus .payments. Difficulties may Occur where this becomes known at places where the more fortunate drivers collect or deliver, but on the whole there have been surprisingly few awkward incidents.
As with many other industries, it seems remarkably easy to become used to restrictive practices. The report on Smithfield Market reveals a situation as complicated as a game of chess. There are any number of, pieces with functions established by tradition, and with names that appear to have been acquired in the same way, such as pullers back, humpers, scalesmen, offal boys and bummarees. Each piece has its own kind of move that no other piece may carry out.
The committee presenting the report are firmly of the opinion that reforms are needed. They state that the arrangements most urgently calling for modification are those that impose severe limitations on the retailers' ability .to get their meat out of the market when they have bought it. It remains to be seen what action will follow the report. In the meantitne, the formidable committee that for years was'the spearhead in the struggle to increase the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles may feel they should reconstitute themselves. At least as much pressure as was required to get the speed limit raised may have to he exerted to see that the benefit sought with such zeal and energy is now actually made use of.