As for it affecting rates, it does that by using some sort of fair competition rules.
Squeeky Clean Haulage has a contract to move 150 pallets a month to Italy and it takes their drivers 3 days from their base to the customer.
■■■■ Dastardly Logistics goes to that customer and says he will do the job for the same money but guarantees delivery before lunch on the second day.
Milan Warehousing agrees to the change, but finds the trucks are filthy, the drivers too, it looks like they haven’t washed for weeks and the trailers are badly maintained. Dastardly are using cheap drivers from Eastern Europe and if they don’t make the delivery they are out of a job, the drivers bend the rules to keep up with deadlines and to keep their job, so now you have tired drivers with badly maintained kit and no real interest in the job. A bit like now I suppose
ncooper:
Far from tying the industry up in unnecessary red tape, O licensing in fact opened flood gates and let in the huge numbers of rate cutting individuals and companies who have made the industry the shark infested ocean it is today.
All those mammoth corporations we have today cutting the rates with their economic might and bulk buying power must be by far the most compliant and all their fleets must be in immaculate condition. They must be absolutely perfect - without spot or blemish - conducting their operations with all due dilligence and unmistakeably more proffessionalism than all the smaller concerns, for have you ever seen any of their names appear in applications and decisions for consideration of disciplinary action at a public equiry?
I can’t find the names of any of the bigger firms in there in relation to an inquiry or disciplinary ever. They must all be faultless and above reproach.
ncooper:
At least a reasonable degree of vehicle safety is maintained and most stick to the drivers hours rules, make no mistake, very few would bother if there were no rules to follow.
This is true, but without O-licensing there would still be rules to follow, how well rules are followed has to do with the level of enforcement and doesn’t really have much to do with the requirement for O-licensing. From what I can see it seems that the O-licensing system we have currently mostly works in favour of the larger firms, helping them to build monopolies.
Maybe instead of removing the O’licencing system, making it harder to get one would help the industry.
As was said at the moment to many hauliers chasing to little work.
Although this is not strictly related to O licensing it is probably worth saying.
Most of the larger haulage operations make their money out of warehousing and are happy if each of their vehicles break even or make a tiny profit.
They do not seem to mind if a journey is made at a loss.
As the only way to win a contract seems to be by undercutting the current contract holder, there is a constant downward pressure on haulage rates.
This is very good for the customer, who is usually a retailer, as there is precious little manufacturing going on.
However, it is not very good for the employed driver, whose wages are being driven ever downwards.
It is even worse for the small haulier or owner driver who cannot survive on a profit margin of £1 a day per truck.
The company I work for was put out of the hire and reward haulage business by a large operation who came in
and cut the pallet rate by about 35% and it wasn’t that good in the first place.
The only successful way to cope with these giants is by providing a better quality of service, often not too difficult,
or by finding a niche market where they do not yet operate.
The trend has been for a long time towards very large operations and they have more or less prevailed, leaving very little
but scraps off their tables for the small operator.
Red Squirrel:
I can’t find the names of any of the bigger firms in there in relation to an inquiry or disciplinary ever. They must all be faultless and above reproach.
I doubt that they are faultless but the way they run their businesses means that there is little or no pressure to break or even bend the rules.
In my experience, those who are caught running bent on a large scale, whether drivers’ hours or unroadworthy vehicles are about to go out of business anyway or deserve to.
I’m all for the free market economy, as such this licensing regime appears to me to be a ‘cartel market’, so what if the rates get undercut? Have a legal, insured truck then you should be able to tout for work, simple. Already hold a CPC? There’s absolutley no legal requirement to update it, how does that ensure anything? Good repute? There’s people with O licences i wouldn’t trust to mind a fiver for me. Load of ■■■■■■■■ the licensing regime, its meant to keep smaller operators out, and larger operators in.
Wheel Nut:
Over 50 would be at such a rate as to make the likes of Wincanton, DHL and Turners cringe when they take on a new contract, especially if it takes work from the 5k licence holders.
Mike-C:
I’m all for the free market economy, as such this licensing regime appears to me to be a ‘cartel market’, so what if the rates get undercut? Have a legal, insured truck then you should be able to tout for work, simple. Already hold a CPC? There’s absolutley no legal requirement to update it, how does that ensure anything? Good repute? There’s people with O licences i wouldn’t trust to mind a fiver for me. Load of ■■■■■■■■ the licensing regime, its meant to keep smaller operators out, and larger operators in.
Agree 100%
The way things are going we’ll be left with just a few large companies running the lot.
I thought the idea of going into Europe was supposed to be to increase free trade, not to turn all our industries into oligopolies with giant companies paying enormous salaries and bonuses to CEO’s and the top brass while the rest of the workforce get payed a pittance. I blame the red tape for a lot of the income inequality we have today.
