Beetlejuice:
waddy640:
Why does an operator put " Must have Driven Class 1 within the last 6 months" in their advert? You don’t forget how to drive them, I passed my test in 1979 and didn’t drive another one until 1996 but I remembered how to drive the thing.Unfortunately it is the parasite agencies that use this usually followed by “for insurance purposes” pure waffle .
This is in the requirements of a well known South Wales operator.
WhiteTruckMan:
waddy640:
Why does an operator put " Must have Driven Class 1 within the last 6 months" in their advert? You don’t forget how to drive them, I passed my test in 1979 and didn’t drive another one until 1996 but I remembered how to drive the thing.Blame Jeremy Clarkson for that. Thanks to him, firms think anyone who hasn’t driven in 6 months must have been in prison for murdering a prostitute.
“Must have driven in the last 7 months” - means you don’t have a blue card that is just about to expire?
Adam277, (and anybody else who might) please don’t take this the wrong way, I’m not putting the topic down.
I shouldn’t worry about a driver shortage, it would be brilliant news, but it’s unlikely to happen. There isn’t one, and there never has been, a study of driver salaries for the last hundred years or so will prove that.
I would be more concerned about some half-witted government scheme (if enough employers and trade associations shout loud enough) to encourage/force people in other jobs or on benefits to become HGV drivers. Couple that with “flexible working” (employer subsidies through “tax credits”) and we will really have some problems.
Look at the “wanna drive this bus?” adverts and see how bus drivers behave.
Look at the laughable “private hire” vehicles and how they’re driven.
Look at “self employed” food delivery drivers and how they act.
That - should it come, will be the time to start worrying.
robroy:
If there is (or going to be) a shortage, a lot of it is down to the firms themselves ,in terms of their cynical treatment of their drivers.and their draconian t .s and c.s.Case in point, our lot have drawn up a new contract I’ve been told, which includes paying for damage and all the rest of the crap that people with ■■■■ poor man management skills dream up.
It reads like a list of things that would put anybody (with a brain) off from driving for them,.rather than attracting them, but true to form the said drivers without the brain are actually (and readily) signing up like good little boys rather than display some sort of resistance to it.
Paying for damage 
why the hell do they pay insurance.no one goes out to damage their vehicle ffs even the dreaded EE’s but stuff happens. Tell them what to do with their contract,I’m sure a driving god such as yourself has the contacts to do without them 
The only shortage is agency putting this out to keep wages low
no1dieselman:
What would help would be relaxing the medical requirements for older drivers. Our retirement age keeps getting pushed up as we are fitter for longer, licensing should reflect this too.
I asked my MP about this. He sourced a reply from the Department of Transport which quoted some EU rule about 5 year increments, spouted a load of sanctimonious tosh about Elf And Safety and said there were no plans to change things.
This BTW was the DoT’s words not my MP so don’t shoot the messenger!
waddy640:
Why does an operator put " Must have Driven Class 1 within the last 6 months" in their advert? You don’t forget how to drive them, I passed my test in 1979 and didn’t drive another one until 1996 but I remembered how to drive the thing.
Maybe you did, and were good enough to get away without breaking something. Perhaps not all drivers have your natural ability; added to that, with the possible exception of an easier gearbox, the 1996 lorry was probably not too dissimilar to the one you passed your test in back in 79, and stuff like digital tachos was still in the future.
However, things have changed a lot in the last 15 years, despite what all the old-timers might say about it being a doddle now compared to then. If I was taking somebody on to pilot a hundred grand plus worth of truck I’d want to be ■■■■ sure that the driver was going to be au fait with modern kit.
eurotrans:
robroy:
If there is (or going to be) a shortage, a lot of it is down to the firms themselves ,in terms of their cynical treatment of their drivers.and their draconian t .s and c.s.Case in point, our lot have drawn up a new contract I’ve been told, which includes paying for damage and all the rest of the crap that people with ■■■■ poor man management skills dream up.
It reads like a list of things that would put anybody (with a brain) off from driving for them,.rather than attracting them, but true to form the said drivers without the brain are actually (and readilyPaying for damage
You’re preaching to the converted mate, and I’m just weighing up my next move.
I don’t really want to change jobs tbh as I’m content with my job of work, what I do, but on the other hand I’m not my firm’s biggest fan…only because of this type of agitation towards their drivers.
They do have a problem with negligent damage from a lot of ‘‘steerers’’ they employ, but they treat everybody good or bad the same.
This is the second revision of contract from the one I originally signed, and I refused to sign the first revision which touched on a damage clause, and this is their third one/second revision.
Apparentlly the only way they can not implement these measures if the ■■■■ hits the fan in terms of damage, is not by us just refusing to sign the contract, but to attach a letter to it stating that you do not agree with clauses ‘x y and z’.
Not sure if the contract needs to be signed also or not, with this letter attached though…anybody?
robroy:
eurotrans:
robroy:
If there is (or going to be) a shortage, a lot of it is down to the firms themselves ,in terms of their cynical treatment of their drivers.and their draconian t .s and c.s.Case in point, our lot have drawn up a new contract I’ve been told, which includes paying for damage and all the rest of the crap that people with ■■■■ poor man management skills dream up.
It reads like a list of things that would put anybody (with a brain) off from driving for them,.rather than attracting them, but true to form the said drivers without the brain are actually (and readilyPaying for damage
You’re preaching to the converted mate, and I’m just weighing up my next move.
I don’t really want to change jobs tbh as I’m content with my job of work, what I do, but on the other hand I’m not my firm’s biggest fan…only because of this type of agitation towards their drivers.
They do have a problem with negligent damage from a lot of ‘‘steerers’’ they employ, but they treat everybody good or bad the same.
This is the second revision of contract from the one I originally signed, and I refused to sign the first revision which touched on a damage clause, and this is their third one/second revision.
Apparentlly the only way they can not implement these measures if the [zb] hits the fan in terms of damage, is not by us just refusing to sign the contract, but to attach a letter to it stating that you do not agree with clauses ‘x y and z’.
Not sure if the contract needs to be signed also or not, with this letter attached though…anybody?
Yes you need to raise a grievance against the change to your terms and conditions outlining the reasons for your issues. Do not sign the contract in case your grievance gets “lost”.
However now days there is an onus on firms to get these revised contracts signed to prevent future issues.
They should meet and explain the changes, why and what they want you to sign. If you refuse there is a couple more meetings and should you still refuse to sign you should be dismissed for failure to follow a reasonable instruction. At this point you decide if you wish to appeal (and sign the contract) or take them to a tribunal for unfair dismissal
kcrussell25:
Yes you need to raise a grievance against the change to your terms and conditions outlining the reasons for your issues. Do not sign the contract in case your grievance gets “lost”.However now days there is an onus on firms to get these revised contracts signed to prevent future issues.
They should meet and explain the changes, why and what they want you to sign. If you refuse there is a couple more meetings and should you still refuse to sign you should be dismissed for failure to follow a reasonable instruction. At this point you decide if you wish to appeal (and sign the contract) or take them to a tribunal for unfair dismissal
Unless you’re describing a charade process in which the employer dismisses you unlawfully under a pretense, then I think there needs to be clarification.
There is a distinction between a change in the employer’s policies and practices, which may be written and which may also be changed from time to time at the employer’s behest, and a change in the binding terms of your employment which cannot be changed without your consent.
An employer can never “reasonably instruct” you to accept detrimental variations to your existing terms (although there may be circumstances in which they can effectively impose certain changes or else give you your notice if you refuse).
On the other hand, if an employer changes a written policy (which is not part of your terms) and directs you to acknowledge the change in writing, then they may conceivably dismiss you if you refuse. The signature in such a case is not the acceptance of a new contract (or a variation of the existing one), it is simply a written acknowledgement that you’ve been given the information by the employer - it is a reasonable instruction that you acknowledge receipt of such written information as the employer gives you from time to time.
It might not be obvious in all cases whether what the employer is proposing to change is merely a workplace policy, or whether it touches on your terms of employment.
But a deduction against pay for accidental damage is undoubtedly a change to the terms in my view, if no such right ever existed before.
kevmac47:
no1dieselman:
What would help would be relaxing the medical requirements for older drivers. Our retirement age keeps getting pushed up as we are fitter for longer, licensing should reflect this too.The medical isn’t any more stringent for older drivers than anyone else, I’m 71 and have kept my licence. My main beef is the cost, my own doctor wants £130 every year
I think the OP is saying that as we are now all deemed by government to be able to stay fit enough to work longer then the change from 5 yearly checks to 1 yearly should be changed to a higher age to reflect this. It’s logical to be fair and what you are saying about the cost really supports his argument. Well done though, 50 years ? 1970 ? That was not long after HGV driving tests came in ?
The industry of transport and goods movement, is stuck firmly in the dark ages in so many ways.
I would rather sit at home and do bugger all, than go out and drive a lorry, yes I could have more money, but until we stop being treated like animals, then this is where I shall stay.
Looks like the driver shortage is starting to bite, at least in the US anyway.
Rjan:
kcrussell25:
Yes you need to raise a grievance against the change to your terms and conditions outlining the reasons for your issues. Do not sign the contract in case your grievance gets “lost”.However now days there is an onus on firms to get these revised contracts signed to prevent future issues.
They should meet and explain the changes, why and what they want you to sign. If you refuse there is a couple more meetings and should you still refuse to sign you should be dismissed for failure to follow a reasonable instruction. At this point you decide if you wish to appeal (and sign the contract) or take them to a tribunal for unfair dismissal
Unless you’re describing a charade process in which the employer dismisses you unlawfully under a pretense, then I think there needs to be clarification.
There is a distinction between a change in the employer’s policies and practices, which may be written and which may also be changed from time to time at the employer’s behest, and a change in the binding terms of your employment which cannot be changed without your consent.
An employer can never “reasonably instruct” you to accept detrimental variations to your existing terms (although there may be circumstances in which they can effectively impose certain changes or else give you your notice if you refuse).
On the other hand, if an employer changes a written policy (which is not part of your terms) and directs you to acknowledge the change in writing, then they may conceivably dismiss you if you refuse. The signature in such a case is not the acceptance of a new contract (or a variation of the existing one), it is simply a written acknowledgement that you’ve been given the information by the employer - it is a reasonable instruction that you acknowledge receipt of such written information as the employer gives you from time to time.
It might not be obvious in all cases whether what the employer is proposing to change is merely a workplace policy, or whether it touches on your terms of employment.
But a deduction against pay for accidental damage is undoubtedly a change to the terms in my view, if no such right ever existed before.
Thanks chaps, both posts are useful.
wing-nut:
Looks like the driver shortage is starting to bite, at least in the US anyway.
$87,500 a year…
That’s £66,550. Yet we’re still arguing over 20-30k.
Yeh yeh, you gotta be out for months on end for that and live on the road etc but it’s where our money should be.
yourhavingalarf:
wing-nut:
Looks like the driver shortage is starting to bite, at least in the US anyway.$87,500 a year…
That’s £66,550. Yet we’re still arguing over 20-30k.
Yeh yeh, you gotta be out for months on end for that and live on the road etc but it’s where our money should be.
Article says home for 2 days a week so that’s £1280 for 5 day week
And if you believe that i’ve got a bridge you can buy.Now calculate the take home,with all the deductions out.
hutpik:
And if you believe that i’ve got a bridge you can buy.Now calculate the take home,with all the deductions out.
I see…
What you’re saying. Let’s very generously 50% it then…oh that’s still £33250.
Beetlejuice:
waddy640:
Why does an operator put " Must have Driven Class 1 within the last 6 months" in their advert? You don’t forget how to drive them, I passed my test in 1979 and didn’t drive another one until 1996 but I remembered how to drive the thing.Unfortunately it is the parasite agencies that use this usually followed by “for insurance purposes” pure waffle .
Testicular nonsense.
