Unprofessional call
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
We were very disappointed to read the article "Owner-drivers slammed" (CM 4-10 June) and think that CM'S readers should know that when it comes to being "professional", the Road Haulage Association's recent telemarketing exercise, which sparked the row, leaves a lot to be desired itself.
We were called a few months ago at around 20:30hrs by a gentleman purporting to be conducting an exercise on behalf of the RHA and requesting information about our business. We asked him if he was able to provide some identification, but were surprised to learn that he was not prepared to identify the organisation he was representing, nor to leave a telephone number so we could call him back.
After some probing, he said that if we spoke to Fiona Holdsveorth at the RHAs head office she would be able to vouch for him.
We contacted our local RHA office the following day, which was initially unaware of any telemarketing exercise, but it said it would check it out. We later received a phone call from Fiona apologising for the way this had been handled and explaining the reasons for the call.
We suggested that a lot of time and concern could have been avoided had members been warned to expect a call. It transpires that members were being informed in the RHAs magazine, but this was not being dispatched for a couple of weeks!
This exercise was handled most unprofessionally. It is all too easy for people to try and misrepresent themselves and business people need to be constantly aware of anyone trying to obtain their details and attempting to poach their business by spurious means.
At the recent Agricon '98 conference, RHA director general Steven Norris apparently slammed owner-drivers for not appearing to be equipped with mobile phones, answering machines etc. While appreciating his sentiments, surely even with all the latest technology in the world, a small haulier can only be in one place at one time. And as for calling us "very bad negotiators", he should appreciate that running a small operation has its cost disadvantages. Perhaps the RHA should try to do more to eliminate the "cowboy" hauliers who openly flout the law and, by doing so, under-cut rates.
We thought you might be interested in Mr Norris' response to our complaints. He said that, in its article, Commercial Motor had "managed to get half a sentence right, and then promptly left the other half of the sentence out".
He continued: "What I actually said was that the vast majority of our members work very hard indeed to present a highly-professional standard, but unfortunately there are some who do seem to make life very difficult for themselves. I ought to be used to journalists who mangle whatever you say in order to produce an angry headline. Believe me, I not only enjoy my job, but I like to think that we have done a fair amount to increase the profile of the industry within Government. We shall go on doing so despite Commercial Motor, not because of it."
We have been readers of CM for many years and have always valued its content. We would not like to think that you might have misconstrued what was said by quoting only half the sentence.
Incidentally, in his reply, Mr Norris managed to completely disregard any mention of the telemarketing exercise—typical politician! Bridget Jakeman, RJ Transport, Munsley, Hertfordshire,