An article in the Guardian August 2nd 2016.
This is what market failure looks like. There’s a shortage of HGV drivers in an economy that relies on moving mountains of heavy goods. Road haulage companies complain bitterly that they can’t recruit; operators are turning business away for lack of drivers.
Normally I can’t read anything by that particular journalist without wanting to smash the iPad but that was IMHO a fairly accurate article.
The Guardian.That bastion of the pro road transport cause. 
More like hypocritical bunch of socalist zb wits.Who are big on statements like LHV’s are damaging but obviously not so good on facts to explain how/why.Then,just as expected,they say it would make road transport more competitive with rail which is their real bs problem.
theguardian.com/environment/ … oad-trains
On that note if truck driving is to be given the same status as train driving and made more productive we need a level trading field in the form of the most efficient vehicles possible and fuel cost regime.If not then don’t be surprised when prospective new drivers walk away from the industry because they don’t want to be lumbered with the typical zb distribution sector type work that’s left at any wage,let alone minimum wage.While on that note spare us from such hypocritical utter zb.
Carryfast:
On that note if truck driving is to be given the same status as train driving and made more productive we need a level trading field in the form of the most efficient vehicles possible and fuel cost regime.If not then don’t be surprised when prospective new drivers walk away from the industry because they don’t want to be lumbered with the typical zb distribution sector type work that’s left at any wage,let alone minimum wage.While on that note spare us from such hypocritical utter zb.
We should not be trying to take food out of the mouth of rail and rail workers. If you want what they have, then join the rail industry.
Truckers should be focussing on getting good rates for what rail cannot do (including flexible scheduling and fine-grained access to premises by road), not trying to deconsolidate, demechanise, and disorganise the transport industry by moving baseline rail work onto the road, and in the meantime undercutting guys who often have the wages and job security that we all want (and which they got not by undercutting truckers, but by railwaymen standing together not only amongst themselves - as the Southern Rail strike shows - but often in the past standing together with those in other industries too).
At last! An article that tells it as it is.
Good on that journo lady for painting an absolute accurate picture of the ■■■■ poor level that this industry has descended to over the years that I have been in it at least.
Some have known nothing else so are in blissful ignorance, I aint saying it was once perfect by any means, but I do remember a lot of more happier or at least contented times.
As the article points out, the relatively crap pay not compatible with the long hours, the level of regulation, the constant monitoring, the appalling conditions in places we deliver to and park up at, the negative perception towards us drivers, parasitic agencies and cheap neo slave labour in East Euro companies.
.
Is it any wonder that not many young people, in comparison to other times, do not want to enter this crock of ■■■■ industry, but instead seek other careers where they are valued by employers in t.s and c.s, and paid relatively well for working reasonable hours compared to the overly long shifts that we are expected to work.
I hope this draws attention to the powers that be, to urge them to try and sort it in some way, but not holding my breath by any means.
Not to mention the thousands of pounds it costs to get a licence 
Rjan:
Carryfast:
On that note if truck driving is to be given the same status as train driving and made more productive we need a level trading field in the form of the most efficient vehicles possible and fuel cost regime.If not then don’t be surprised when prospective new drivers walk away from the industry because they don’t want to be lumbered with the typical zb distribution sector type work that’s left at any wage,let alone minimum wage.While on that note spare us from such hypocritical utter zb.We should not be trying to take food out of the mouth of rail and rail workers. If you want what they have, then join the rail industry.
Truckers should be focussing on getting good rates for what rail cannot do (including flexible scheduling and fine-grained access to premises by road), not trying to deconsolidate, demechanise, and disorganise the transport industry by moving baseline rail work onto the road, and in the meantime undercutting guys who often have the wages and job security that we all want (and which they got not by undercutting truckers, but by railwaymen standing together not only amongst themselves - as the Southern Rail strike shows - but often in the past standing together with those in other industries too).
Oh wait you’re saying there isn’t enough of the cake to go round for all while at the same time when it suits you saying you want open borders to allow as many immigrants to work here as who want to come on the basis of exactly the opposite.While the Guardian was supposedly moaning about lack of ‘productivety’ within the industry which generally means tonne/miles of freight carried not small rigids hauling local building materials around the local housing estates.
While who said anything about ‘under cutting’.I said a ‘level’ playing field.Which obviously means trucks being able to haul more than just a 40 ft container and at the same unit diesel costs as trains and obviously within the same highly unionised high wage structure.Bearing in mind we can’t go for the latter until we’ve first got the former.
While no surprise that your comments just confirm the fact that the Unions are as much to blame,for making sure that road transport stays a second class profession v rail,as the hypocrites in the government and at the Guardian.IE your idea is if you want train driver wages,terms and conditions then you have to be a train driver not a truck driver.Which is the point as it stands.
Carryfast:
Oh wait you’re saying there isn’t enough of the cake to go round for all while at the same time when it suits you saying you want open borders to allow as many immigrants to work here as who want to come on the basis of exactly the opposite.
No, I’ve said I support immigration in the context of a tightly-controlled labour market, and a government willing to outlaw undercutting and react to any significant influx in immigrants by increasing the wages that operators must provide to the entire settled workforce.
So the implication of the industry taking on say 10% migrant workers (or whatever figure we set), unless we are in a condition of full employment in the economy, would be a doubling of wages for existing drivers (or a higher training levy to attract trainees which higher wages), so as to draw more settled workers into the game (who might need months or years to be trained).
This way, real shortages caused by inadequate wages for settled workers are resolved immediately by migration (without any facility for employers to undercut), but those inadequate wages are also immediately corrected by a sharp increase in the regulated minimum.
What this also means is that some migration is allowed and we draw in some diversity from the rest of the world (and even mass migration is allowed under conditions of actual shortage, which shouldn’t usually arise once bosses are accustomed to the penalties to their profits which will follow).
While the Guardian was supposedly moaning about lack of ‘productivety’ within the industry which generally means tonne/miles of freight carried not small rigids hauling local building materials around the local housing estates.
While who said anything about ‘under cutting’.I said a ‘level’ playing field.
The only way the playing field could be “level” is by having a secondary rail system operated by truckers. Rather than competing for work, a more sensible analysis would look at the strengths and suitabilities of each method, and assign work to each accordingly.
Rail is generally more suitable for consistent baseline flows, because (capacity withstanding) it is more efficient for these cases.
Which obviously means trucks being able to haul more than just a 40 ft container
There is still a practical upper limit of length for which roads have been designed.
and at the same unit diesel costs as trains
Why should truckers get diesel at the same cost as trains, when the rail industry pays almost entirely for its own railways, but road haulage operators almost entirely do not pay for roads (except through taxes imposed)?
and obviously within the same highly unionised high wage structure.Bearing in mind we can’t go for the latter until we’ve first got the former.
Rubbish. More work will not produce unionisation. In fact, it may undermine a unionised industry, and replace it with one that largely is not.
While no surprise that your comments just confirm the fact that the Unions are as much to blame,for making sure that road transport stays a second class profession v rail,as the hypocrites in the government and at the Guardian.IE your idea is if you want train driver wages,terms and conditions then you have to be a train driver not a truck driver.Which is the point as it stands.
If you want train driver wages driving a truck, then you’ll have to do what railwaymen do, and stand together in solidarity.
I don’t see what your problem would be with unions taking a view on how work should be allocated between the transport modes (which might not necessarily lead to everything being given to road transport and nothing to rail as you would seem to prefer, especially when road transport treats its workers like cheap ■■■■ on the boot, whilst in rail their workers are self-confident, organised, and well-treated, the latter of which is naturally what a union wants to promote, and wants to suppress undercutting by hordes of cheap, low-quality workers led by a thousand little-Napoleon capitalist operators).
I suspect your position on this primarily depends on whether you define yourself as a worker (who is indifferent to driving a truck or a train, or whether your children do so), or whether you define yourself as a trucker (with an identity, lifestyle, and outlook which differs from railwaymen, but has now mostly been destroyed from within anyway by capitalist efficiencies and the competition for profit) and conceive of the fundamental dividing line in life as being between truckers and railwaymen.
I suspect in truth, many truckers are inclined see the dividing line in life as being between themselves and everybody else, and because of inadequate learning, don’t understand that this attitude (once also adopted by their oppponents, which is everybody else) will not result in any surpluses for themselves, but will result in ruinous competition between themselves and the world.
Do you two live together? Or are you Siamese twins? You both seem to come as a twin set.
James the cat:
Do you two live together? Or are you Siamese twins? You both seem to come as a twin set.
Beat me to it. That’s this thread ■■■■■■
Rjan:
Carryfast:
Oh wait you’re saying there isn’t enough of the cake to go round for all while at the same time when it suits you saying you want open borders to allow as many immigrants to work here as who want to come on the basis of exactly the opposite.No, I’ve said I support immigration in the context of a tightly-controlled labour market, and a government willing to outlaw undercutting and react to any significant influx in immigrants by increasing the wages that operators must provide to the entire settled workforce.
So the implication of the industry taking on say 10% migrant workers (or whatever figure we set), unless we are in a condition of full employment in the economy, would be a doubling of wages for existing drivers (or a higher training levy to attract trainees which higher wages), so as to draw more settled workers into the game (who might need months or years to be trained).
This way, real shortages caused by inadequate wages for settled workers are resolved immediately by migration (without any facility for employers to undercut), but those inadequate wages are also immediately corrected by a sharp increase in the regulated minimum.
What this also means is that some migration is allowed and we draw in some diversity from the rest of the world (and even mass migration is allowed under conditions of actual shortage, which shouldn’t usually arise once bosses are accustomed to the penalties to their profits which will follow).
While the Guardian was supposedly moaning about lack of ‘productivety’ within the industry which generally means tonne/miles of freight carried not small rigids hauling local building materials around the local housing estates.
While who said anything about ‘under cutting’.I said a ‘level’ playing field.
The only way the playing field could be “level” is by having a secondary rail system operated by truckers. Rather than competing for work, a more sensible analysis would look at the strengths and suitabilities of each method, and assign work to each accordingly.
Rail is generally more suitable for consistent baseline flows, because (capacity withstanding) it is more efficient for these cases.
Which obviously means trucks being able to haul more than just a 40 ft container
There is still a practical upper limit of length for which roads have been designed.
and at the same unit diesel costs as trains
Why should truckers get diesel at the same cost as trains, when the rail industry pays almost entirely for its own railways, but road haulage operators almost entirely do not pay for roads (except through taxes imposed)?
and obviously within the same highly unionised high wage structure.Bearing in mind we can’t go for the latter until we’ve first got the former.
Rubbish. More work will not produce unionisation. In fact, it may undermine a unionised industry, and replace it with one that largely is not.
While no surprise that your comments just confirm the fact that the Unions are as much to blame,for making sure that road transport stays a second class profession v rail,as the hypocrites in the government and at the Guardian.IE your idea is if you want train driver wages,terms and conditions then you have to be a train driver not a truck driver.Which is the point as it stands.
If you want train driver wages driving a truck, then you’ll have to do what railwaymen do, and stand together in solidarity.
I don’t see what your problem would be with unions taking a view on how work should be allocated between the transport modes (which might not necessarily lead to everything being given to road transport and nothing to rail as you would seem to prefer, especially when road transport treats its workers like cheap [zb] on the boot, whilst in rail their workers are self-confident, organised, and well-treated, the latter of which is naturally what a union wants to promote, and wants to suppress undercutting by hordes of cheap, low-quality workers led by a thousand little-Napoleon capitalist operators).
I suspect your position on this primarily depends on whether you define yourself as a worker (who is indifferent to driving a truck or a train, or whether your children do so), or whether you define yourself as a trucker (with an identity, lifestyle, and outlook which differs from railwaymen, but has now mostly been destroyed from within anyway by capitalist efficiencies and the competition for profit) and conceive of the fundamental dividing line in life as being between truckers and railwaymen.
I suspect in truth, many truckers are inclined see the dividing line in life as being between themselves and everybody else, and because of inadequate learning, don’t understand that this attitude (once also adopted by their oppponents, which is everybody else) will not result in any surpluses for themselves, but will result in ruinous competition between themselves and the world.
Why do we need an immigrant workforce at all when you’re saying that there supposedly isn’t even enough work for the ‘existing’ combined road and rail work force within the transport market as it stands.
We already know that even STGO type lengths,let alone the current generation of LHV’s,can work just fine within the existing road design network.
Road fuel duty has nothing whatsoever to do with road costs.Road transport having been proven to be more than paying its way through VED alone in that regard.The fact is road transport is just more cost efficient regards its running needs than rail.Deal with it.
As I said we can’t have a highly unionised,high wage rail type road transport industry without bringing productivety levels and fuel costs more into line with rail type levels.Which in this case means LHV’s and use of red diesel.
Yes truck drivers are by definition different to train drivers because they drive a truck not a train. Feel free to go on trying to justify treating truck drivers as second class workers v train drivers on that basis.While at the same time hypocritically doing as the Guardian is trying to do in kicking the industry for being put in that position by that same pro rail lobby.
Yep, and they’re off…
Today’s thread distruction was brought to you by the letters C and R children…
…again.
I think we should have loads more trains and then we could all re-train as Train drivers and get the extra pay that goes with it, problems solved, maybe more subsidies for trains to make it easier, would help. 
Thank heavens for Rjan & Carryfast. Their posts make you consider a topic more deeply. My only criticism, which they both suffer from is their brevity. Please go into more detail guys. Some of your replies go over my head, mostly through lack of explanation.
robroy:
As the article points out, the relatively crap pay not compatible with the long hours, the level of regulation, the constant monitoring, the appalling conditions in places we deliver to and park up at, the negative perception towards us drivers, parasitic agencies and cheap neo slave labour in East Euro companies.
That’s the aspect I liked in that article, it annoys the hell out me that the haulage industry expects the government to train up and provide them with a cheap source of labour!
robroy:
.
Is it any wonder that not many young people, in comparison to other times, do not want to enter this crock of [zb] industry, but instead seek other careers where they are valued by employers in t.s and c.s, and paid relatively well for working reasonable hours compared to the overly long shifts that we are expected to work.
What are these fantastic careers? Shelf stacking? McDonald’s? There aren’t any careers where you’re valued, maybe the odd job here and there, but certainly no careers.
Kerragy:
Thank heavens for Ryan & Carryfast. Their posts make you consider a topic more deeply. My only criticism, which they both suffer from is their brevity. Please go into more detail guys. Some of your replies go over my head, mostly through lack of explanation.
You’ve only been a member for a month pal, give it time… 
Excuse the pun but let’s get back on track…
The truest ‘untrue’ sentence in the article is:The best Employers told the committee how hard they try to attract drivers – but plainly not that hard.… They all want ready-made, fully trained drivers with several years’ experience. Many turn abroad, hiring 60,000 mainly eastern Europeans, yet still not plugging the gap. Few companies run their own training schemes, complaining that others just poach them.
muckles:
I think we should have loads more trains and then we could all re-train as Train drivers and get the extra pay that goes with it, problems solved, maybe more subsidies for trains to make it easier, would help.
Go for it that’ll work.Here’s a clue you’d run out of rail space before you got close to employing a fraction of the existing truck driver pool.To which the Guardian’s and the Government’s answer is to stop the use of LHV’s and tax more trucks off the road.Then moan because the industry isn’t hauling enough freight or paying its workers enough money and prospective new drivers know it so are joining waiting lists for non existent train driving jobs because they don’t want to drive a truck.