Suttons Tankers Dispute

[rjan]

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.

Of course, but it is always more expensive for the bosses.

Anyone who believes that they are underpaid has the simple option of resigning and going to work elsewhere.

Moving jobs itself inflicts disruption on the worker, involves the loss of certain rights and protections (including, as the case may be, the protection that comes from being in a workplace with a strong union), and presupposes that there are other firms in the market hiring freely and paying better. If the objective is to raise the market rate in your current job, or prevent it being eroded, then going elsewhere would simply hand victory to the bosses.

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 .

Indeed, but a strike would reinforce to consumers that they have to pay a fair rate for their goods, not simply the cheapest rate available. As for the company going into liquidation, that can be good for workers overall in the appropriate circumstances, because that eliminates market competition, and results in another company having to hire additional workers at the higher rates in order to service the demand (and puts those bosses on notice too, of where they’ll be going if there is any assault on workers’ wages).

It also discourages future wage competition, because bankers and financiers, as well as bosses themselves, are put on notice of what happens to new firms that set up shop simply expecting to drive down wages.

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 .

As I say, you make a powerful point that, ultimately, workers must be united against undercutting. But in a firm as large as Suttons with its entire workforce united in a threat to strike, there may be no other workforce available in the market to compare them to - it’s pointless comparing the wages that a thousand guys are on, to the wages that 100 guys are on in 10 separate firms down the road, and pretending that those 100 who are not on strike are going to do not only their current jobs, but also the work of another ten men apiece, all for the same rate of pay that they already get.

Indeed, those other firms paying lower wages may well be the bottom-feeders of the market, with the poorest training, operating with knackered equipment, which is not how a large firm like Suttons can operate when servicing large customers who need things to work like clockwork.

Your argument fundamentally rests on the assumption that there is always someone else willing and able to do the work for less (and the firm in question, such as Suttons, has to force down its wages to remain competitive), but that is not generally the case in skilled occupations. A workforce of sufficient size, united, can set it’s own market price, simply because their unity encompasses enough people that they effectively cannot be replaced.

[rjan]

albion:

Rjan:
+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.

I don’t want to make it sound like I’m being personal about small firms. It’s simply market forces. If you were paying more, it wasn’t because you were setting prices - it may have been, as you say, because you were saving so much money on reduced driver turnover(and not having to hire all the managers and trainers who have to handle those conditions, and suffering all the bangs and bumps and wear and tear on equipment that come with a transient workforce), so you could afford to pay more without charging any extra. That’s just good business administration - a person who administers a business well can of course afford to pay more than poor businessmen who administer their business badly.

There could be other factors too in general - for example, a long-established firm that has little or no bank debt, can afford to pay higher wages without charging customers any extra, simply because it doesn’t have any bankers demanding their pound of flesh from the profits.

But when it comes down to something that doesn’t involve better administration, but confronting customers and forcing them to pay more (particularly after they have become habituated to having the power to force down prices by playing off a number of smaller firms in the market), you’ll see that many small bosses will be loath to unite amongst themselves, and those that are willing to unite are really setting the groundwork for a merger (because if they unite to force up prices, but do not merge, another large firm will step in, or set up afresh, and mop up all their contracts, because a large firm that sets prices and refuses to compete, is always more efficient than a gaggle of small independent firms who set prices and refuse to compete).

[rjan]

UKtramp:

Rjan:
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.

Exactly. £10.25 an hour for nights.

[rjan]

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 ?

Bossing, I’d imagine.

[albion]

I’m reading a Varoufakis book at the moment (not the one to his daughter), and its easier going than your posts Rjan.

Whatever you say, I pay because I want ny staff to be happy.

There’s a new postion been created at Albion transport, and I interviewed a lady to help out the TM. Experience, no faff about her. No real need for any training. I asked her about salary expectations. I think she’s worth more than she thinks she is, so her pay has been raised by £1500 a year. Not a fortune, but it reflects the type of company I’ve strived for.

As I stated at the start, my customers have a choice, pay my rates or go get inferior service somewhere else. Of course you are right in that big business may make me untenable in the future, but you are wrong when you say all small haulage businesses out compete each other. I don’t, for better or worse.

No one should ever be afraid to say foxtrot Oscar to a customer, even if it results (in my case), of working on Tescos checkout.

Maybe just accept I’m weird.

[rjan]

albion:
I’m reading a Varoufakis book at the moment (not the one to his daughter), and its easier going than your posts Rjan.

Whatever you say, I pay because I want ny staff to be happy.

There’s a new postion been created at Albion transport, and I interviewed a lady to help out the TM. Experience, no faff about her. No real need for any training. I asked her about salary expectations. I think she’s worth more than she thinks she is, so her pay has been raised by £1500 a year. Not a fortune, but it reflects the type of company I’ve strived for.

As I stated at the start, my customers have a choice, pay my rates or go get inferior service somewhere else. Of course you are right in that big business may make me untenable in the future, but you are wrong when you say all small haulage businesses out compete each other. I don’t, for better or worse.

No one should ever be afraid to say foxtrot Oscar to a customer, even if it results (in my case), of working on Tescos checkout.

Maybe just accept I’m weird.

You’re not weird, you’re just the Mr Fezziwig character in the Dickens novel. Most people set up and run small businesses for reasons other than pure profit - for many working bosses, because it offers them more autonomy in their chosen vocation (and usually, but not necessarily, better pay), and because it is a social role that carries power and status (whether one wishes to be benevolent in that role or not).

I’ve met a variety of small company bosses over the years, some of whom I liked on a personal level, some of whom I didn’t, and all of them (regardless of their actual behaviour and the conduct of their operation) felt able to believe that they were doing some sort of social and economic good.

A most memorable example of this - this was actually in a job interview - was with a boss who clearly had Thatcherite convictions, and he verged on saying outright that he was fulfilling the social good by offering so little in wages to his employees - and like all good confidence tricksters, he was at least as skilled at persuading himself of this as anybody else.

But even leaving aside the sharks, and accepting that many bosses are perfectly decent people on a personal level, the benevolence or negotiating acumen of small bosses is not what upholds the general market rate of pay, and the presence of a myriad of small producers against a small number of large customers eventually leads (for a variety of market and non-market reasons) to wages (and profits) falling through the floor, which in haulage it already has been doing for some time.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
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.

But ironically all that was in the supposedly bad old ‘militant’ 1970’s that rob is so against for some reason.

I don’t think that it makes any difference whether it’s a few big unionised operators or wide scale fragmented numerous small ones.When it’s all about how solid the workforce is and having a sympathetic environment which allows the freedom to take collective sympathy ( secondary ) action.That applies whether it’s workers at two big fleets taking action in sympathy with an issue at one or workers taking sympathy action across 20 different small operator’s in support of one.

In which case the key is firstly solidarity in the form of why should even a majority who are sceptical about taking action be allowed to opt out of supporting a few who do.On the basis that democracy should be kept for how we elect governments and union leaders not used as a get out clause regarding solidarity and a charter to scab.Or why should anyone be against the idea of the closed shop when it’s essential to the issue of solidarity.Or most of all why would/should workers be against taking secondary ( sympathy ) action or even wildcat strikes if required for strategic reasons as in the example shown.When without all that they are doomed to fail.All the above being the corner stone of 1970’s style trade unionism and which those like rob seem to be contradicting themselves regarding a return to.When without that return the workers generally have no chance.

As for how to organise the workforce across numerous fragmented operations to the point of imposing an industry specific acceptable wage in all sectors,by removing wage competition from the commercial tendering environment.As I’ve said Hoffa proved that was possible and made it work with his master freight agreement.But unfortunately for him it worked too well.

While ironically for all of the Socialist bs against Capitalism it was the US system that provided the environment that allowed the union freedoms,in the form of the closed shop and secondary/sympathy action,all resulting in the union solidarity which made that possible.

As opposed to Blair retaining all of Thatcher’s trade union ‘reforms’ which outlawed them.Also don’t hear even Corbyn saying that he would reinstate all of those lost freedoms.Let alone when those like rob seem to be saying that they don’t want them and that unions can still do their job without them.Make no mistake without that return to so called militant 1970’s style trade unionism the working class has no chance.

[wheel_nut_3]

[tiredandemotional]

albion:
I’m reading a Varoufakis book at the moment (not the one to his daughter), and its easier going than your posts Rjan.

Whatever you say, I pay because I want ny staff to be happy.

There’s a new postion been created at Albion transport, and I interviewed a lady to help out the TM. Experience, no faff about her. No real need for any training. I asked her about salary expectations. I think she’s worth more than she thinks she is, so her pay has been raised by £1500 a year. Not a fortune, but it reflects the type of company I’ve strived for.

As I stated at the start, my customers have a choice, pay my rates or go get inferior service somewhere else. Of course you are right in that big business may make me untenable in the future, but you are wrong when you say all small haulage businesses out compete each other. I don’t, for better or worse.

No one should ever be afraid to say foxtrot Oscar to a customer, even if it results (in my case), of working on Tescos checkout.

Maybe just accept I’m principled.

That suits you better I think!

[eagerbeaver]

albion:
I’m reading a Varoufakis book at the moment (not the one to his daughter), and its easier going than your posts Rjan.

Whatever you say, I pay because I want ny staff to be happy.

There’s a new postion been created at Albion transport, and I interviewed a lady to help out the TM. Experience, no faff about her. No real need for any training. I asked her about salary expectations. I think she’s worth more than she thinks she is, so her pay has been raised by £1500 a year. Not a fortune, but it reflects the type of company I’ve strived for.

As I stated at the start, my customers have a choice, pay my rates or go get inferior service somewhere else. Of course you are right in that big business may make me untenable in the future, but you are wrong when you say all small haulage businesses out compete each other. I don’t, for better or worse.

No one should ever be afraid to say foxtrot Oscar to a customer, even if it results (in my case), of working on Tescos checkout.

Maybe just accept I’m weird.

I accept you are weird. It’s also a good thing because if being ’ normal ’ is anything like how 99% of folk carry on, then I shall continue to be weird too.

Just keep to your side of the river though…

[albion]

Got a bridge…yer closer than yer think

And I can cross it as often as I like

[merseycool]

Carryfast:

Rjan:

Carryfast:
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.

But ironically all that was in the supposedly bad old ‘militant’ 1970’s that rob is so against for some reason.

I don’t think that it makes any difference whether it’s a few big unionised operators or wide scale fragmented numerous small ones.When it’s all about how solid the workforce is and having a sympathetic environment which allows the freedom to take collective sympathy ( secondary ) action.That applies whether it’s workers at two big fleets taking action in sympathy with an issue at one or workers taking sympathy action across 20 different small operator’s in support of one.

In which case the key is firstly solidarity in the form of why should even a majority who are sceptical about taking action be allowed to opt out of supporting a few who do.On the basis that democracy should be kept for how we elect governments and union leaders not used as a get out clause regarding solidarity and a charter to scab.Or why should anyone be against the idea of the closed shop when it’s essential to the issue of solidarity.Or most of all why would/should workers be against taking secondary ( sympathy ) action or even wildcat strikes if required for strategic reasons as in the example shown.When without all that they are doomed to fail.All the above being the corner stone of 1970’s style trade unionism and which those like rob seem to be contradicting themselves regarding a return to.When without that return the workers generally have no chance.

As for how to organise the workforce across numerous fragmented operations to the point of imposing an industry specific acceptable wage in all sectors,by removing wage competition from the commercial tendering environment.As I’ve said Hoffa proved that was possible and made it work with his master freight agreement.But unfortunately for him it worked too well.

While ironically for all of the Socialist bs against Capitalism it was the US system that provided the environment that allowed the union freedoms,in the form of the closed shop and secondary/sympathy action,all resulting in the union solidarity which made that possible.

As opposed to Blair retaining all of Thatcher’s trade union ‘reforms’ which outlawed them.Also don’t hear even Corbyn saying that he would reinstate all of those lost freedoms.Let alone when those like rob seem to be saying that they don’t want them and that unions can still do their job without them.Make no mistake without that return to so called militant 1970’s style trade unionism the working class has no chance.

Some good points you have made in your response. My view is this, If employers seek to push pay rates together with terms & conditions back to the 1970’s Then why shouldn’t we want to return to those days??

I hear people saying oh the dark old days of the 70s With rubbish piling up on the Streets because the bin men were on strike. What could be darker than the present day? A time when we have people being fed from food banks etc. I wiuld much rather see rubbish on the Streets than my fellow man !!!

[eagerbeaver]

albion:
Got a bridge…yer closer than yer think

And I can cross it as often as I like

[andiehyde]

albion:
I’m reading a Varoufakis book at the moment (not the one to his daughter), and its easier going than your posts Rjan.

Whatever you say, I pay because I want ny staff to be happy.

There’s a new postion been created at Albion transport, and I interviewed a lady to help out the TM. Experience, no faff about her. No real need for any training. I asked her about salary expectations. I think she’s worth more than she thinks she is, so her pay has been raised by £1500 a year. Not a fortune, but it reflects the type of company I’ve strived for.

As I stated at the start, my customers have a choice, pay my rates or go get inferior service somewhere else. Of course you are right in that big business may make me untenable in the future, but you are wrong when you say all small haulage businesses out compete each other. I don’t, for better or worse.

No one should ever be afraid to say foxtrot Oscar to a customer, even if it results (in my case), of working on Tescos checkout.

Maybe just accept I’m weird.

I dont think your weird at all.
In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king and I find my own little outfit in a similar positition with a giant of a company attempting to force down rates for my supply into it by trying to boil down every operation so a monkey can do it. However there are some situations that require a lot of specalised skill and their intention is to keep us around for these instances only and farming out the bulk to low cost/quality suppliers. My take on this is because I get the lions share of bargin work it subsidises the difficult jobs, to which I now have to raise the rates on. Couple this with the now criminal payment terms(145 days) they have imposed due to a leveraged take over on their part, they cannot understand why we will no longer supply them, choosing instead premium work from smaller companies who pay on time.
Other fish in the sea and all that but the large outfits are only hurting themselves in the long term, and as has been wrote before (and certainly my experience also) current large company management sees “long term” as being up to their next bonus cheque for what is essentially systamatic ■■■■ of otherwise profitable businesses where EVERYBODY benifited from being involved with its running, not just a few at the top and a bunch of faceless share holders.

Run your big company (banks included) into the ground and causing hardship for thousands, then disappear into the sunset with big fat pockets leaving the dear old taxpayer to bail it out

The game is rigged, and not in your or mines favour.

[carryfast]

merseycool:
I hear people saying oh the dark old days of the 70s With rubbish piling up on the Streets because the bin men were on strike. What could be darker than the present day? A time when we have people being fed from food banks etc. I wiuld much rather see rubbish on the Streets than my fellow man !!!

It’s unbelievable that all that happened under a Labour administration and we won’t get the whole thing back on track until that administration’s shameful part in the Thatcherite agenda,together with Blair’s,is admitted and not denied.IE Callaghan saying we’re all in this together while imposing wage cuts in real terms on the lowest paid sector of society.Nothing there about wage restraint and wage cuts for the bankers.With the 1970’s inflation race just being a tactic used by the government to cancel out successful wage demands.The result rightly then turning into a leap frog stand off of continuous price increases met by reciprocal wage demands.Then Callaghan saying oh look give us the previously fought for progress back in the form of wage reductions and it will all suddenly be ok again.Ok for or who exactly.So let’s get this right he was asking for the TUC’s support.When the treacherous zb was actually avin a larf at the workers’ expense in effectively telling them to give back all the gains that had been made over the previous 20 years.Then to add insult to injury the TUC actually backed him.

youtube.com/watch?v=cqybLVQ3gPA

Let alone the situation of the working class itself condemning its own for refusing to work for less wages in real terms.While obviously having no problem with the employers saying pay us what we say the job is worth or you can’t have the product.IE if you don’t pay the waste collection contractor then they won’t collect the rubbish.So why the double standards.

While back to rob’s naive idea that the interests of the two sides can be reconciled.Not a chance at least until employers across every sector of the economy change their view from employees and wages being a liability on the balance sheet to employees and wages make customers.Until then the interests of employers v employees are so diametrically opposed that good old fashioned so called militant unionism is the only option.

Which leaves the question what changed from even that bastion of Capitalist economics the US and Conservative governments here allowing the freedom of association and the right to strike which gave the Teamsters and the NUM their respective victories for example during the 1960’s and 70’s.To the so called ‘Labour’ Party imposing wage restraint on the already lowest paid to deal with price led inflation and later Blair acting like Thatcher’s anti union laws enforcer which effectively removes the right to strike.While even at best the working class too often swallowing all the anti union propaganda and calling for compromise and restraint in the form of the ‘middle ground’.That’ll work.

Also bearing in mind that union solidarity and industrial action doesn’t have to mean the same thing as support for Soviet Socialism.When it can actually thrive to better effect in the right type of Capitalist environment of 1960’s America or early 1970’s UK.

[albion]

Very true Andie Hyde. 145 days , that’s ridiculous.

The ability of the management of large companies to be unable to see the benefits of satisfied staff and suppliers has become the norm.

[joeblogs38]

Ive been told
That they suttons want to take £7.00 an hour off the drivers at eastham.

Also other posters are correct ive seen suttons asking for adr tanker drivers 10.22 an hour.

Regards unions i dont have alot if faith
Did nowt for me when i needed them.

Paid all those subs for nowt

Can the rants be kept to the topic !

[macker1999]

I have a cunning plan!

Sutton’s go to their fuel supplier and tell them that they can only afford 50 pence per litre, and that Sutton’s and their poor struggling fledgling customer are most grateful for the charity received [emoji56][emoji35]

Please let me know know how they get on so that I can cut some rates and grow my company over the losses of other peoples profits [emoji58]

Heard a rumour that Sutton’s have “ won “ part of the contract to distribute Chefer Fert this season[emoji845][emoji845]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[andrewg]

AndieHyde:
criminal payment terms(145 days)

The game is rigged, and not in your or mines favour.

That truly IS criminal and ridiculous! Holding onto payment like that should be outlawed.
O/d’s are paid as per employed staff here ie 4 weekly, how it should be.
Easier said than done sometimes but places playing the game like that need avoiding…

[uktramp]

Joeblogs38:
Ive been told
That they suttons want to take £7.00 an hour off the drivers at eastham.

Also other posters are correct ive seen suttons asking for adr tanker drivers 10.22 an hour.

Regards unions i dont have alot if faith
Did nowt for me when i needed them.

Paid all those subs for nowt

Can the rants be kept to the topic !

I completely agree that Unions are not needed anymore, they do nothing for most and very little for a lot with ok for very few. Your subs are simply going down the drain paying into it, management on most sites don’t recognise them or speak with them, Unite was not allowed to hold meetings with members on an ABP site I was on, where they had to hold meetings off site. Weak and useless with no real support. Lots of workers have lost their jobs regardless of a union membership or not. When Thatcher defeated the miners, that was the end of them.