Suttons Tankers Dispute

[weeto]

Beetlejuice:

Juddian:

N.I Express:

Juddian:
It won’t just be director’s vast payments, you can be sure there’s dozens of pointy shoes and assorted pushers of pens, all non productive staff, to be paid for by those actually doing the work.

However all companies have to employ administration staff or the company would collapse . If the sales ledger was not managed correctly the company would fail to invoice work and collect money owed . The same applies to the purchase ledger for the payment of suppliers and payroll administration. I would think that the important issue is the number of administration staff employed and are the numbers reasonable compared to the turnover of the business. A company without management or admin staff would fail very quickly .

Yes and companies with more chiefs than indians don’t fare too well either.

Spot on .And exactly why a lot of local councils are struggling.Far to many chiefs .
.

And hospitals, I heard that there are more non medical staff per bed than medical!

[uktramp]

Carryfast:
The obvious question for rob to answer in that case is does he view the old fashioned 1970’s idea of the closed shop as a militant abuse of union power ?.If so why and again who gains from that ?.

Which then leaves the next question is the idea of ■■■■■■■■■■ union ballots for action actually just a licence to scab and a no vote just a form of scabbing.Bearing in mind even Rjan agrees with the principle of some being able to vote down strike action at the expense of others who want to go for it.( Miners’ strike ).In which case what’s the difference between that and crossing a picket line ?.Also bearing in mind that employers don’t need a ballot decision for deals with union negotiators which go in their favour.

Spot on with this Carryfast, this is quite simply another nail in the coffin, as for union officials calling us brothers and sisters is about as sympathetic or pathetic depending on how you interpret this as it gets.

[carryfast]

weeto:
I don’t know where drivers think a wage rise is going to come from at any haulage company! take hoyers £4.6 million profit split between all the staff, works out at £8.80p per week per staff member, any other company not in road haulage would probably throw the towel in…I think the big boys are looking for 5% + to make it worth while doing.

Realistically if the profit figure isn’t what’s left ‘after’ all the costs including wages have been deducted then it ain’t profit. The elephant in the room being fuel costs forming a too large proportion of the cost base whether it’s the largest fleet or the owner driver and as we all know most of that is an industry specific tax that either has to be paid for by the customer or it gets taken out of the wage pot if/when the customer inevitably says no.

[tiredandemotional]

weeto:

N.I Express:
According to Motor Transport ( 2017 table ) Suttons turnover was £96million and profits were £437,000 . A profit margin of less than 0.5 % looks wafer thin to me . For comparative purposes , Hoyer turned over £119 million and reported profits of £4.6 million . This is still only a margin of 3.7 % . It would be interesting to know why margins at Suttons were so low .

I don’t know where drivers think a wage rise is going to come from at any haulage company! take hoyers £4.6 million profit split between all the staff, works out at £8.80p per week per staff member, any other company not in road haulage would probably throw the towel in…I think the big boys are looking for 5% + to make it worth while doing.

I wouldn’t necessarily believe everything I was told by the boss about the state of the company finances…

[olog_hai]

weeto:
…any other company not in road haulage would probably throw the towel in…I think the big boys are looking for 5% + to make it worth while doing.

There was something in Commercial Motor about a year or so ago where one of the big firms was crowing about having made a profit margin of about 3%. It included a comment from the MD so presumably it was put out as something they were proud of achieving…

You have to wonder why some of them even bother. A bad accident with a high value load that the insurers refuse to pay out on could account for the whole year’s profit at some firms.

[p_stoff]

Olog Hai:

weeto:
…any other company not in road haulage would probably throw the towel in…I think the big boys are looking for 5% + to make it worth while doing.

There was something in Commercial Motor about a year or so ago where one of the big firms was crowing about having made a profit margin of about 3%. It included a comment from the MD so presumably it was put out as something they were proud of achieving…

You have to wonder why some of them even bother. A bad accident with a high value load that the insurers refuse to pay out on could account for the whole year’s profit at some firms.

Accounts, especially in big companies are all smoke and mirrors. If the accepted margin by HMRC is about 3 % then everyone is happy. No one delves any deeper. 3% will be the leftover after ALL the little dodges and clever purchases are paid.

I’m not saying anything wrong with that it business and it’s how it works. It’s how tactfully management handle it. I worked for a company three of four years ago as a self employed. One afternoon big meeting and they laid 5 of the 12 staff off due to margins etc etc. Next day spanking new Discovery arrived for boss. Tactless or what. As someone says if you can do better stand up and do it. I have ( not in this industry) it is hard and very stressful and in the end due to the economic downfall I failed.

Now back driving and to be honest it’s a lot less stressful.

Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

[robroy]

UKtramp:

Carryfast:
The obvious question FOR ROB TO ANSWER in that case is does he view the old fashioned 1970’s idea of the closed shop as a militant abuse of union power ?.If so why and again who gains from that ?.

Which then leaves the next question is the idea of ■■■■■■■■■■ union ballots for action actually just a licence to scab and a no vote just a form of scabbing.Bearing in mind even Rjan agrees with the principle of some being able to vote down strike action at the expense of others who want to go for it.( Miners’ strike ).In which case what’s the difference between that and crossing a picket line ?.Also bearing in mind that employers don’t need a ballot decision for deals with union negotiators which go in their favour.

Spot on with this Carryfast, this is quite simply another nail in the coffin, as for union officials calling us brothers and sisters is about as sympathetic or pathetic depending on how you interpret this as it gets.

Look let’s get something straight here eh?..
I aint some spokesman or apologist for Trade Unions by any stretch of the imagination, I just agree with their aims IN PRINCIPLE… ie to strive to improve t.s, c.s, (and more so injustices) in places of work…end of.

In the last few years, the boundaries of what is fair and what is not, have been pushed to the limits in comparison to past times,… surely nobody can argue with that !

I aint some Arthur Scargill type with a Class 1 licence either. I simply know what is right and what is morally wrong, and what is fair and what is not…

I purposely ignored Carryfast’s question as I can’t be arsed to get locked in some 5 page forum based ■■■■ Tennis match about Unions purely for THAT reason.
So I don’t want to get into specifics regarding Union policies and whether or not they are right or wrong, like I said I aint qualified.

What I will say, (which is stating the bleeding obvious) is …That for Unions to succeed today there has to be some reformation and re.structure from policies and methods that were practiced in the ‘‘dreaded 70s’’
Many procedures would not work today that were commonplace then, so my answer to Carryfast being honest is… ‘‘I aint sure’’,.as I’m the wrong man to answer his question…so let’s put that to bed.

Whenever you mention Unions on here, you invariably get the standard answer always referring to the 70s.
Why not just go back a bit further in history to balance that argument, when Unions actually DID work to gain and obtain rights fairness and good terms for people who worked.

What I do know is that we are on a downward backward spiral in Employment conditions, history is repeating it’s self where we are at the point where something NEEDS to be done.

[captain_caveman_76]

Olog Hai:

weeto:
…any other company not in road haulage would probably throw the towel in…I think the big boys are looking for 5% + to make it worth while doing.

There was something in Commercial Motor about a year or so ago where one of the big firms was crowing about having made a profit margin of about 3%. It included a comment from the MD so presumably it was put out as something they were proud of achieving…

You have to wonder why some of them even bother. A bad accident with a high value load that the insurers refuse to pay out on could account for the whole year’s profit at some firms.

Or just as likely, a big fine from DVSA because a driver couldn’t be bothered to strap a load down properly.

[nightline]

You only have to read this post to see how many scabs are out there
It’s nothing to do with the union they can only look after people who want to be looked after and that means not been a scab and working for buttons
Are ye all that bad of a driver or a person that you can’t earn a decent living
We all have or had big payments I have been on strike with big payments and young kids
Some of you need to Grow a pair of balls

[albion]

P Stoff:

Olog Hai:

weeto:
…any other company not in road haulage would probably throw the towel in…I think the big boys are looking for 5% + to make it worth while doing.

There was something in Commercial Motor about a year or so ago where one of the big firms was crowing about having made a profit margin of about 3%. It included a comment from the MD so presumably it was put out as something they were proud of achieving…

You have to wonder why some of them even bother. A bad accident with a high value load that the insurers refuse to pay out on could account for the whole year’s profit at some firms.

Accounts, especially in big companies are all smoke and mirrors. If the accepted margin by HMRC is about 3 % then everyone is happy. No one delves any deeper. 3% will be the leftover after ALL the little dodges and clever purchases are paid.

I’m not saying anything wrong with that it business and it’s how it works. It’s how tactfully management handle it. I worked for a company three of four years ago as a self employed. One afternoon big meeting and they laid 5 of the 12 staff off due to margins etc etc. Next day spanking new Discovery arrived for boss. Tactless or what. As someone says if you can do better stand up and do it. I have ( not in this industry) it is hard and very stressful and in the end due to the economic downfall I failed.

Now back driving and to be honest it’s a lot less stressful.

Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

3_4% for people like Wincanton/ Downton is acceptable, anything over and they are in the big money

[carryfast]

robroy:
Many procedures would not work today that were commonplace then, so my answer to Carryfast being honest is… ‘‘I aint sure’’,.as I’m the wrong man to answer his question…so let’s put that to bed.

Whenever you mention Unions on here, you invariably get the standard answer always referring to the 70s.
Why not just go back a bit further in history to balance that argument, when Unions actually DID work to gain and obtain rights fairness and good terms for people who worked.

How can’t you be ‘sure’.When being against the idea of the closed shop or not backing others who are up for walking out regardless of any bs vote,is no different to crossing a picket line.When all those are the minumum basics of the essential solidarity you’ll need to even stand the slightest chance against all the cards that the employers are holding.That applies the same whether its 1926/56/66/76 or 2018.So the employers impose wage cuts in real terms or mass redundancies or both,what are you going to do about it without taking exactly the same ‘militant’ line as my Grandfather took in 1926 and Scargill took in 1972.Bearing in mind 1926 strike failed because of a breakdown in solidarity just as the miners failed in 1984.Unlike the miner’s strike of 1972.

[kjw21]

Whoever mentioned that 3 minute stand still in support - I think that’s not a bad idea.

It’s doable. No need for employer support or the need to go against anyone’s workplace rules etc. No need to commit to losing earnings, which being honest is what stops a lot of visible support.

It would give a bit of publicity, a bit of warning shot from drivers and would also remind the greater public just how many of us there are, if only in that they wonder what the hell is going on.

Of course organising it would be like herding cats.

[rjan]

N.I Express:
It is all very well going on strike to preserve terms and conditions , however it is ultimately the consumer who eventually pays for pay which may be above the going rate . In theory it is impossible to be underpaid as if this was the case , you would simply leave your current position and take on a postion with a new employer who will value your years of experience , . Another option is to set up on your own ( though I guess those who go on strike prefer to absolve themselves from the reality of running a businness on commercialy acceptable terms ) .

With regard to the large blue chip logistic operators this is probably what a large number of customers want these days . The process of moving goods from A to B adds nothing to the value of a businness and as such companies will want this service undertaken in the most cost effective manner possible . The blue chip logistic operators must be getting most things right , otherwise they would not survive .

Whilst I can understand drivers felling annoyed at terms and conditions being amended , maybe they should be gratefull that the existing terms lasted as long as they did . It is likely that the commercial reality of life dictates that paying a premium of 30 % compared to current markt rates is no longer justifiable or sustainable .

Agreed. You make the case powerfully that for workers to sustain decent wages overall and in the long term, the whole market rate must be enforced at the higher level and the undercutting of it prevented.

Although in large companies like Suttons where the workers seem to be united for the time being, it is probably a mistake to assume that there is a ready workforce of thousands of other tanker drivers experienced in the same work ready to take over the work at 30% less. If there was, they’d have already have acquired the work.

Even in petrol, in practice it is only government subsidy and strategic policy of large oil companies that keeps prices low. Including the training of many extra drivers than are required, the retention of significant surplus tankers and equipment that are usually left idle, the unwillingness of drivers across multiple firms to unionise, the readiness to use soldiers in driving tanks when strikes do occur, and the police in breaking any pickets at refineries, that allows the market price to be kept as low as it is (which is still above average).

[rjan]

UKtramp:
The reality of Victorian terms and conditions are not returning, they are already here in the haulage industry. I know a couple of Suttons drivers who earn in excess of 35 to 40K. There will be little sympathy or support from other drivers who are more likely to be earning far less than these dis-crumpled drivers. Strike action is the only reasonable action that they have, otherwise this will be happening regardless to what any union thinks they can do. Other drivers will be queuing at Sutton’s gates for these jobs and the majority will be experienced drivers who will be able to raise their current wages even from the 30% cut as it stands. Strike action would be needed throughout all of the other drivers to make a difference and we all know that isn’t going to happen. Those on a good thing now will not be interested, the EE drivers will not be interested and the few drivers that are in a union will not be voting to stand in solidarity for those who are earning more than they are earning. That leaves agency drivers and non union drivers left, so how is this strike ever going to make any difference. I hope those that stand up will get somewhere with this but I seriously doubt it. I would stand with them but I know a hundred more who wouldn’t.

That 35-40K is with overtime, and the last I heard, Suttons was scrabbling to find drivers of sufficient calibre in the market at their current rates (which IIRC is about £9.40 an hour basic).

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Franglais:
Youre right Rob, and its being repeated by certain newspapers and politicians ad infinitum. When right wing politicos make a speech referring to the mistakes of Unions in the past itll be widely reported. When left wing politicos make a speech about global corporate tax avoidance itll hardly rate a mention. Who owns the papers and what are their agendas? The drip drip of snide remarks about Unions from certain quarters has an effect.
A truly unbiased voice? Well, I dont know where there is one. But Im sure if its published by Murdoch it wont be biased in favour of we workers.

Ironically rob was actually making the case for the employers’ side regarding ‘militant’ 1970’s trade unionism.So even he to an extent has swallowed the propaganda and is part of the problem.

Here’s some ‘militant’ 1970’s trade unionism in action.Compare that with what we’ve got and why wouldn’t workers,as opposed to the employers,want to go back to that regime.IE who really gains from union restraint.

archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … ers-strike

+1 for that article. The problem with small haulage bosses is that they are on premium pay and conditions, and their business is predicated on out-competing other similar hauliers by driving wages down. To ask them to unite effectively into one firm, will allow them to imposes prices on customers and pay their drivers, but it will also dramatically reduce the number of premium-paid “boss” roles needed in the market, which is why for small-time bosses unity is unthinkable.

That’s why for workers, market consolidation is always beneficial (and fragmentation harmful), because it not only provides the leverage to enforce pay demands, but it actually eliminates the duplicate roles for bosses who are always far more highly paid than the workforce average.

[rjan]

N.I Express:
If there has been a recent change in ownership of this company , they may have no option but to review all the costs involved in running the operation . If there are bank borrowings involved , it maybe that it is necessary to send monthly management accounts to the head office for review and the bank itself may review . If the %age ratio of wages cost to income is vastly different to other companies in the sector the question will be asked why and more to the point is it justifiable .

And the answer must be “because the workers are unionised, and if we pay any less we will suffer a swingeingly expensive strike”. That is the language that the management and the bankers will clearly understand.

[n_i_express]

Rjan:

N.I Express:
If there has been a recent change in ownership of this company , they may have no option but to review all the costs involved in running the operation . If there are bank borrowings involved , it maybe that it is necessary to send monthly management accounts to the head office for review and the bank itself may review . If the %age ratio of wages cost to income is vastly different to other companies in the sector the question will be asked why and more to the point is it justifiable .

And the answer must be “because the workers are unionised, and if we pay any less we will suffer a swingeingly expensive strike”. That is the language that the management and the bankers will clearly understand.

A strike may on the other hand prove to be very expensive for those on strike especially if management refuse to give in to strikers demands . Anyone who believes that they are underpaid has the simple option of resigning and going to work elsewhere . I personally have no wish to pay extra for my goods just to ensure that some workers are paid a premium compared to current market rates . A prolonged strike could ultimately result in a company being put into liquidation and as such the existing contracts would become worthless in any event .
I would have thought that the key issue in this case is what is the market rate for a tanker driver and are the current employees paid a premium compared to the curent market and if so , is it justifiable . Margins in Transport and Distribution are wafer thin and any businness such as this has to be run in cost efficient manner . If the wage / revenue /cost ratio is higher than industry averages , it maybe that management can no longer ignore it .

[albion]

Rjan:

Carryfast:

Franglais:
Youre right Rob, and its being repeated by certain newspapers and politicians ad infinitum. When right wing politicos make a speech referring to the mistakes of Unions in the past itll be widely reported. When left wing politicos make a speech about global corporate tax avoidance itll hardly rate a mention. Who owns the papers and what are their agendas? The drip drip of snide remarks about Unions from certain quarters has an effect.
A truly unbiased voice? Well, I dont know where there is one. But Im sure if its published by Murdoch it wont be biased in favour of we workers.

Ironically rob was actually making the case for the employers’ side regarding ‘militant’ 1970’s trade unionism.So even he to an extent has swallowed the propaganda and is part of the problem.

Here’s some ‘militant’ 1970’s trade unionism in action.Compare that with what we’ve got and why wouldn’t workers,as opposed to the employers,want to go back to that regime.IE who really gains from union restraint.

archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … ers-strike

+1 for that article. The problem with somesmall haulage bosses is that they are on premium pay and conditions, and their business is predicated on out-competing other similar hauliers by driving wages down. To ask them to unite effectively into one firm, will allow them to imposes prices on customers and pay their drivers, but it will also dramatically reduce the number of premium-paid “boss” roles needed in the market, which is why for small-time bosses unity is unthinkable.

That’s why for workers, market consolidation is always beneficial (and fragmentation harmful), because it not only provides the leverage to enforce pay demands, but it actually eliminates the duplicate roles for bosses who are always far more highly paid than the workforce average.

A few years back in my little niche I was paying 1.50 an hour more than my main competitor. Not saying I pay a fortune, but it was more than they were paying by a fair bit. They turned over drivers as if they had a revolving door. Now they are more in line with me on pay, though not on conditions . Why did I pay what I percieve to be the most I can rather than the least I can get away with? Because it makes sense, I’m in this for the long haul and having happy drivers makes everything so much easier.

So some Rjan, some small hauliers.

[uktramp]

Rjan:

UKtramp:
The reality of Victorian terms and conditions are not returning, they are already here in the haulage industry. I know a couple of Suttons drivers who earn in excess of 35 to 40K. There will be little sympathy or support from other drivers who are more likely to be earning far less than these dis-crumpled drivers. Strike action is the only reasonable action that they have, otherwise this will be happening regardless to what any union thinks they can do. Other drivers will be queuing at Sutton’s gates for these jobs and the majority will be experienced drivers who will be able to raise their current wages even from the 30% cut as it stands. Strike action would be needed throughout all of the other drivers to make a difference and we all know that isn’t going to happen. Those on a good thing now will not be interested, the EE drivers will not be interested and the few drivers that are in a union will not be voting to stand in solidarity for those who are earning more than they are earning. That leaves agency drivers and non union drivers left, so how is this strike ever going to make any difference. I hope those that stand up will get somewhere with this but I seriously doubt it. I would stand with them but I know a hundred more who wouldn’t.

That 35-40K is with overtime, and the last I heard, Suttons was scrabbling to find drivers of sufficient calibre in the market at their current rates (which IIRC is about £9.40 an hour basic).

The rate for Suttons in Hull is £10.25p per hour on nights. Overtime and weekend rates £16.81p per hour.

[beetlejuice]

N.I Express:

Rjan:

N.I Express:
If there has been a recent change in ownership of this company , they may have no option but to review all the costs involved in running the operation . If there are bank borrowings involved , it maybe that it is necessary to send monthly management accounts to the head office for review and the bank itself may review . If the %age ratio of wages cost to income is vastly different to other companies in the sector the question will be asked why and more to the point is it justifiable .

And the answer must be “because the workers are unionised, and if we pay any less we will suffer a swingeingly expensive strike”. That is the language that the management and the bankers will clearly understand.

A strike may on the other hand prove to be very expensive for those on strike especially if management refuse to give in to strikers demands . Anyone who believes that they are underpaid has the simple option of resigning and going to work elsewhere . I personally have no wish to pay extra for my goods just to ensure that some workers are paid a premium compared to current market rates . A prolonged strike could ultimately result in a company being put into liquidation and as such the existing contracts would become worthless in any event .
I would have thought that the key issue in this case is what is the market rate for a tanker driver and are the current employees paid a premium compared to the curent market and if so , is it justifiable . Margins in Transport and Distribution are wafer thin and any businness such as this has to be run in cost efficient manner . If the wage / revenue /cost ratio is higher than industry averages , it maybe that management can no longer ignore it .

What a negative load of waffle you spout .What do you do for a living ?