NOT WANTED ON BOARD?
Page 63
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
MCH of the attention of the public towards the second general report of the Prices and Incomes Board has been concentrated on the scarcely disguised disappointment of the chairman, Mr. Aubrey Jones, at not being asked to examine the case for the new and substantial increases in electricity charges.
The report states decidedly that the Board would "welcome a price reference from the public sector" in order to investigate •whether inflation would be more seriously affected by keeping the price down and forcing the electricity boards to borrow money or by putting up the cost.
The inference could be drawn that the welcome is less warm for other references such as the request to consider—for the second time round—charges, costs, wages and productivity in the road haulage industry.
One opportunity which the Board will certainly take is to analyse the extent to which its earlier reports on the industry were effective.
At the time it appeared to claim some success in holding down rates increases in general to 3 per cent as compared with the recommendation of 5 per cent by the Road Haulage Association. Even this claim is doubtful.
It was well known that RHA recommendations were normally regarded as the signal for negotiations with customers, that hauliers met with varying success and that on no occasion was there implementation in full right across the board.
Other points
There were other points which the Board possibly regarded as more important. It has consistently maintained—and now repeats —that the object of a productivity, prices and incomes policy is "to accelerate a change in attitudes and institutions". It may have difficulty in finding evidence of a change in either respect when it takes a fresh look at road haulage.
Institutions certainly have remained much the same, except to the extent that the periodical rate recommendations by the RHA might have been considered an institution. It is yet to be proved that the ending of these recommendations has been a change for the better.
The national negotiating committee for the road haulage industry, on whose first hesitant steps the Board smiled benevolently, has made no progress on any of the issues dear to the Board's heart.
How little the attitudes have changed is neatly illustrated by the application from the unions which last week had a .far-from smooth passage through the Road Haulage Wages Council.
The terms were no different in kind from many previous applications. There was no hint that the structure of the wages system might with advantage be altered nor that a rise in wages should be matched with an increase in productivity.
The new report by the Board makes it clear that it will have these matters very much in mind. During the past year it has several times been asked to examine wage agreements and has not hesitated to criticize the structure of which the agreements were intended to form part.
It refers, for example, to cases "where differentials are too narrow" and to others where they are too wide. In considering road haulage wages it can hardly help observing how the present system actually encourages unnecessary overtime working and discourages the application of realistic schedules based on the legal speed limits.
'Clear lesson'
On productivity agreements, says the Board, "one clear lesson" has been learned. While an increase in pay "can legitimately take place concurrently with an increase in output, it cannot consistently with stability in the economy precede an increase in output". Strictly applied this dictum would rule out of court at once the latest proposal from the Wages Council.
Another relevant aspect of the Board's approach has been the attempt to "loosen the relationship between pay within a factory or an industry and the pay thought to be paid elsewhere". In exchange it is hoped to establish "a closer relationship between internal pay and internal performance".
Although the form of words might indicate that the Board was not thinking of industries such as road haulage the attitude of mind seems clear.
The Board would not approve the tendency to play off one section of the industry or one employer against another. It would agree with the operator who makes special productivity agreements to suit the circumstances of his business and would deplore any attempt to make those agreements the pattern in other undertakings.
The reference of road haulage wages to the Board was entirely the idea of the Govern ment. The request for a further review of road haulage charges came from the operators.
From the latest report of the Board it would appear likely that the industry will have to put up a strong case if it wishes the Board to be more helpful than its earlier reports.
For one thing, the Board takes an optimistic view of cost increases over the past year. Average earnings rose by 2 per cent, it says, while retail prices rose by less than 3 per cent. None the less, the report continues, "a widespread impression exists in the public mind that prices have moved much faster than wages".
Hauliers would largely agree with the public if the Board extended the statement to mean that costs had moved much faster than rates. Documentary proof will not be easy.
With two notable exceptions cost increases over the past year or so have been on items which individually represent only a small proportion of total costs. Graduated pensions, insurance, rent and rates and telephone and postal charges have all gone up in price—although not all of them for every operator.
The exceptions
The two exceptions are wages and fuel. The fuel tax went up by 4d a gallon in July 1966 and another 2d was added to the price last July.
The Board's report contains a reminder that it had "to allow price increases where they have stemmed from Government action, such as a tax". In theory, therefore, all hauliers should by now have put up their rates so as to recoup the extra 6d a gallon on the price of fuel, which might amount in some cases to as much as id a mile.
It would be interesting to know how many operators have in fact taken advantage of this particular dispensation.
A wage increase of approximately 6 per cent took effect in June 1966. This is more than twice the amount by which the Board reckons that retail prices increased during the year and three times as much as the increase in average earnings.
It is not difficult to understand why hauliers are anxious that the Board should have another look at their financial problems.