Clearing Houses Protect Operators
Page 24
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Trenchant Reply to the Many and Somewhat By Harsh Criticisms Made Against Clearing Houses by • H. Gammons, R. A. Pierson Managing Director, Walter Gammom. LW.
/ WERE it not for the fact that Mr. Pierson's article, VY " Why Use Clearing Houses?", in your issue dated January 1, may have a small amount of influence with some people, I would say that it should 'be read with 'something akin to amusement. Obviously he has an axe to grind, otherwise why should he suddenly make this attack on clearing homes as a body?
• I am the first to admit that there are black sheep in every fold. There arc, unfortunately, bad as well as good clearing houses in existence to-day, but any Ns:ell-informed operator could enlighten Mi. Pierson as to the proportionately large number of black sheep among the operators themselves, It is a. simple fact 'that the rate cutting. my own company has had to •meet has come from operators, and not from other clearing houses.
Mr.. Pierson states that the Ministry of War Transport's new scheme as caused consternation in the ranks of • clearing houses. I would inform him that the new scheme has caused great concern amongst operators all over the country; indeed, it has also caused alarm among many of the large trading concerns. Literally hundreds of operators have been in touch with me since the scheme was first announced: and there is no doubt whatsoever that there is a strong feeling of apprehension in the industry. If Mr. Pierson holds the, view that in a short time everything in the garden will be lovelyfrom the operators' point of view, he will, without a doubt, receive a severe awakening, as this is certainly not the vieW ot the majority of oldestablished and earnest operators, and it most certainly is not my view.
I venture to suggest that he has more or less accepted the new scheme at its face value and is sadly ignorant as to what is really behind the scheme. He states that the railways offered a certain amount of resistance to the progress of road transport, . and then goes on to make the startling announcement that all that has now been abandoned! Don't you believe it, Mr. Pierson. You are living in'a fool's paradise if you do. You can rest assured that the railways have never abandoned their aims and never will until they have achieved their object.
'Strong Views on Reasons for the Government Haulage Scheme
I will give Mr. Pierson my view, a view, I can say, Which is shared by many operators all over the kingdom. The shortage of fuel and rubber is, no doubt, a serious consideration these days, but I am firmly convinced that it has been used as a means to an end-by the Government, which has found it a ready-made excuse to cloak the real reason for its proposals. In other words, these reasons for the scheme I place some way down the list in importance, as there are two other reasons of greater importance. One is the question of man-power, which I maintain is of greater importance to the Government than rubber and fuel, but there is little doubt that the primary reason is the old " dead hand " of the railways and other interests• making its weight felt once again.
Whilst I agree that we are all working with the common object of winning this war as quickly as possible, there is no doubt that the political influence of the railways is as strong as ever, although it has apparently remained underground, and consequently deluded Mr. Pierson into assuming that it hap disappeared. In view of the present relationship between the Government and the railways, the latter have,, at present, nothing to lose, and everything that has been done and is being done to curtail road transport is automatically of benefit to the railways, either now or at some future date.
No operator should blind himself with the belief that these . arrangements are only for the duration. Surely no one can visualize the railways being prepared, without agreat fight, to allow things to return to what they were before
A22
the war. A precedent will have been created -during war ' time, and both•the railways and many biased Civil servants will be loth to see.tofiditiOns ietUrn to pre-war standard. It will be so bbyiously against the interests of-the railways that I maintain that, when the time for readjustment comes,.-then the road industry will be in the'greatest danger it ever ,has been in and is ever likely to be in.
I foresee that if We ever sarviVe the immediate post-war .period we shall not have very much more of which to be afraid. Surely we can all see the rMlways using, as one of their greatest arguments, the fact that they have proved that they can handle much more traffic than in pre-war days, and this is bound to influence 'the drastic' Curtailment of the road industry.
New Scheme is Really Clearing House on Huge Scale
To revert to some of the complaints made about clearing houses, less than 12 months ago we were told by the Ministry that " we were as much a part. of the fighting machine, as those in the Services ".anevarioui pronouncements from time to time have stated that the clearinghouse system is a benefit to the industry. Indeed, it is plain to see that, when the new scheme comes into being, one of its more important functions will be to act as a gigantic Clearing-house systein, and I submit that that is quite sufficient proof that the principle of the clearing house is recognized as dri integral and necessary part of the organization of transport. Perhaps it is this very fact that has frightened Mr. Pierson into writing his letter.
It is just as stupid for a bona-fide clearing house to -indulge in any form of rate cutting as it is for an operator to do so. , In both cases it means a loss of earnings, Which I presume no one desires; whether lie be operator or clearing house, and . it is just as easy for either to get intb financial difficulties if it adoptssuch a procedure. Mr. Pierson showsi great ignorance when he says t/Ot clearing houses flourish where only low-rated commodities are available. We have never been in the unfortunate position of having to " tout " for operators to carry our work. The boot has, happily, alWays been on the other foot, and so it .should be with_ any well-run clearing house. Under all normal conditions we ;have more .dperatbrs afterour work than we can supply.
Mr. Pierson's statement that a contractor who wishes to have a cash advance from' a clearing house has to pay..2& per cent: per Month is quite wrong. There are, I believe, some who make such a charge, but the-srnajority makes no charge whatsoever for this servie'. My own company makes no such -charge on these occasions, although I may say that we have been approached by contractors in some instances who have offered us this inducement, but we have declined.
No conditions for the acceptance of traffic are laid down by my company and none need be laid down by any good concern. The relationship is quite automatic, and we simply inform all hauliers that their insurance arrangements for goods in transit must satisfy our brokers, otherwise, if they wish to work for us, we can arrange the insurance cover for them, which Costs them l per cent, of the gross haulage charges, and is paid in full to the insurance company on an' auditor's certificate, As an example, the majority of bur contractors nowadays carry On working without bothering even to inquire \s'hat the rate is for the particular load, and often , write in once a month for particulars to enable them to render their invoices. So much for Mr. Pierson's conditions!
His comparison between clearing houses and, the various pools is quite ridiculous. -He overlooks the fact that the pool's were non-profit-making organizations and, naturally.' the commission charged was less. If Mr. Pierson liked to ranhis business on a non-profit-making basis he -cduld. obviously charge much'lower rites than he does usually.