David H:
To some operators the shortage is geographic. To others it’s a shortage of drivers with artic licences etc the reasons are numerous. There are also high maintenance operators that constantly turn over drivers due to low pay or poor conditions etc. Drivers generally work at these places until something better turns up.Agencies have been known to literally bus drivers in and put them up away from home to service clients needs. Operators offering all ages ‘flatpack’ apprenticeships (holes already drilled, screws supplied with instructions provided lol) are another pointer towards a shortage – or rather operators securing their own future with full-time employees as opposed to relying on expensive agency drivers.
An actual ‘bums on seats’ driver shortage may not be critical yet but there are plenty of potential full-time jobs not being applied for. An operator can generally phone an agency and book a driver even at short notice. But there is a case for there being a shortage of drivers willing to be employed directly by operators.
After all, one of the main reasons why drivers defect to agencies is so the agency can set the driver up as limited company. Its not unknown for ex-employees to return to their previous employer as a limited company driver. Just how operators can justify paying an agency for the services of a limited company tax dodge that’s knowingly undermining their business is another pointer to the desperate lengths transport companies are going to stay in business. In doing so operators know they are upholding the very mechanism that’s reducing their full-time workforce. Operators are also aware that any pay rise they can offer employed drivers cannot compete with that earned by limited company drivers doing the same job.
The dilemma for operators is just how many limited company agency drivers would pack in altogether if HMRC outlawed the practice? Would limited company drivers used to the wage they can earn drop down to those on offer as a full-time employee?
Downton Transport recently reported taking a hit on profits due to their reliance on agency drivers. Ask them, they’ll tell you there’s a shortage of operator employed drivers. Its threadbare in places but there are also areas where the effect is not as visible. If you’re an operator with 400 trucks and you need 25 agency drivers every day then you’ll need some convincing that there isn’t a driver shortage.
I’m afraid I have a different perspective.
The reason drivers who are accustomed to agency work will not apply for full-time or permanent positions, is because they know the conditions under which the full-timers work, and they’re not willing to accept them. On an agency, it is the driver (to a large extent) who determines the days on which he works, the times at which he starts, and if he needs a day off at short notice then he can insist upon it, and if there is any nonsense then he can go elsewhere the next day.
It is also not unusual that if a smaller employer is considering taking on an agency driver, the employer expects there to be a significant drop in hourly rate rather than matching it more or less - this is when there is no question of the agency’s rate being any sort of premium rate, it is simply the going rate.
The idea that most drivers go to agencies simply because they offer limited company status I think is laughable - and most agencies pressure the driver to do so, not the other way around. In any case, that does not contribute to any shortage - it’s simply a different way of employing the same workforce. If an agency puts out the call for good permanent positions with a reputable employer, they’ll have no problem finding candidates. The reason employers cannot find those candidates for their own permanent offers is because guys are simply not having the pay and conditions offered.
Amongst leaving full-timers I’ve spoken to, none of them report leaving to go onto an agency - they say they’re leaving to go back into other trades they held previously, like mechanical fitting.
The fact that employers can still find drivers on agencies at short notice (i.e. the evening before a morning start) shows that there’s no shortage out there whatever.
Indeed, the sort of complaints I’ve heard is that bosses can’t fill the 1am start slot on the agency - when they’re only offering plain time. If you’ve got 400 trucks, the idea that you need 25 agency drivers every day is ludicrous - you need 25 additional full-timers. Indeed, a 6% variance in demand (if the 25 were not actually needed every day) could easily be handled with normal overtime, if the industry was not already generally thrashing it’s full-timers with overtime to begin with.
The truth about the “shortage” is that if it isn’t hurting it isn’t working. True shortage conditions will drive crap employers into bankruptcy and there will be a number of providers leaving the market, not simply tickling their feet with a few difficulties filling graveyard shifts, and drivers would be able to go knocking door to door and be immediately hired at the first one.
As for apprenticeships, the purpose of these is simply to reinforce the surplus (or stem it’s reduction somewhat), and there are significant tax breaks and government incentives available for running the schemes (even if the apprentice walks straight out the door at the end). Additionally, it’s purpose is political, to demonstrate that the industry is doing something about it’s own claimed shortage, after the MPs told the lobby groups to go and swivel when they went to Westminster with the begging bowl.
Also, in any industry, the existence of training schemes and apprenticeships is not evidence of a shortage - it is simply to replace natural wastage (deaths, sickness retirements, and so on). The fact that haulage had no such schemes for so long, shows the gravity of the surplus they have been working with.
