Tina to the rescue?
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
"THERE Is No Alternative!" The Prime Minister's standard response to criticism of her Government's economic policy led to the addition of "Tina" to her list of nicknames, joining "Iron Lady" and "Mrs Finchley".
By the same token "Tina" might also be the nickname for road haulage. And some recent events make it clear that it is indeed fortunate for those in the industry that there is no real alternative.
What is especially depressing is that they were all actions by those who are supposed to have the best interests of the industry at heart.
Admittedly some hauliers would not place the first transgressor, Nicholas Ridley, in that category. But let us be charitable.
Mr Ridley makes no secret of his love for the private motorist. Indeed, he seems to be an incarnation of Peter Simple's J. Bonnington Jagworth. Moreover this attitude appears to be genuine, not based on electoral considerations. So he was probably sincere when he recently asked what, from others, might have been a purely rhetorical question. Who, he asked in effect, was to tell someone wanting to drive to work in London that he must not?
Was part of the announce ment a comprehensive scheme to invest vast sums in London's choked road system and inadequate parking? A scheme to introduce road pricing? Either of these would at least have had the virtue of consistency. (Whether they would be desirable is another matter.) Nothing of the kind — just Ministerial hot air. And needless to say, Mr Ridley made no reference to freedom for those who have to deliver or collect goods in London. There was no recognition that more car commuters mean more congestion, more illegal parking, and thus more delay to goods vehicles.
Even though Mr Ridley might be expected to have hauliers' interests at heart, he is an outsider. The other depressing actions come from those who have no such excuse. For they are already inside the industry.
In its way the saddest, though not the most important, is the failure of the RHA to make a commercial success out of Cargofax, its adventurous foray into information technology. There would have been few tears if Cargofax had failed because the RHA had guessed wrong about its members' needs.
But, although there is no way of knowing, it seems likely that few rank-and-file RHA members took the trouble to look in depth into how the scheme could help their business. It is difficult to believe that any but a highly specialised minority would not soon have recouped the modest investment by use of the return loads facility, quite apart from all the other services offered.
A merger with other similar systems may turn the lack of commercial success for Cargofax into a blessing. A single system for road haulage has much to commend it. But even if this happens, the episode will not encourage the RHA to be adventurous in the future.
But the most important area in which the industry has failed to respond to a challenge is the revision of the EEC drivers' hours and tachograph Regulations. And here it is the whole industry — operators' associations and trade unions alike — which must share the blame.
It might seem starry-eyed to expect both sides of the industry to agree on something which so closely affects almost every aspect of its operations, including the super-sensitive area of payment. Negotiators on both sides owe it to their members to squeeze the maximum amount of juice out of this potentially sweet orange.
But political realism ought to show them that unless they can agree on certain basic guidelines they will find that the orange turns into a bitter lemon. And the juice will be squeezed out of it by the EEC Council of Ministers, though it will still run into the industry's cup.
Both sides have certain common interests. More flexibility in the rules would obviously benefit the operators. Some union negotiators take the view that greater flexibility must inevitably be at the drivers' expense. So they resist it.
In the harsh world of industrial relations "flexibility" could be an employers' code word for "exploitation". But a look at what the Commission had proposed should dispel that fear. The much-criticised Eurocrats have gone to great trouble to achieve this.
On daily driving time, for example, they suggest a normal maximum of nine hours a day instead of eight, within a weekly limit reduced, in effect, by one hour. Twice a week the daily limit could be ten hours.
The TGWU opposes this, claiming that it would lead to many drivers exceeding the weekly limit. It is not clear whether the union believes that this does not happen at present. There seems to be no recognition of the fact that greater flexibility would reduce the pressure for fiddling.
The proposals on rest periods also recognise that when drivers are away from home their rest requirements are different. So shorter periods when "on the road", compensated for at more welcome times, seem sensible. Yet unions are likely to resist this just as strongly as increased daily driving. The employers are just as blind — or stubborn. For they are resisting the principle that total working time should be controlled in some way. The unions have always laid great stress on this point, arguing that allowing a driver to spend four hours at the wheel after he has done several hours non-driving work is wrong. Barbara Castle's 1968 Transport Act dealt with this, and for fourteen years British hauliers have lived with that. German and Dutch hauliers operate under a similar regime.
British law is comprehensive, controlling both duty time and spreadover. The Commission's proposal on this point is as modest as it could be. Drivers would have to take a break after 41/2 hours total work. That is all. Yet it is being resisted by British operators as though it were a totally unbearable new imposition.
Support for the union case comes from an unexpected source. The House of Lords European Committee is as firm as any operator could wish on the need for flexibility. But it is equally firm on the need for safeguards against drivers while fatigued by other work.
Is it really impossible for both sides of the industry to get together and hammer out the bare bones of the structure of a revised Regulation? It almost happened during the seemingly interminable negotiations in Brussels over the last few years. Then it all fell apart, and the Commission had to go ahead on its own.
Unless the industry reaches some internal agreement the Council of Ministers will legislate in the same way. And that will be that.
Cynics looking at the inflexibility of both sides in the miners' dispute are saying that Messrs Scargill and MacGregor deserve each other. It would be a great pity if the same were said about leaders on both sides of the road transport industry.
In this matter there is an alternative. And it is not too late to take it — not quite.