?45,000 a year not enough for truck drivers

[ibilly99]

Rather have them doing an essential job for 45k than this smirking bustard on many millions ....

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Business/Pix/pictures/2008/03/26/diamond460276.jpg

[Huguenot]

"Saying that, I don't think the description of "aggressive barely literate ex football hooligans" is exactly helpful."

Oh, okay, I was just having fun;-)

I don't think mental Len is going to be overly stressed by my little poke. He'd probably grin as he looked in the mirror.

It doesn't detract from my underlying message of WTF?

[david_carnell]

Seems like they do a skilled, dangerous and stressful job that is of vital importance.

Is ?45k that unreasonable?

I was waiting to hear the usual suspects bang on about public sector workers till I realised these fellas work in the private sector - isn't this the power of the market in action?

[Huguenot]

The market only works well where no single participant has the power to set prices unilaterally, and there are no barriers to entry or exit.

Far from being the market in action, this is an example of the creation of a monopoly and price fixing.

As Len explains - the union is NOT currently strong in fuel trucking, this is an attempt to create a strong union that has a dominant market position and the ability to hold the nation to ransom.

The drive for yet more 'health and saftey' requirements is an attempt to INCREASE the barriers to entry, and would no doubt aim to ensure that only those workers IN the union would ever be able to work - thus preventing the labour market from functioning.

This move is absolutely transparent - this is a nasty little 'see you next tuesday' in action.

[david_carnell]

People are held to ransom by monopolies all the time and yet no one complains....

Water companies

Train companies

Price fixing by large multi-nationals regularly goes unchecked.

And yet a bunch of guys want an extra few grand for transporting dangerous, flammable liquids safely around the country and you start with personal attacks and name calling. It's getting tired.

This isn't going to bring the country to its knees as much as you'd like to pretend otherwise. In fact given your loathing of cars I'd suggest this would help futher your agenda to move people away from unnecessary journies.

[Brendan]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The market only works well where no single

> participant has the power to set prices

> unilaterally, and there are no barriers to entry

> or exit.

Try explaining that to the banking lobby.

[Jeremy]

Apparently one of the reasons for striking is the end of the final pension salary scheme. Most of us are facing up to reality, and making our own provisions for retirement. So what makes fuel truck drivers so different?

Is the job really dangerous? Certainly it may seem dangerous, but what are the stats?

Highly skilled? Compared to what? How many years training does it take before you are qualified?

Stressful? More so than a fireman or a paramedic? I don't see it.

[maxxi]

I had begun to think that Huge was bullied by Union members as a child and had his lunch money stolen by blue-collar workers on a regular basis but now the truth is out - he is Francis Maude.

[david_carnell]

Jeremy - I would imagine the skill is in knowing what do when things go wrong. Much like a tube driver. I'm sure you or I could pull the lever to make the thing stop and go.

If final salary pensions were a contractual term when they were signed I think workers are within their rights to demand that those obligations are kept.

I'm not going to come up with some sliding scale of "skill" for jobs - it's too subjective. But I would imagine fireman and paramedic would be high on the list. And both deserve to earn more than they currently do.

[Jeremy]

I'm not trying to say that tanker drivers don't deserve their salary - I'm sure they work hard for it, and it's not a job I'd personally choose to do. Just saying that I don't understand how a strike can be justified.

[david_carnell]

Do you think any strikes are justified? I'm not being arsey - genuinely asking?

If not then anything I say is moot.

If you do, what criteria would have to be met in your opinion?

[Huguenot]

The monopolies you mention are subject to overseeing bodies appointed by elected representatives.

Price fixing from monopolies is fraud. It rarely goes unchecked and the formation of a cartel is criminal.

Neither of these checks and balances will be in play to control a militant union with excessive demands. Unions are there to protect workforces, not be a mechanism for untrammeled greed.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Fortunately it seems that we have army drivers. I look forward to seeing this opportunistic land grab from Len getting thoroughly undermined and this union getting broken.

[Huguenot]

On the other question, strikes are a positive force upon the labour market, but it's impossible to define when they are or aren't being used appropriately.

Fuel tanker drivers are NOT getting exploited. They're subject to extensive health and safety legislation that's stuck to like a limpet, and they're well paid for what they do.

Final salary pensions are unaffordable full stop. The maths doesn't work. Bleating about the bankers doesn't change that. Envy is not a reason to strike.

[david_carnell]

If it's impossible to define then how have you reached your opinion.

The union has been tirelessly working behind the scenes to bring in a bottom line on H&S and terms and conditions across the industry so that fairness prevails yet the oil companies, who make huge profits, have continued to undermine them.

I would think that oil is too vital a commodity to be left to the free market with firms constantly looking to cut corners to make more profit. Far better that there is a common consensus on driver issues. The constant drive by oil companies to maximise profits has led to some instances of workers having six different pension providers in ten years - a pretty shabby state of affairs.

No one wants to go on strike. It is a last resort of the desperate. Workers lose pay. Yet they have been driven to this. I'd question why the companies involved have been unwilling to reach a deal on these issues instead of attacking organised labour.

As to final salary pensions being unaffordable - Exxon Mobil made over $40bn profit last year so I reckon a pension for a trucker might be doable. It's just priorities.

[Huguenot]

There isn't a set of rules that dictate whether striking is reasonable or not d_c, it's a judgement call.

Strikes that deliberately target the nation and are likely to result in panic buying and accidents like the one that resulted in a middle ageed woman getting 40% burns should be particularly concerning.

It was not Maude's fault that accident happened - it was the militant self-interest that led down this path.

The fuel haulage business is already hevaily regulated - health and safety 'claims' are about increasing holidays and reducing working time. Nothing to do with unsafe practices.

Increased 'training' times aren't about health and safey, they're about increasing barriers to entry into the business so that competition within the labour market is restricted.

Exxon Mobil is an irrelevant issue. Exxon Mobil doesn't employ these people - they're truckers working for haulage companies.

To say that Exxon Mobile are rich so third party contractors should be paid more is foolish - do you intend to pay your decorator a share of your house price when you sell it? No - of course not. They're contractors carrying out a job at market rates. Exxon's profits, and your house, are owned by the shareholders not the contractors.

The issue of the pension companies changing hands is also irrelevant. These are normal financial transactions that take place all the time, not a justification for strike - do you even know who manages your company pension scheme? You'd be in a minority if you did.

So if all of these complaints are red herrings - what's the beef?

Len's on record:

"What is the role of government in this? Absurdly, the supply of this essential national commodity is controlled entirely by the free market."

He believes that fuel delivery should be nationalised. He's an olde skool militant socialist.

"Unite has written to the minister asking for a full breakdown of the emergency supply centres so that we can secure these."

WTF??? A non elected bunch of militant lefties are going to 'secure' emergency supply centres?

This is a protection racket.

[Loz]

OK, I'm confused now. What exactly are the issues on the ACAS table? Is this a Bob Crow style H&S smokescreen that can somehow be miraculously solved by paying higher wages, or is there a real safety issue here?

[Jeremy]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you think any strikes are justified? I'm not

> being arsey - genuinely asking?

No worries, I didn't take that as arsey at all. I am not totally anti-strike, honest! But I do believe it should be a last resort. People earning decent salaries complaining about the pension is something of a bugbear of mine. It reminds me of the striking teachers last year, some of who were quoted in the media saying stuff like "we don't want to work into our sixties". It strikes me as a bit naive, and out of touch with what everybody else is facing.

[Undisputedtruth]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Strikes that deliberately target the nation and

> are likely to result in panic buying and accidents

> like the one that resulted in a middle ageed woman

> getting 40% burns should be particularly

> concerning.

>

> It was not Maude's fault that accident happened -

Yes it was Maude's fault. His union obsession is affecting his ability to come to a rational judgment and thereby putting countless people at risk of being burnt because of his poorly thought out advice.

[Loz]

Maude's an idiot and has rather brilliantly turned a non-crisis into a crisis, but he is not responsible for another complete idiot pouring petrol from one container to another right next to a lit gas cooker.

Alternatively, if Maude is at fault, so is Unite. But, back in reality, neither were to blame.

[Undisputedtruth]

No Loz, Unite did not tell the public to fill up their jerrycans, Maude did.

However, I do agree with you that anyone who follows the Tory government advice is an idiot!

[Loz]

Anyone who follows the advice of ANY politician is an idiot.

[Parkdrive]

Huguenot to quote you

To say that Exxon Mobile are rich so third party contractors should be paid more is foolish - do you intend to pay your decorator a share of your house price when you sell it? No - of course not.

So can we expect a rebate on the bonuses paid to failed banks and financial institutions bailed out by funds from the public purse? Of course not.

[Loz]

Does that even logically follow Hugo's comment?

[StraferJack]

Which thread to post this?

It touches on so many, but given that it's nominally about this possible strike I'm going for here

But

When Charles Moore and I agree...

[????]

I reckon he be right Strafer, but don't be surprised, I alternate between the New Statesman and the Spectator on my weekly commute and the Spectator is more critical of Cameron than t'other.

Economically I thought the Budget was spot on but the tories are for ever foooked because of the Bullingdon club thing and they seem incapable of understanding how they need to communicate, which increasingly looks like 'out of touchness' despite, in my opinion, most of their policies making sense. I guess the only thing they've got going for them at the moment is that Milliband is a Kinnock mark 2 ...er... without the charisma ::o