billybigrig:
wildfire:
why not■■?
if there was a minimum price per mile set by the government and it was set at rate that was fair, and i am not saying one rate fits all, could X pence for 7.5 to 18 tonne then X pence 18 tonne and so on, or a sliding scale i don’t have all the answer, just a rate that was profitable, and you were not allowed to be paid less than that, like the minimum wage,
and if all suppliers were told the rates they can then build it into their pricing structure,i do believe there is something like operated in some countries abroad 
As I said, if there was a minimum rate then we would all be working for that. All suppliers would know that rate and thus not pay any more.
Now let’s say Stobcantons by virtue of economies of scale can run for 1.25 a mile where as Traditional Joes costs are 1.45 a mile. Minimum rated is set at let’s say 1.50 a mile. Now who is laughing ■■
By law Stobcanton can not charge any less and so cannot undercut but by making more money they will still take the work off Traditional Joe. By offering value added service like for example inventory management, on site staff, stand trailers, and faster delivery times by virtue of size and network. They can afford to do all this and still make more money than Traditional Joe by virtue of your minimum rate.
It will do more harm than good.
Not to mention the nice ongoing business that Traditional Joe has earned by ongoing quality of service and familiarity which did pay 1.80 a mile is now worth 1.50 because that’s the rate they know it can be done for surely as that’s the law ■■? Poor old Joe and his medium to small haulier bretheren are screwed
A little history lesson for you all.
Many years ago, when the railways were being expanded around this country, the government passed laws aimed at stopping them from picking the best work, and leaving the poor-paying stuff to horses and carts. The railway was deemed to be a “common carrier” and its rates were set in law.
This worked quite well until two things happened; the invention of the lorry, and the First World War. After the war, many surplus vehicles were sold off and road haulage companies came into being. These companies could compete with the railways and undercut them, and furthermore they were more flexible for various reasons, not the least of which was that they were not heavily unionised and were therefore less prone to strike action. Thus the railways were never able to compete on a level playing field with private hauliers, and things got even worse after the second World War as the railways were completely run down due to lack of maintenence and investment.
This actually lasted until 1957.
It’s fashionable and convenient today to blame Dr. Beeching for the demise of our once all-encompassing railway system, but the above had a marked effect too.
Now then, substitute British hauliers for the railways, and Eastern European ones for the pre-war hauliers, and you’ve got the classic case of history repeating itself.
Keep government legislation out of road haulage for God’s sake. They’ve screwed it up enough already.
