The Reality of Road Haulage

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
1

I posted this in a topic, but have decided to put it in its own, because some seem to be under the impression that companies make a fortune out of us mere mortals… and it is easy to check how any company is doing also, best i have seen is DHL.

Right, lets see how well C.M Downton does in this industry as a whole, in 2014 its gross turnover was £104,820,221, and net profit was £3,525,512, it had 1132 members of staff generating on average profit each of £3114, devided by 52 weeks = £59.88p per staff member, now how much of a pay rise would you as a staff member want out of that £59.88p and the company still make a profit.
Drivers seem to think these haulage companies are making vast profits out of them, when the reality is their not, they really are only paying staff the maximum they can afford and still keep the company viable and people in jobs…
Some one from the RHA has said the majority of operators should be, in reality be charging 4 times the amount they are to benefit every one!!
This is fact, not fiction, all figures are here companycheck.co.uk/company/0090 … l-accounts in black and white and also available from companies house and are public documents.
Those in this industry need to realise that the only way to go, is first to fight for better haulage rates and then go for better wages, its the only way it can be, if they aint got it, they can’t pay it.
Even the bigger companies are complaining about the way things are with rates being dictated to them by there customers, it isn’t just the drivers that are having the ■■■■ taken out out of them by others, its the whole industry.
Main cause, no one will stick together, hauliers or drivers, and it would’t even need direct action to get this changed if everyone stuck together.

2

Call it 50 hours a week an average worker would work, and giving each employee a £1 an hour rise, would mean the company would make only around £10 a week profit per worker. That’s only £520 profit a year, per worker! That would mean a nett profit of only £588,640, as opposed to £3,525,512. It’s safe to say that Downton have a LOT to lose by giving a pay rise! :open_mouth:

3

The race to the bottom, fuelled by clients not willing to pay for it. Downtons will offer for X contract X price then Stobarts comes in with a lower price and it goes from there. Each time the contract is up for grabs, the price goes down.

4

The directors seem to be doing ok, £733k between 6 of them

5

this analysis of increase rates to then increase wages is all arse about face !

first we need to realise that haulage is in the service sector .

there is no intrinsic value to English economy of any individual haulier even existing . they have no intellectual property , no design or manufacturing capability , no patents , no exports and no ability to grow economy .

they are a service plain and simple .

the basic rule of capitalism is supply and demand . the oversupply of service providers means that when supply is high causes demand to be low .

the customers create the wealth and need transport services . if 1 transport supplier is removed the demand for its services increases , the customers are not going to shut up shop just because there are less service providers : they just have to pay more .

therefore having a tear in the eye for the suffering of a transport company is misplaced . it is in drivers interests to put as much pressure as possible on their employers . if their employer goes bust so be it . the demand for drivers is unchanged , but with 1 less transport supplier the remaining suppliers are strengthened .

so dont feel sorry for your boss : stick the boot in instead .

6

boredwivdrivin:
this analysis of increase rates to then increase wages is all arse about face !

first we need to realise that haulage is in the service sector .

there is no intrinsic value to English economy of any individual haulier even existing . they have no intellectual property , no design or manufacturing capability , no patents , no exports and no ability to grow economy .

they are a service plain and simple .

the basic rule of capitalism is supply and demand . the oversupply of service providers means that when supply is high causes demand to be low .

the customers create the wealth and need transport services . if 1 transport supplier is removed the demand for its services increases , the customers are not going to shut up shop just because there are less service providers : they just have to pay more .

therefore having a tear in the eye for the suffering of a transport company is misplaced . it is in drivers interests to put as much pressure as possible on their employers . if their employer goes bust so be it . the demand for drivers is unchanged , but with 1 less transport supplier the remaining suppliers are strengthened .

so dont feel sorry for your boss : stick the boot in instead .

This isn’t possible, as I agree wth you completely on that! :open_mouth:

7

Evil8Beezle:
This isn’t possible, as I agree wth you completely on that! :open_mouth:

may be you are not as stooopud as you sound !

got to admit …

it gets my goat …

all this sympathy for logistic companies

PUKE

8

weeto:
I posted this in a topic, but have decided to put it in its own, because some seem to be under the impression that companies make a fortune out of us mere mortals… and it is easy to check how any company is doing also, best i have seen is DHL.

Right, lets see how well C.M Downton does in this industry as a whole, in 2014 its gross turnover was £104,820,221, and net profit was £3,525,512, it had 1132 members of staff generating on average profit each of £3114, devided by 52 weeks = £59.88p per staff member, now how much of a pay rise would you as a staff member want out of that £59.88p and the company still make a profit.
Drivers seem to think these haulage companies are making vast profits out of them, when the reality is their not, they really are only paying staff the maximum they can afford and still keep the company viable and people in jobs…
Some one from the RHA has said the majority of operators should be, in reality be charging 4 times the amount they are to benefit every one!!
This is fact, not fiction, all figures are here companycheck.co.uk/company/0090 … l-accounts in black and white and also available from companies house and are public documents.
Those in this industry need to realise that the only way to go, is first to fight for better haulage rates and then go for better wages, its the only way it can be, if they aint got it, they can’t pay it.
Even the bigger companies are complaining about the way things are with rates being dictated to them by there customers, it isn’t just the drivers that are having the ■■■■ taken out out of them by others, its the whole industry.
Main cause, no one will stick together, hauliers or drivers, and it would’t even need direct action to get this changed if everyone stuck together.

How much of the gross turnover figure went to pay road fuel taxation ?.

9

boredwivdrivin:
this analysis of increase rates to then increase wages is all arse about face !

first we need to realise that haulage is in the service sector .

there is no intrinsic value to English economy of any individual haulier even existing . they have no intellectual property , no design or manufacturing capability , no patents , no exports and no ability to grow economy .

they are a service plain and simple .

the basic rule of capitalism is supply and demand . the oversupply of service providers means that when supply is high causes demand to be low .

the customers create the wealth and need transport services . if 1 transport supplier is removed the demand for its services increases , the customers are not going to shut up shop just because there are less service providers : they just have to pay more .

therefore having a tear in the eye for the suffering of a transport company is misplaced . it is in drivers interests to put as much pressure as possible on their employers . if their employer goes bust so be it . the demand for drivers is unchanged , but with 1 less transport supplier the remaining suppliers are strengthened .

so dont feel sorry for your boss : stick the boot in instead .

That’ll fix it.We reduce capacity by a multiple of 4 times to increase rates by the same amount but that won’t mean any reduction in the demand for drivers it will actually increase it.Then we double road fuel taxation.Then we reduce capacity by around 4 times as much again to compensate for the resulting reduction in profitability.Thereby creating yet more demand for drivers. :smiling_imp: :laughing: :laughing:

10

Carryfast:
How much of the gross turnover figure went to pay road fuel taxation ?.

why would that even matter ■■

its a ‘fixed’ cost of sales that is the same for everyone !!

the only possible argument could be foreign hauliers filling up abroad getting an unfair advantage . thats an argument for surcharging foreigners perhaps , but has no bearing otherwise on domestic market .

11

Carryfast:
That’ll fix it.We reduce capacity by a multiple of 4 times to increase rates by the same amount but that won’t mean any reduction in the demand for drivers it will actually increase it.Then we double road fuel taxation.Then we reduce capacity by around 4 times as much again to compensate for the resulting reduction in profitability.Thereby creating yet more demand for drivers. :smiling_imp: :laughing: :laughing:

what you need to realise is the quantity of transport firms offering their services (supply) has no effect on the amount of work customers require (demand)

but removing the smallest/cheapest supplier reduces the supply available to service the demand . thus making supply more valuable .

also there is no relationship between amount of transport firms and demand for drivers . if there was only 1 transport firm in existance , it would still have to employ the exact same amount of drivers as now .

only difference would be the transport firm would have a monopoly on servicing demand and would be in a strong position to dictate rates .

similarly the drivers would have the monopolies balls in their hands and would be in a stronger position to dictate their rates .

supply and demand : simple

12

boredwivdrivin:

Carryfast:
How much of the gross turnover figure went to pay road fuel taxation ?.

why would that even matter ■■

If we’re going to calculate the profitability of the operation per employee as a proportion of gross turnover ( productivety ) it matters a lot.

IE it actually acts as form of industry specific tax on everyone who works in it thereby distorting that profitability/productivety figure. :unamused:

13

boredwivdrivin:

Carryfast:
That’ll fix it.We reduce capacity by a multiple of 4 times to increase rates by the same amount but that won’t mean any reduction in the demand for drivers it will actually increase it.Then we double road fuel taxation.Then we reduce capacity by around 4 times as much again to compensate for the resulting reduction in profitability.Thereby creating yet more demand for drivers. :smiling_imp: :laughing: :laughing:

what you need to realise is the quantity of transport firms offering their services (supply) has no effect on the amount of work customers require (demand)

but removing the smallest/cheapest supplier reduces the supply available to service the demand . thus making supply more valuable .

also there is no relationship between amount of transport firms and demand for drivers . if there was only 1 transport firm in existance , it would still have to employ the exact same amount of drivers as now .

only difference would be the transport firm would have a monopoly on servicing demand and would be in a strong position to dictate rates .

similarly the drivers would have the monopolies balls in their hands and would be in a stronger position to dictate their rates .

supply and demand : simple

As I said give us some figures as to how far we’ll need to reduce capacity,to increase demand,to a level where the resulting increase in rates cancels out the road fuel taxation cost component of that gross turnover figure.Let alone how does that reduction in capacity translate into more demand for drivers. :bulb:

14

Carryfast:
If we’re going to calculate the profitability of the operation per employee as a proportion of gross turnover ( productivety ) it matters a lot.

IE it actually acts as form of industry specific tax on everyone who works in it thereby distorting that profitability/productivety figure. :unamused:

nope . the OP calculated the profit/person thing . im sure even he would admit that was a representative figure he constructed to advance his argument , and has no bearing on anything solid as only drivers fulfil sales and thus create profits . the distortion of productivity would be non sales fulfilling staff like transport clerks , HR , cleaners and tea ladies .

the tax is just a cost of sales . like tyres , wages , insurance , equipment etc etc . and its the same for all the supply side companies .

arguing that reducing tax to increase productivity is a bit fatalistic , as employers/employees still want schools , hospitals ,roads , emergency services and have to be paid for .

Carryfast:
As I said give us some figures as to how far we’ll need to reduce capacity,to increase demand,to a level where the resulting increase in rates cancels out the road fuel taxation cost component of that gross turnover figure.Let alone how does that reduction in capacity translate into more demand for drivers. :bulb:

Any reduction in capacity increases demand . whether its 1 driver gone or 1 fleet . the greater in reduction of supply the greater the increase in demand .

increasing rates to cancel out fuel taxation component of profit is nonsense gibberish .

never suggested a reduction in capacity increases demand for more drivers . thats nonsense too .:: reduction in capacity of a service increases demand for the service .

and where demand increases , the charge/rate for fulfilling that demand can increase too

15

weeto:
I posted this in a topic, but have decided to put it in its own, because some seem to be under the impression that companies make a fortune out of us mere mortals… and it is easy to check how any company is doing also, best i have seen is DHL.

Right, lets see how well C.M Downton does in this industry as a whole, in 2014 its gross turnover was £104,820,221, and net profit was £3,525,512, it had 1132 members of staff generating on average profit each of £3114, devided by 52 weeks = £59.88p per staff member, now how much of a pay rise would you as a staff member want out of that £59.88p and the company still make a profit.
Drivers seem to think these haulage companies are making vast profits out of them, when the reality is their not, they really are only paying staff the maximum they can afford and still keep the company viable and people in jobs…
Some one from the RHA has said the majority of operators should be, in reality be charging 4 times the amount they are to benefit every one!!
This is fact, not fiction, all figures are here companycheck.co.uk/company/0090 … l-accounts in black and white and also available from companies house and are public documents.
Those in this industry need to realise that the only way to go, is first to fight for better haulage rates and then go for better wages, its the only way it can be, if they aint got it, they can’t pay it.
Even the bigger companies are complaining about the way things are with rates being dictated to them by there customers, it isn’t just the drivers that are having the ■■■■ taken out out of them by others, its the whole industry.
Main cause, no one will stick together, hauliers or drivers, and it would’t even need direct action to get this changed if everyone stuck together.

Are you really so gullible?
There isn’t a limited company in the UK that declares their full profits as such. There is so much outgoing that the profit amounts to peanuts. even I as a limited company somehow manage to have a large amount of outgoings that my profit is negligible hence I pay less corporation tax.

16

boredwivdrivin:

Carryfast:
As I said give us some figures as to how far we’ll need to reduce capacity,to increase demand,to a level where the resulting increase in rates cancels out the road fuel taxation cost component of that gross turnover figure.Let alone how does that reduction in capacity translate into more demand for drivers. :bulb:

Any reduction in capacity increases demand . whether its 1 driver gone or 1 fleet . the greater in reduction of supply the greater the increase in demand .

increasing rates to cancel out fuel taxation component of profit is nonsense gibberish .

never suggested a reduction in capacity increases demand for more drivers . thats nonsense too .:: reduction in capacity of a service increases demand for the service .

and where demand increases , the charge/rate for fulfilling that demand can increase too

You’ve admitted that your increase in demand is dependent on a corresponding decrease in capacity and with it a proportional corresponding decrease in demand for drivers.

As I said the figures provided show that wage levels are dependent on what’s left out of the gross turnover figure after outgoings.It seems obvious that removing the road fuel taxation component of those outgoings would be a game changer regarding what’s left out of the gross turnover figure regards profits and then what can be taken out for wages.

Yes we need tax revenues to pay for things but why should the employees of one specific industrial sector be expected to subsidise the required taxation levels of others.

While how is,reducing the level of demand for drivers,by reducing capacity, to the point where increase in demand cancels out the effects of road fuel taxation on profitability,good for drivers and drivers incomes. :unamused:

17

wing-nut:
The directors seem to be doing ok, £733k between 6 of them

An average of £120,000 each to be responsible for finding 1100 peoples wages every week, sounds great where do I sign. :unamused:

18

del trotter:

wing-nut:
The directors seem to be doing ok, £733k between 6 of them

An average of £120,000 each to be responsible for finding 1100 peoples wages every week, sounds great where do I sign. :unamused:

I’m sure if your willing to risk millions of pounds and be responsible to pay millions out in wages you will qualify for a job.

19

I have to agree with truckbling on this, to base any logic on figures derived from companies house is flawed.

People lie, where tax is involved people lie their asses off.

Creative accounting, fudging the figures, expense loopholes, call it what you will but in real world terms HMRC is the enemy and the less they see the better in terms of profit. Usual arse covering rules apply.

Was told a joke once by my own accountant many moons ago:
What’s the difference between a ■■■■■■ and the HMRC.

A ■■■■■■ stops ■■■■ ing you after your dead.

20

I have only read the initial post at the moment but couldn’t agree more.

I helped run a haulage company for nearly 10 years, much smaller than the company quoted but again we made about £50 profit per driver - if we were lucky. And for a few years even that was difficult.

Rates charged are ridiculous. A Taxi gets three times as much per mile. The industry has screwed itself with a lot of help from some of the larger players.

I personally found it very hard to deal with employees moaning about their wages and always asking for more because I understood the figures going on in the background. I also knew how much profit was lost to damage and neglect by staff.