Was reading the Corp magazine from Nagel-Group@ Langdons Barnsley yesterday and came across this quote from their CEO:
“In the near future the company that has the transport is the company that has the drivers,
not the company that has the cheapest quote”
Looks like even the big Euro logistics conglomerates know that in future the drivers are gonna go where the best “package” is and not work for DUNG!!![emoji52] [emoji41]
Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
Nice words.
See what actons follow.
I wonder if those same words would appear in a speech directed at shareholders rather than an employee’s magazine? Or am I a cynical old git?
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
Franglais:
Nice words.
See what actons follow.
I wonder if those same words would appear in a speech directed at shareholders rather than an employee’s magazine? Or am I a cynical old git?Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
Like me…
You’re a cynical old git but, I agree, different audiences will get a different tag line.
Offering good money is only part of the problem, idiots can apply for top money jobs and get them too. It needs a roots based (drivers mate, apprenticeship etc) appraoch to solve the current climate of useless steering wheel attendant we have now. There is no merit system in our industry, being accident free, driving economically etc are not rewarded.
yourhavingalarf:
Offering good money is only part of the problem, idiots can apply for top money jobs and get them too. It needs a roots based (drivers mate, apprenticeship etc) appraoch to solve the current climate of useless steering wheel attendant we have now. There is no merit system in our industry, being accident free, driving economically etc are not rewarded.
Something like 90% of drivers think they’re above average, but there is really no extra value in what you call “merit”. The majority of drivers are basically competent to drive, and you’re getting the going rate for a competent driver.
It’s cloud cuckoo land to assume that you’re so much better, and that there is even room to be so much better, that you deserve any appreciable increment above the norm.
I mean consider a driver who causes £1,000 worth of damage - which would probably get you the sack in most places, and that’s the real punishment for bad drivers. Averaged over 2,500 working hours a year, it’s only worth about 30p an hour difference - nice to have, but hardly a badge of pride.
And for the employer to measure and administer such a difference, and to have all the arguments over whether a driver was at fault when damage does occur, to cause drivers to be more awkward about being sent to tight places when they think there’s a risk of damage, and to cause bad will amongst those who are just unlucky, the whole thing is just a non-starter.
And if you just don’t think decent drivers are paid enough, which is almost everyone, then what are you going to do about it?
Big Truck:
Was reading the Corp magazine from Nagel-Group@ Langdons Barnsley yesterday and came across this quote from their CEO:“In the near future the company that has the transport is the company that has the drivers,
not the company that has the cheapest quote”Looks like even the big Euro logistics conglomerates know that in future the drivers are gonna go where the best “package” is
Shouldn’t that actually say the company that gets the work and wins the tendering process ?.If that’s right that would obviously sink the East Euro business model and need a massive reversal in the whole race to the bottom free markets business ethic,not just in the transport sector.Which ain’t happening any time soon.
While the reality is more likely to be business as usual.In the form of even greater involvement of cheaper East Euro transport providers and labour,by the removal of cabotage restrictions for example.While the CBI’s position,regarding the continuing rigging of the labour market,by over supplying it with immigrant labour,obviously hasn’t changed either.
In addition to all that is how can the industry pay more wages when too much of the revenue figure is eaten up by fuel taxation.
Don’t over think it. Profit above all is key and increasing it every year is the only acceptable way. The moral and social aspects of being in business no longer have any meaning to modern society. You are all wage slaves!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
fredthered:
Don’t over think it. Profit above all is key and increasing it every year is the only acceptable way. The moral and social aspects of being in business no longer have any meaning to modern society. You are all wage slaves!
Profit made at the expense of wealth creating jobs and incomes and with that spending power and tax revenues isn’t sustainable in the long term.It will just create stagnation possibly followed by catastrophic deflation combined with massive national debt.Which takes us back to a pre industrial revolution type of society complicated in this case by that debt figure and how it will be paid in that economic environment.
… is this connected to their recent announcement that all of their suppliers are being placed on 90 days payment terms…?
Carryfast:
In addition to all that is how can the industry pay more wages when too much of the revenue figure is eaten up by fuel taxation.
Rubbish. If fuel was taxed at a million pound a gallon, the industry would just have to charge accordingly.
(The only limitation is that obviously taxes have to be within the economy’s overall means, levied primarily on those with market power and ability to pay, and businesses must be able to charge enough to cover their taxes as well as other costs of doing business, which might require competition to be limited or eliminated).
Taxes are never a reason why a business can’t afford to pay decent wages - in fact taxes, which support public investment and social and economic infrastructure, are part of the reason why businesses can afford to pay decent wages.
Anyone who says taxes stifle either wages or productivity would be buggered to explain the post-war economy.
fredthered:
Don’t over think it. Profit above all is key and increasing it every year is the only acceptable way. The moral and social aspects of being in business no longer have any meaning to modern society. You are all wage slaves!
Yeah - even the three ghosts have thrown up their hands and stopped visiting today’s businessmen.
Carryfast:
fredthered:
Don’t over think it. Profit above all is key and increasing it every year is the only acceptable way. The moral and social aspects of being in business no longer have any meaning to modern society. You are all wage slaves!Profit made at the expense of wealth creating jobs and incomes and with that spending power and tax revenues isn’t sustainable in the long term.It will just create stagnation possibly followed by catastrophic deflation combined with massive national debt.Which takes us back to a pre industrial revolution type of society complicated in this case by that debt figure and how it will be paid in that economic environment.
Why would a company care? There obligation is to a share holder, why employ 3 drivers on 40hrs when u get 2 on 60 hrs. It’s common sense to have 2 over 3. It’s all about profit.damage to a big company is a tax write off. Most big ones are self insured anyways. Majority of well paid jobs I would assume are word of mouth.
I’ve seen people here on this site, clearly state good employers don’t need to advertise and have a stable staff turnover.
Rjan:
Carryfast:
In addition to all that is how can the industry pay more wages when too much of the revenue figure is eaten up by fuel taxation.Rubbish. If fuel was taxed at a million pound a gallon, the industry would just have to charge accordingly.
(The only limitation is that obviously taxes have to be within the economy’s overall means, levied primarily on those with market power and ability to pay, and businesses must be able to charge enough to cover their taxes as well as other costs of doing business, which might require competition to be limited or eliminated).
Taxes are never a reason why a business can’t afford to pay decent wages - in fact taxes, which support public investment and social and economic infrastructure, are part of the reason why businesses can afford to pay decent wages.
Anyone who says taxes stifle either wages or productivity would be buggered to explain the post-war economy.
Your point about fuel tax isonly valid so long as all transporters pay it. Any transporter sourcing lower tax fuel had an advantage. And sourcing lower taxed fuel where the taxes are paid to another country are doubly harmful.
The general point about taxation seems to ring true to me. Scandinavian countries have been held up as high tax and high benefits societies, and their populations seem to score high on contentment.
Maybe a more progressive tax system would decrease the gap between rich and poor in this country too? Make most of us happier with our lot?
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
Franglais:
Rjan:
Carryfast:
In addition to all that is how can the industry pay more wages when too much of the revenue figure is eaten up by fuel taxation.Rubbish. If fuel was taxed at a million pound a gallon, the industry would just have to charge accordingly.
(The only limitation is that obviously taxes have to be within the economy’s overall means, levied primarily on those with market power and ability to pay, and businesses must be able to charge enough to cover their taxes as well as other costs of doing business, which might require competition to be limited or eliminated).
Taxes are never a reason why a business can’t afford to pay decent wages - in fact taxes, which support public investment and social and economic infrastructure, are part of the reason why businesses can afford to pay decent wages.
Anyone who says taxes stifle either wages or productivity would be buggered to explain the post-war economy.
Your point about fuel tax isonly valid so long as all transporters pay it. Any transporter sourcing lower tax fuel had an advantage. And sourcing lower taxed fuel where the taxes are paid to another country are doubly harmful.
The general point about taxation seems to ring true to me. Scandinavian countries have been held up as high tax and high benefits societies, and their populations seem to score high on contentment.
Maybe a more progressive tax system would decrease the gap between rich and poor in this country too? Make most of us happier with our lot?Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
Agreed on all fronts! Part of the reason for being in the EU is to avoid “tax competition” between states, and there really needs to be closer harmonisation.
The reason Britain has higher sales taxes is precisely because it is the policy of rightwing governments to shift taxes from income (where taxes are progressive) onto sales taxes.
Sales taxes are regressive, because the duke pays the same rate at the till as the dustman, but also the duke spends a lower proportion of his income overall so that a smaller proportion of his income is even subject to tax (dukes tend to save and invest more of their income than dustmen, because they aren’t living hand to mouth, and the unearned income derived from savings and investments is also taxed lower than earnings).
That’s basically the Tory party’s current Brexit policy, that by cutting taxes and having a bonfire of ordinary people’s rights, they’ll poach trade from the other EU and non-EU countries (and maybe even undercut China on wage rates).
Rjan:
Carryfast:
In addition to all that is how can the industry pay more wages when too much of the revenue figure is eaten up by fuel taxation.Rubbish. If fuel was taxed at a million pound a gallon, the industry would just have to charge accordingly.
Great idea go for it and see what happens to the economy and the industry.While bearing in mind that you’re all for harmonising taxes this million pound gallon will also need to apply to rail transport and the civil aviation industry.In which case it would be interesting to see if Unite and ASLEF then agree with you.No prizes for guessing what their answer will be. 
Rjan:
Agreed on all fronts! Part of the reason for being in the EU is to avoid “tax competition” between states, and there really needs to be closer harmonisation.The reason Britain has higher sales taxes is precisely because it is the policy of rightwing governments to shift taxes from income (where taxes are progressive) onto sales taxes.
Sales taxes are regressive, because the duke pays the same rate at the till as the dustman, but also the duke spends a lower proportion of his income overall so that a smaller proportion of his income is even subject to tax (dukes tend to save and invest more of their income than dustmen, because they aren’t living hand to mouth, and the unearned income derived from savings and investments is also taxed lower than earnings).
That’s basically the Tory party’s current Brexit policy, that by cutting taxes and having a bonfire of ordinary people’s rights, they’ll poach trade from the other EU and non-EU countries (and maybe even undercut China on wage rates).
Let’s get this right you’re supposedly against regressive sales taxes.But you think it’s good to have an infinite rate of duty on fuel as opposed to putting it all on income tax and corporation tax.So exactly how does duke pay more at the garage till when filling his car than dustman in that case ?.Or for that matter how do you make sure that your silly fuel taxes on road transport don’t get taken out of the driver’s wages to help maintain the profit margin of the business.
As for the EU it’s clear that the ‘Tory’ party are as committed to keeping us in as the Socialists are.Which is mostly about both having a liking for big centralised soviet style federal government with no local democratic accountability or self determination of different peoples and nations.While if the EU was supposedly all about workers rights do you really think that the CBI and the majority of the Tory Party would be doing everything possible to keep us in it and that we wouldn’t have an EU harmonised wage standard.As opposed to the CBI wanting to continue with the idea of using west euro taxes to support backward east euro states while also taking full advantage of low wage expectation East Euro labour either by exporting west Euro jobs or by using ‘free movement’ to distort the west Euro labour supply.
Meanwhile it’s ironic to hear Socialists moaning about Chinese working conditions and incomes.Oh wait they really want us to believe,that the Chinese version of the red flag is supposedly any different to Corbyn’s.Which explains why we don’t see Corbyn calling for trade barriers against China just as in the case of May and the CBI.Nor do we hear him calling for an EU wide minimum wage because that would upset his equally exploitative Soviet Stasi allies like Merkel and Juncker. 
As I’ve said we’re looking for the 1960’s US economic model.Within a government system which recognises the independence and sovereignty of Europe’s nation states.What we don’t need is another version of the USSR in the form of an EUSSR,which panders to the present unholy alliance between this exploitative version of so called ‘Capitalism’ and Communism in whatever form.The latter being even more malignant than the former in deliberately trying to fool naive working class vote that only it has the answers to working class issues when it’s actually even worse and sadly often succeeding.
Rjan:
Franglais:
Rjan:
Carryfast:
In addition to all that is how can the industry pay more wages when too much of the revenue figure is eaten up by fuel taxation.Rubbish. If fuel was taxed at a million pound a gallon, the industry would just have to charge accordingly.
(The only limitation is that obviously taxes have to be within the economy’s overall means, levied primarily on those with market power and ability to pay, and businesses must be able to charge enough to cover their taxes as well as other costs of doing business, which might require competition to be limited or eliminated).
Taxes are never a reason why a business can’t afford to pay decent wages - in fact taxes, which support public investment and social and economic infrastructure, are part of the reason why businesses can afford to pay decent wages.
Anyone who says taxes stifle either wages or productivity would be buggered to explain the post-war economy.
Your point about fuel tax isonly valid so long as all transporters pay it. Any transporter sourcing lower tax fuel had an advantage. And sourcing lower taxed fuel where the taxes are paid to another country are doubly harmful.
The general point about taxation seems to ring true to me. Scandinavian countries have been held up as high tax and high benefits societies, and their populations seem to score high on contentment.
Maybe a more progressive tax system would decrease the gap between rich and poor in this country too? Make most of us happier with our lot?Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
Agreed on all fronts! Part of the reason for being in the EU is to avoid “tax competition” between states, and there really needs to be closer harmonisation.
The reason Britain has higher sales taxes is precisely because it is the policy of rightwing governments to shift taxes from income (where taxes are progressive) onto sales taxes.
Sales taxes are regressive, because the duke pays the same rate at the till as the dustman, but also the duke spends a lower proportion of his income overall so that a smaller proportion of his income is even subject to tax (dukes tend to save and invest more of their income than dustmen, because they aren’t living hand to mouth, and the unearned income derived from savings and investments is also taxed lower than earnings).
That’s basically the Tory party’s current Brexit policy, that by cutting taxes and having a bonfire of ordinary people’s rights, they’ll poach trade from the other EU and non-EU countries (and maybe even undercut China on wage rates).
You are going to blame the UK government (cons) for other countries who pay EE drivers a pittance? … you can’t blame brexit for other countries not having RFL and lower wages t all. … you need to blame all governments labour too. You just need to accept that the haulage game is open to competition and the cheapest in most instance gets the work, company One charge two grand company two charge a grans if it gets there undamaged all good it saves a K p, companies don’t care for drivers it’s all minimal costings.
discoman:
Rjan:
[…]You are going to blame the UK government (cons) for other countries who pay EE drivers a pittance? … you can’t blame brexit for other countries not having RFL and lower wages t all. … you need to blame all governments labour too. You just need to accept that the haulage game is open to competition and the cheapest in most instance gets the work, company One charge two grand company two charge a grans if it gets there undamaged all good it saves a K p, companies don’t care for drivers it’s all minimal costings.
I’m not blaming Brexit, I’m saying the Tories’ current Brexit policy basically rests on both attacking workers in this country and beggaring it’s neighbours, which is why Davis is getting his eyes wiped.
That was incidental to the Tories’ long-time, non-Brexit-related policy of moving taxes from income to sales, which is to hit ordinary people hardest, and which partly explains why the UK has higher rates of tax on things like fuel compared to its neighbours.
The point is that Brexit is designed to enable the Tories to attack ordinary people in other ways, by abolishing EU minimum workers rights or minimum food standards and so on, and even minimum tax rates including VAT. That’s why all the right wing loons are in favour of leaving (albeit they don’t have the confidence of actual businessmen).
As for New Labour, they were cut from the same cloth as the Tories anyway - just slightly more socially liberal, but still economically neoliberal.
Rjan:
discoman:
Rjan:
[…]You are going to blame the UK government (cons) for other countries who pay EE drivers a pittance? … you can’t blame brexit for other countries not having RFL and lower wages t all. … you need to blame all governments labour too. You just need to accept that the haulage game is open to competition and the cheapest in most instance gets the work, company One charge two grand company two charge a grans if it gets there undamaged all good it saves a K p, companies don’t care for drivers it’s all minimal costings.
I’m not blaming Brexit, I’m saying the Tories’ current Brexit policy basically rests on both attacking workers in this country and beggaring it’s neighbours, which is why Davis is getting his eyes wiped.
That was incidental to the Tories’ long-time, non-Brexit-related policy of moving taxes from income to sales, which is to hit ordinary people hardest, and which partly explains why the UK has higher rates of tax on things like fuel compared to its neighbours.
The point is that Brexit is designed to enable the Tories to attack ordinary people in other ways, by abolishing EU minimum workers rights or minimum food standards and so on, and even minimum tax rates including VAT. That’s why all the right wing loons are in favour of leaving (albeit they don’t have the confidence of actual businessmen).
As for New Labour, they were cut from the same cloth as the Tories anyway - just slightly more socially liberal, but still economically neoliberal.
So are you saying that Shore,Heffer and Benn and now Hoey were/are all ‘right wing loons’ ?.
While you’ve already made your idea of ‘workers’ rights’ clear enough in your obvious support of EU hours regs which provide for 15 hour shifts for drivers for example.In addition to the situation of Brit jobs for German and East Euro workers.While what money we are left with goes in net contributions to the EU to subsidise German exports to countries which otherwise couldn’t afford to pay for them and the social costs provision of East Euro states with the lose lose situation of thereby subsidising their low wage economies to under cut ours.While yes we know the few Tories who support Brexit probably have a different idea of what that means than people like Shore did and Hoey does.But we won’t get that argument settled by staying in the scam.
While the truth is it’s the dictatorial centralised EU Soviet style of government that you’re really all about and want at any cost.Even when that obviously puts you on the same side as people like Blair and Cameron and the CBI and against people like Shore,Heffer,Benn and Hoey.While obviously also selling Brit workers and democratic accountability and control over our own country and the National interest down the river,while claiming the opposite,as part of that,to get it.On that note it’s time that Corbyn and his band of Bolsheviks went and stood where they belong with the Socialist Labour Party and let someone like Hoey get on with giving us a Labour Party worthy of the name and worth voting for. 
Carryfast:
Rjan:
Carryfast:
In addition to all that is how can the industry pay more wages when too much of the revenue figure is eaten up by fuel taxation.Rubbish. If fuel was taxed at a million pound a gallon, the industry would just have to charge accordingly.
Great idea go for it and see what happens to the economy and the industry.While bearing in mind that you’re all for harmonising taxes this million pound gallon will also need to apply to rail transport and the civil aviation industry.In which case it would be interesting to see if Unite and ASLEF then agree with you.No prizes for guessing what their answer will be.
As I alluded to, the overall tax burden must be within the means of the economy, and those bearing taxes must have the market power to increase prices (or reduce profits, or invest capital to improve productivity, etc.). I can’t possibly discuss the whole subject briefly, but the basic assertion that tax is a deadweight on the economy is a falsehood.
Tax is really just a collectivised form of paying for purchases or funding investments, where instead of individuals choosing or being compelled to deal with a shopkeeper or a banker, citizens deal with the state, and the state (like the shopkeeper or banker) engages workers to produce goods and services or make investments, and renders the results back to the consumers.
Unlike the shopkeeper or banker, in a democratic society citizens have influence over how that activity is organised, and the respective contribution of each citizen. And the state is able to absorb titanic risks, it can reorganise the entire economy as fully as necessary (including changing laws if necessary), and so on.
Again, I don’t want to deal with snipes about “communism” or consider the pros and cons of a fully state-organised economy. I’m simply saying a state which takes in funds, organises investment and production, and distributes the fruits in the form of wages, goods, and services is a balanced system and it functions indefinitely in its own economic terms, the same as the sun rises and sets, trees grow and die, and so on - it doesn’t run out of money or economic steam, simply by virtue of its reliance on taxation. The British economy during the inter-war, war, and post-war years was extensively organised in this fashion.
Carryfast:
Rjan:
discoman:
Rjan:
[…]You are going to blame the UK government (cons) for other countries who pay EE drivers a pittance? … you can’t blame brexit for other countries not having RFL and lower wages t all. … you need to blame all governments labour too. You just need to accept that the haulage game is open to competition and the cheapest in most instance gets the work, company One charge two grand company two charge a grans if it gets there undamaged all good it saves a K p, companies don’t care for drivers it’s all minimal costings.
I’m not blaming Brexit, I’m saying the Tories’ current Brexit policy basically rests on both attacking workers in this country and beggaring it’s neighbours, which is why Davis is getting his eyes wiped.
That was incidental to the Tories’ long-time, non-Brexit-related policy of moving taxes from income to sales, which is to hit ordinary people hardest, and which partly explains why the UK has higher rates of tax on things like fuel compared to its neighbours.
The point is that Brexit is designed to enable the Tories to attack ordinary people in other ways, by abolishing EU minimum workers rights or minimum food standards and so on, and even minimum tax rates including VAT. That’s why all the right wing loons are in favour of leaving (albeit they don’t have the confidence of actual businessmen).
As for New Labour, they were cut from the same cloth as the Tories anyway - just slightly more socially liberal, but still economically neoliberal.
So are you saying that Shore,Heffer and Benn and now Hoey were/are all ‘right wing loons’ ?.
While you’ve already made your idea of ‘workers’ rights’ clear enough in your obvious support of EU hours regs which provide for 15 hour shifts for drivers for example.
It doesn’t provide that, though. It says a person must have a minimum of 9 hours rest unconditionally. It does not say a person must work 15 hours, or must not have more than 9 hours rest, that workers must have no employment rights, or that their wages (either in individual occupations or the national minimum wage) must be low (or that double time shouldn’t be applicable to 15 hour days).
And I’m not defending every aspect of the EU as it is. As you say, left-wingers have a different set of objections. I’m just pointing out that the Tories have an anti-worker agenda, and that ultimately closer co-operation and harmonisation with Europe is necessary not more international competition. There is no necessary reason why the EU project must involve wage undercutting, other than because of the rightwing business interests in play there too.