to i c
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Not all of one mind by janus
CLEARLY the haulier and the transport operator who is also a user of transport find their differences sufficiently wide to justify continuing with two separate associations even when the licensing system no longer makes the distinction. On many points there are wide divergences of opinion within the associations themselves.
Hauliers might be expected to be solidly behind a proposal for increases in the maximum sizes and weights of lorries. Without justification the critics have assumed that the proposal comes from the hauliers and have shaped their attack accordingly. As a moment's thought will indicate, only a few hauliers can benefit from larger and heavier lorries. The remainder are indifferent or may even be against a change.
They could find traffic abstracted from them by another operator with vehicles that suit his purpose but which would not be economic for them to buy. As road users they may be no keener than the next man to have lorries held up by a string of vehicles, An additional and more recent objection is that opposition to the proposal fans out so as to include practically the whole of the road goods transport industry.
IN defending his industry the haulier finds himself vilified for seeking a wider scope he does not want and would even rather do without. He would prefer a limited freedom to use bigger or at any rate heavier vehicles in circumstances where the need is apparent such as the carriage of 40ft containers to and from the ports.
His divided attitude towards a general increase is seen in the comparatively mild answers sometimes given to attacks from the champions of rural England, clean air, transport integration and similar abstractions. Like everybody else the haulier prefers that people should have a good opinion of him. He will not go out of his way to draw down criticism when there is no profit.
Similar considerations influence him when restrictions are proposed on parking and on waiting or on the use of specified streets by vehicles above a certain size. Operators with through traffic who would like the route to be kept clear cannot always reconcile this wish with that of other operators with deliveries to be made on the route.
When a haulier has spent a good deal of money on garage space for his fleet he does not look kindly on the competitor who allows his vehicles to be parked on the streets. The competitor and his drivers may have a different point of view. It may not often find expression but its existence is clear from the extent of unauthorized parking and the apparent impotence of the authorities to cope with the problem.
On drivers' wages the obstacles to a consensus are multiplied by the gulf which already yawns between the basic statutory rates of pay and the levels laid down in the agreements reached by many operators with the unions. Time and again it is suggested that the road haulage wages orders should be amended so as to bring the floor more. realistically close to the ceiling.
The last two orders have taken a cautious step in this direction. Drivers on the lowest rates of pay are to have an extra #.2 a week and this increment melts away to nothing as the total wage increases towards £16.
OBODY seems to know to what extent this represents a substantial gain or a mere gesture. The Prices and Incomes Board has estimated that fewer than 10 per cent of road haulage workers receive only the bare wage to which they are entitled by law, and not all of these workers would derive benefit from the extra £2. Even fewer of them would be union members.
The compromise which the £2 represents creates an obvious anomaly. Once a low paid worker has put in enough hours to earn £14 on the basic scale he is at once entitled to £16, and will have to work several hours longer before he is entitled to any more. The easy way out of this dilemma is for the employer to continue paying the £2 after the statutory limit has been reached.
What seems to be evolving is a basic minimum wage of £16. Many hauliers believe this to be inevitable and would like it to be agreed by their Wages Council. Probably the majority of hauliers are strongly opposed to this although for different reasons.
Where the present minimum rates still apply an increase to £16 could be a serious addition to operating costs which hauliers feel have gone up more than enough in recent months. The proportion of operators concerned may be small but to them the issue could be one between staying in road haulage and going out of business. They would prefer the basic rates to be increased at intervals as at present.
Operators paying above these rates are often following the terms of agreements optimistically linking wages with productivity. These agreements are well above the statutory level but are sensitive to changes in it. A bonus for the lowest paid workers cannot with justification be reflected in what the higher paid workers receive; it was presumably devised in order to prevent this happening.
IF the underdog is further helped by making £16 the lowest basic wage, employers throughout the industry would find themselves paying more for overtime work. The workers would also want their agreements to be revised to take account of the change in the wages orders. The lowest paid drivers for whom the step was apparently being taken would benefit least.
On at least one piece of recent legislation hauliers are generally agreed. They have complained for many years at what they regard as the misuse of trade plates by many of the vehicle manufacturers, dealers and traders entitled to them. The Ministry of Transport has been more than responsive. The MoT has probably been ahead of the hauliers in realizing that a good deal of revenue has slipped through their fingers as a result of the widespread carriage of goods under trade plates.
The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 1969 came into effect on January 1. The most radical change is the prohibition of the carriage of goods under a trade licence. As this virtually eliminates the distinction between the limited and the general trade licence only one type of licence is now being issued at the rate of duty of £15 a year except for vehicles in the cycle class for which the rate is £2 10s.
The Ministry's purpose is clear. It was never its intention that motor traders should be entitled alone among road users to carry a wide variety of goods without being subject to the normal licensing restrictions.
There may be some sympathy for the small trader who only occasionally needs to carry goods. The Ministry feels, probably rightly, that there is no way of permitting him to do this work under a special dispensation without the risk of widespread abuse.
It remains to be seen how more successful the new trade licence will be. Penalty for misuse is a fine of £50 or five times the annual duty appropriate to the use of the vehicle at the time of the offence. Hauliers have given the new regulations a general welcome.