Carryfast:
muckles:
Carryfast:
The obvious answer as I said being cutting industry specific over taxation in the form of road fuel tax,increasing productivety in the form of LHV’s,and closing the door to the immigrant labour supply.IE a productive cost efficient industry without the race to the bottom wage structure and one which applies Brit jobs for Brit workers.
How are you planning to stop a race to the bottom wage structure using, LHV’s on cheap tax free fuel, when all the evidence from haulage is if the input costs are reduced the rates are reduced as opposed to the wages going up.
I think all the evidence points to better wages in real terms after the move from 32t to 38t within even the relatively lower fuel cost environment of that time,let alone allowing the use of red diesel.Also bearing in mind that was before the East Euro invasion and a decade in large part ravaged by just about the worst recession since the 1930’s. 
IE I’d stand by the idea of a massive increase in productivety combined with a massive reduction in the unfair tax burden on the industry and a controlled labour market in the form of Brit jobs for Brit workers,being the key to a game changer in the wage regime.
I don’t remember it going up when weight went from 38t to 40t and then to 44t,
But if you reduce input costs and increase productivity whats to stop hauliers using that to reduce rates or more the case their customers saying they expect rates to reduce or they’ll get somebody in who will reduce the rates as happen now?
muckles:
Carryfast:
muckles:
Carryfast:
The obvious answer as I said being cutting industry specific over taxation in the form of road fuel tax,increasing productivety in the form of LHV’s,and closing the door to the immigrant labour supply.IE a productive cost efficient industry without the race to the bottom wage structure and one which applies Brit jobs for Brit workers.
How are you planning to stop a race to the bottom wage structure using, LHV’s on cheap tax free fuel, when all the evidence from haulage is if the input costs are reduced the rates are reduced as opposed to the wages going up.
I think all the evidence points to better wages in real terms after the move from 32t to 38t within even the relatively lower fuel cost environment of that time,let alone allowing the use of red diesel.Also bearing in mind that was before the East Euro invasion and a decade in large part ravaged by just about the worst recession since the 1930’s.
IE I’d stand by the idea of a massive increase in productivety combined with a massive reduction in the unfair tax burden on the industry and a controlled labour market in the form of Brit jobs for Brit workers,being the key to a game changer in the wage regime.
I don’t remember it going up when weight went from 38t to 40t and then to 44t,
But if you reduce input costs and increase productivity whats to stop hauliers using that to reduce rates or more the case their customers saying they expect rates to reduce or they’ll get somebody in who will reduce the rates as happen now?
I’d guess that just a 6t increase in gross weights in more than 30 years progression ain’t enough to do it.While allowing the use of red diesel would actually put fuel costs to somewhere near where they were then.
Having said that if you really think that ever increasing fuel costs at todays prices and going back to 32t max is the way forward go for it and see what happens.IE the road transport industry has never progressed by having stagnant weight progression while fuel costs don’t get much lower nor drivers’ wages much higher in real terms than 1960’s America.On that note if the guvnor is paying much of the truck’s revenues in fuel taxes those revenues obviously can’t go into wages.
Carryfast:
muckles:
Carryfast:
muckles:
How are you planning to stop a race to the bottom wage structure using, LHV’s on cheap tax free fuel, when all the evidence from haulage is if the input costs are reduced the rates are reduced as opposed to the wages going up.
I think all the evidence points to better wages in real terms after the move from 32t to 38t within even the relatively lower fuel cost environment of that time,let alone allowing the use of red diesel.Also bearing in mind that was before the East Euro invasion and a decade in large part ravaged by just about the worst recession since the 1930’s.
IE I’d stand by the idea of a massive increase in productivety combined with a massive reduction in the unfair tax burden on the industry and a controlled labour market in the form of Brit jobs for Brit workers,being the key to a game changer in the wage regime.
I don’t remember it going up when weight went from 38t to 40t and then to 44t,
But if you reduce input costs and increase productivity whats to stop hauliers using that to reduce rates or more the case their customers saying they expect rates to reduce or they’ll get somebody in who will reduce the rates as happen now?
I’d guess that just a 6t increase in gross weights in more than 30 years progression ain’t enough to do it.While allowing the use of red diesel would actually put fuel costs to somewhere near where they were then.
Having said that if you really think that ever increasing fuel costs at todays prices and going back to 32t max is the way forward go for it and see what happens.IE the road transport industry has never progressed by having stagnant weight progression while fuel costs don’t get much lower nor drivers’ wages much higher in real terms than 1960’s America.
Have I said weights should go back to 32t or even remain the same?
There may even be a case for LHV’s in reducing a driver shortage, but what I wanted to know is how using LHV’s will increase drivers pay?
Carryfast:
So are you saying driver’s wages were better in real terms in 1988 v either 1978 or now.Or not ?.
I don’t know about 1978 because I wasn’t driving then but drivers’ wages were certainly better in real terms in 1988 than they are now.
LHVs would not lead to an increase is pay, in fact they would lead to the exact opposite since fewer drivers would be required to move the same tonnage- this is a simple supply and demand issue and to be perfectly frank, I do not know why you cannot understand this.
Cheaper fuel would make no difference to drivers’ pay either. If fuel costs decreased, then major haulage customers- let’s say Coca Cola for example- would know exactly how much they could reduce rates by to keep hauliers on the same margin, and believe me they would do it and keep the profit themselves.
Harry Monk:
Carryfast:
So are you saying driver’s wages were better in real terms in 1988 v either 1978 or now.Or not ?.
I don’t know about 1978 because I wasn’t driving then but drivers’ wages were certainly better in real terms in 1988 than they are now.
LHVs would not lead to an increase is pay, in fact they would lead to the exact opposite since fewer drivers would be required to move the same tonnage- this is a simple supply and demand issue and to be perfectly frank, I do not know why you cannot understand this.
Cheaper fuel would make no difference to drivers’ pay either. If fuel costs decreased, then major haulage customers- let’s say Coca Cola for example- would know exactly how much they could reduce rates by to keep hauliers on the same margin, and believe me they would do it and keep the profit themselves.
If you increase demand for drivers, decrease the pay, and then hope to fill up that gap forever with “Drivers will be grateful for regular hours at minimum wages” then there is a great shock to the transport sector coming.
Robots CANNOT do this job, neither can companies bid for drivers that are no longer in the “driver pool”.
A tipping point is fast being approached - the most shrewd company in the land will be the last one to mop up any remaining decent drivers in the national driver pool.
The first one after the “music stops” will then find that even offering higher wages won’t by this point work any more, because there are no drivers left that are looking for FT work.
Those already IN full time - won’t want to leave for anything less than an absolute earthquake of a pay rise, with no open-ended, loosely-worded contracts that just make drivers in decent safe and reasonably well-paid jobs by this point “feel motivated to shift sideways” to another company only offering "slightly more, but for a huge gamble in hassle, conditions, and safety - let alone “normal T&Cs”. 
The larger “casual” employers of drivers are going to get hit the hardest, once they find that only the dross remains, and their kit starts getting smashed up en-masse. Insureres will cotton on, and tighten up their own arrangements even more, eventually starting up a “two-tier” marketplace, where you can’t get a premium driver for any price, and each sub-standard driver you take on, there is some kind of insurance get-out as to why some excess has to be made payable upon future claims.
Winseer:
If you increase demand for drivers, decrease the pay, and then hope to fill up that gap forever with “Drivers will be grateful for regular hours at minimum wages” then there is a great shock to the transport sector coming.
Robots CANNOT do this job, neither can companies bid for drivers that are no longer in the “driver pool”.
A tipping point is fast being approached - the most shrewd company in the land will be the last one to mop up any remaining decent drivers in the national driver pool.
The first one after the “music stops” will then find that even offering higher wages won’t by this point work any more, because there are no drivers left that are looking for FT work.
Those already IN full time - won’t want to leave for anything less than an absolute earthquake of a pay rise, with no open-ended, loosely-worded contracts that just make drivers in decent safe and reasonably well-paid jobs by this point “feel motivated to shift sideways” to another company only offering "slightly more, but for a huge gamble in hassle, conditions, and safety - let alone “normal T&Cs”.
The larger “casual” employers of drivers are going to get hit the hardest, once they find that only the dross remains, and their kit starts getting smashed up en-masse. Insureres will cotton on, and tighten up their own arrangements even more, eventually starting up a “two-tier” marketplace, where you can’t get a premium driver for any price, and each sub-standard driver you take on, there is some kind of insurance get-out as to why some excess has to be made payable upon future claims.
Well, that’s one opinion, mine is that in ten years time we’ll all still be bellyaching on TruckNet about how crap the money is. 
It’s already starting to hit the rubbish outfits.
commonrail2:
It’s already starting to hit the rubbish outfits.
Do you mean they’re having trouble getting and keeping drivers
or have they actually got trucks standing and they can’t get some deliveries done.
The Recycling business has had it all their way for too long already, perhaps the “Green Reign of Terror” too! 
Meanwhile, I continue to be daily overtaken by Stobarts in lane three, undertaken by hoppers in lane one, undercut on roundabouts by TNT wagons, and have Duvenbecks nuzzling my sphincter as well.
Then there’s the ■■■■ who, two miles until the next lane-drop junction (eg. Anticlockwise J29 approach) - I’ll pull into lane two to overtake a 50mph wagon at 56, only to have Richard Head pull right out in front of me almost as I get my cab level with his back end. FFS. I can only assume he fears a “slow overtake” on my part, and me shutting him out down the slip road lane drop 2 miles away yet. ARRRGH! 
muckles:
Have I said weights should go back to 32t or even remain the same?
There may even be a case for LHV’s in reducing a driver shortage, but what I wanted to know is how using LHV’s will increase drivers pay?
Going back to 32t can be the only logical conclusion if you’re saying that LHV’s won’t provide the type of increase in revenues needed to pay for a large increase in wages. 
IE either the premise that more payload pays more wages in addition to providing more attractive rates for the customer is correct or it’s the opposite.
As for the driver shortage there is no driver shortage.What we’ve actually got is an industry struggling under the burden of unsustainable fuel costs which it can’t pass on in rates because that would also wreck the profitability of its customer base which is in no one’s interests.The knock on effects of that being wage cuts sustained by an over supplied labour market to maintain the industry’s profitability.The non existent driver shortage being a tactic used by the employers to maintain that over supply of labour as part of that.
Harry Monk:
I don’t know about 1978 because I wasn’t driving then but drivers’ wages were certainly better in real terms in 1988 than they are now.
LHVs would not lead to an increase is pay, in fact they would lead to the exact opposite since fewer drivers would be required to move the same tonnage- this is a simple supply and demand issue and to be perfectly frank, I do not know why you cannot understand this.
Firstly I didn’t say just LHV’s would help without ‘also’ doing something about the fuel cost issue.
On that note it’s a supply and demand crisis caused by the fact that road fuel taxation and unrealistic truck payloads and resulting inefficiency combined act as an incentive to avoid the use of road transport.Or if it is used to use the lowest possible cost labour to maintain profitability.
IE it stifles demand while at the same time imposing downward pressure on wages.Because customers want to minimise their use of road transport while employers want to maximise their profits in that ever decreasing demand for their services situation.Combined with the perfect storm of unsustainable fuel costs regarding what they do move.
While more payload combined with lower fuel costs = more customer demand.So larger trucks hauling more freight more efficiently at lower costs = a net increase in the demand for drivers and the ability to pay them more.The truck hating anti road pro rail government know that.Which is why they rightly don’t buy the idea that larger trucks mean a net reduction in trucks let alone adding the use of red diesel to that. On that note as I’ve said allowing something along the lines of one truck hauling a 20 ft and a 40 ft container on red diesel would be a game changer in the container sector at least and the government knows it.
Carryfast:
muckles:
Carryfast:
Have I said weights should go back to 32t or even remain the same?
There may even be a case for LHV’s in reducing a driver shortage, but what I wanted to know is how using LHV’s will increase drivers pay?
Going back to 32t can be the only logical conclusion if you’re saying that LHV’s won’t provide the type of increase in revenues needed to pay for a large increase in wages. IE either the premise that more payload pays more wages in addition to providing more attractive rates for the customer is correct or it’s the opposite.
As for the driver shortage there is no driver shortage.What we’ve actually got is an industry struggling under the burden of unsustainable fuel costs which it can’t pass on in rates because that would also wreck the profitability of its customer base which is in no one’s interests.The knock on effects of that being wage cuts sustained by an over supplied labour market to maintain the industry’s profitability.The non existent driver shortage being a tactic used by the employers to maintain that over supply of labour as part of that.
Why is going back to 32t the logical conclusion of disagreeing with you?
More payload will only pay more if you’re the only company that’s doing it.
If Carryfast International haulage is the only company with LHV’s then you can charge the same per pallet as those with a 26 pallet trailer and use the extra profit to pay your drivers more.
As soon as Muckles logistics gets LHV’s I’ll be having a chat with your customers dropping the rate per pallet as the LHV has lowered my per pallet cost, no pay rise for my drivers, but maybe a little extra profit for the shareholders.
Then when Harry Monk intermodel Transport get LHV’s he’ll be round both yours and my customers with a lower rate per rate per pallet in the end the what a truck can earn will be very much the same as it is now, except he’s moving more pallets with less trucks and therefore fewer drivers so less pressure to give the drivers a pay rise.
Same with a reduction of fuel costs, it will be passed onto the customer. good for the profits of the Supermarkets and maybe good for prices in the shops if they pass it on, but not much long term benefit to drivers, except maybe in their shopping bills.
As you say it’s in the interests of the transport industry to have an over supply of driver to keep wages down, so the only way there will be wage rises in a free market is when there aren’t enough drivers out there to fill all the available seats, and it will be the same whether you are doing the job with 18t rgids or LHV’s.
muckles:
As you say it’s in the interests of the transport industry to have an over supply of driver to keep wages down, so the only way there will be wage rises in a free market is when there aren’t enough drivers out there to fill all the available seats, and it will be the same whether you are doing the job with 18t rgids or LHV’s.
In which case how do you explain the financial advantages of using trucks at all or at least anything bigger than a 4 wheeler.Let alone the largest trucks. While by your logic the Scandinavian road transport industry would be on its knees.
The fact is there won’t be wage rises and increase in demand for drivers until demand for road tansport increases based on its cost effectiveness and efficiency.Together with a protected labour market not based on race to the bottom free markets ideology.
Well. I’ve read all of this and the real blame lies in “Capitalism”.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
fredthered:
Well. I’ve read all of this and the real blame lies in “Capitalism”.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes and no. The companies of yesteryear were just as capitalist. But there were more morals back then. And a cheaper cost of living and running costs. It’s so close to the bone now, with the big companies happy to make as little a profit as 2p in the pound. Whilst the likes of John Williams and William Stobart are happy to run around undercutting everyone, their fathers simply wouldn’t have done that. They would have done a job on a level of service, and if they lost it, so be it. My old boss at Continental Express lost the Gib work for a year. Safeway said Eurocold had undercut him, but if he dropped £200 a load he’d keep it. He told them to shove it. He’d rather lose the lot, than lose £2400 on the twelve loads a week. They were back within a year, when eurocold had mucked up countless loads with their ivecos that kept blowing up on the way down. He even got a rate increase too. We need more morals like that again
OVLOV JAY:
fredthered:
Well. I’ve read all of this and the real blame lies in “Capitalism”.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes and no. The companies of yesteryear were just as capitalist. But there were more morals back then. And a cheaper cost of living and running costs. It’s so close to the bone now, with the big companies happy to make as little a profit as 2p in the pound. Whilst the likes of John Williams and William Stobart are happy to run around undercutting everyone, their fathers simply wouldn’t have done that. They would have done a job on a level of service, and if they lost it, so be it. My old boss at Continental Express lost the Gib work for a year. Safeway said Eurocold had undercut him, but if he dropped £200 a load he’d keep it. He told them to shove it. He’d rather lose the lot, than lose £2400 on the twelve loads a week. They were back within a year, when eurocold had mucked up countless loads with their ivecos that kept blowing up on the way down. He even got a rate increase too. We need more morals like that again
Couldn’t agree more. But then it was different times and standards and there were many UK businesses that operated moral and ethical standards that are not even remotely considered today. The culture of me first and money above all else imported from across the pond has definitely set the new standard.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There’s CAPITALISM and lowercaseism, like @twinkywinkyplonkydonkey which might be a typical twitter thingy that I don’t use myself.
Take Charley’s advice…
muckles:
commonrail2:
It’s already starting to hit the rubbish outfits.
Do you mean they’re having trouble getting and keeping drivers
or have they actually got trucks standing and they can’t get some deliveries done.
I mean they’re advertising on trailers.it’s only the start…but it’s in the pipeline.
Tramping wise…we seem to have tapped into a vein of ex international drivers…but they’re all 60.
commonrail:
muckles:
commonrail2:
It’s already starting to hit the rubbish outfits.
Do you mean they’re having trouble getting and keeping drivers
or have they actually got trucks standing and they can’t get some deliveries done.
I mean they’re advertising on trailers.it’s only the start…but it’s in the pipeline.
Tramping wise…we seem to have tapped into a vein of ex international drivers…but they’re all 60.
I’ve seen them and the adverts on various companies gates with driver vacancies.
I wonder with the next round of DCPC less than 3 years away how many of these 60 year old drivers will bother.
