1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172 
Removers in Conferen(
Page 62
Page 63
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
wige Far and Wide
By S. BUCKLEY ASSOO.INST.T.
REMOVALS in Australia, U.S.A. and Europe, domestic problems of licensing, area representation, equipment and trade education—these were all topics discussed at Eastbourne this week. The occasion was the annual conference of the National Association of Furniture Warehousemen and Removers.
Following a civic reception the previous evening the conference opened on Wednesday morning with the annual general meeting, including the election of officers as shown alongside. The afternoon session opened with a paper on "The Pattern of Future Licensing: Where Do We Stand?", by Mr. E. 3. White.
Considerations which influenced the Association's discussions on their Geddes recommendations were of the utmost importance to operators, said Mr. White. Three times since 1945 their industry had been threatened—nationalization, denationalization and now what may arise from the Geddes recommendations.
There were divided interests within the industry because some members were involved in haulage. They must make their representations elsewhere, though they could not expect the best of both worlds.
Pickfords was a model on which to illustrate their argument. As a functional group of B.R.S. they accepted the narrowly defined normal operation—that is, "furniture and household effects ". Many members over the years had had to accept similar terms. Such licence holders were then entitled to safeguards and protection from other licence holders not so restricted.
Removers asked the Geddes Committee to help small operators by simplification a28 of the licensing procedure and reducing legal costs. They were in full agreement with vehicle plating, Mr. White added, with indication of "for hire" or "not for hire" included.
The second paper was entitled: "Do we get a fair return for our services?" and was introduced by Mr. F. W. H. Winwood. Defining a "fair return ", he claimed that it was not the profit on an individual job but the percentage of interest earned on total invested capital. What really counted was the end-of-theyear profit. Take-over financiers looked for about 15 per cent return and that could be a yardstick for the trade.
Increasing removal fleets indicated reasonable prosperity and Mr. Winwood said he could not remember a bankruptcy in the trade. But many of the services performed by removers were ridiculously uneconomic. An example was the fashion for free estimates, he said, involving an estimator and car for half a day.
Prices were low because removers themselves set low standards with slowly deteriorating workmanship. Yet some the most successful firms he kne. methodically restricted the size of the fleets, so ensuring that their facilitit were fully employed at adequate prices. Area representation on the executh council was the subject of a paper give by Mr. G. R. Tannam. He recalled demand for reduction in its size ft reasons of economy and unwieldines Comparison with another transpo association revealed 218 members pi executive representative as against 18 i the N.A.F.W.R.
There was a tendency, Mr. Tannat claimed, to let associations run withot much self examination once they ha been set -up. Whilst the Association ma have worked well in the past since it wa established 64 years ago, neverthelel "the wind of change must be allowed t blow through our organization if onl to give an impetus for the new problerr of the future ".
Conference Dates
At the a.g.m. of the N.A.F.W.R. o Wednesday it was decided to hold th 1964 Autumnal Conference in London o Thursday, October 15, and the 196 Annual Conference at Leamington Sp from May 3 to May 5. For the session On Thursday members :re divided into three discussion groups th subsequent reports to the full conrence. The first group considered " Ts ir equipment up to modern standards?" ter the discussion had been started by r. A. R. M. Walker, senior viceesident.
The second group compared internal a-royals in Great Britain i'vith three areas road=Anstralia and the Far • East,
trope and the' U.S.A. . • . Whilst basically there was little Terence' between the methods employed Australia and U.K. removers, by the ry nature of the vast continent "down icier" the operation was more complex. se Australian's business was divided tween local Work, distance moves and 'tat is known as inter-state moves. This is claimed by Mr. T. E. Mitchell in mparing internal removals within istralia and the U.K.
Indicative of the distances involved, one tstralian remover operates a regular rvice 'from Melbourne to Darwin via • dney, Brisbane and Alice Springs—a und trip of 7,200 miles. One had only think of weather hazards, road conlions and actual planning of such a urney to appreciate the vast problems volved. Yet his Australian friends sured him that by using either their vn branch offices or the services of sociated removers, inter-state running is practically always •at 100 per cent ading with return loading never less an 78 per cent, A striking feature of Australian movals was the great use made by the ides of railways, said Mr. Mitchell. ins, for example, from Adelaide to [ice Springs (a total distance of 1,000 iles) the load is invariably carried some 0 miles by rail. It was interesting to ite that the free enterprise remover and tionalized railways co-operated closely id both operate at a profit.
Reflecting on the excellent co-operation Australian removers, Mr. Mitchell iggested that a possible reason for the iccess of. associated companies was that booking commission of 10 per cent was iid to the member booking the return ads which was subsequently hauled •by 'other member's transport.
Regarding road/rail co-operation in ustralia Mr. Mitchell reminded his idience of Dr. Beeching's plans for liner sins and asked members to consider iture developments in this respect. The ustralians had already found the 'Ewers by living with the railways. milarly in this country the answer lay ith the members. Reshaping of British ailways, he claimed, would bear fruit id, by 1970, if not sooner, they ould be faced with having to compete with British Railways for household removals not only between London and Glasgow but on shorter runs from London to the Midlands.
Consideration was then given to a comparison of U,K. removals with those applying in Europe. The discussion was initiated by Mr. Michael Gerson.
The opening remarks to the discussion on U.S.A. internal removals as compared with the U.K. were made by Mr. K. S. Berger. A prime difference, he maintained, Was the faith of the American remover and the fealization that removals were big business with a potential. He had a strong conviction that U.K. removers tended to -assess American methods with a slight smile only to be doing precisely the same in three to five years' time.
A second distinction one noticed in the States was the relationship between employer and employee. During business hours everyone was on Christian name terms with immediate and easy access to the boss: In the U.K. Mr, Berger thought they were rather afraid of, such an innovation, fearing that it would result in disrespect. But the feeling in the U.S.A. was that by creating a friendly atmosphere the staff were united. Mr. Berger had confirmed this when in the U.S.A. In talking to removal staff they would reply "Yes—we work for Bill Banks—he is a great boss and we are a great company ". He doubted if he would get a similar response from U.K. staff.
Another trend removers in this country would have to follow was in " selling removals. In the U.K., Mr. Berger suggested, members appeared either ashamed of themselves and that little could be done to increase the number of removals. This attitude was at complete variance with that in America; There they were seeking the whole time to create more business and—more important still —to make more profit. Thus one large American company slogan this year was "8 per cent more in 1964 ". How many removal ,companies in this country. Mr. Berger queried, had targets for sales? Yet it was up to management to give their employees targets and, ultimately, the satisfaction of realizing such targets with, of course, the rewards that went with achievement. In contrast Mr. Berger claimed that U.K. removers did not bother a great deal about looking for business or selling a job to clients after an inquiry had been received.
In the States it was very different, he went on. There the estimator was primarily a salesman with a basic salary but dependent to a fair extent on commission. He therefore had an incentive to get the job and in the process his company gave him full backing. Thus he might have a booklet like "Pre-planned Moving ". One company gave various pamphlets free to custOtherS designed to show the company's interest in the client's home.
The American removers had realized that we were living in an affluent society which took pride in its ftenne and furnishings. Both in the U,S.A, 'add the U.K. such standards were far different froth 20 years ago, but Mr. Berger doubted what additional steps removers had taken during that period to protect the effects in their charge.
The Americans have a Scale of charges. although Mr, Berger had .reservations about then'. . According to the latest information. the Americans claimed that their .roverall profit, before taxation, amounted to 6'2 per cent net. They reckoned that transportation had an overall loss before tax of 8-8 per cent, storage showed' a profit of 11-9 per cent, whilst packing and crating showed a profit of 18-1 per cent.
Probably because packing and crating was the most profitable side of their business great attention was.paid to sell7 ing this particular ,service, said Mr. Berger. U.K. removers must learn from America as to the utilization of better packing materials, the presentation to the public of their industry and-realize that the industry had grown Out of the stage when they were " the chap with a van who does odd jobs 7..
Initiating the discussion on Trade Schools and Trade Education, Mr. G. J. Skelton insisted that time-saving methods, expertise, increased efficiency, works study and automation were not the monopoly of those providing goods. They were equally important to those, like removers, who provided services. If the removal industry were not to price itself out of business it would have to use every available technique and be prepared to adopt new methods and training innovations. Because industry as a whole had not fully accePted its burden of responsibility for training and education, the Government had decided to abandon exhortations and expressions of pious hope.
If it were decided to include transport in the scheme a good prospect existed of being able to secute official recognition for the Institute of the Warehousing and Removing Industry. So far, so good: but a body of opinion felt strongly that thc range and scope of its activities were not sufficiently comprehensive.
But by no stretch of imagination could what their industry had so far done be described as anything more than a token effort. Mr. Skelton suggested that members might consider organizing formal residential schools for clerical. potential managerial and operative grades,