weeto:
Why does haulage companies sticking together = a cartel, why are you qouting 2 seperate sentences??
i’m quoting 2 separate sentences because carryfast is being carryfast seeing things that are not there and twisting things, i was clarifying who said what to who.
you basically said, firms should stick together, i asked if you wanted a cartel? never did get an answer!
i think it’s a valid question given what you said. maybe you could clarify what you mean by sticking together.
if firms agree with each other to fix prices, then is that not a cartel? and not legal in this country
If the transport unions agree and impose what is effectively a trade specific minimum wage in this case that is no more a cartel than the national minimum wage.The only difference is that it would be a realistic minimum.As opposed to the unrealistic one which the government have set up based on the usual cheap labour agenda of the CBI.All of which by implication means that haulage rates at least have to be harmonised to reflect that minimum wage.
you’re doing it again! you’ve picked up the ■■■■■■ end of the stick!
as far as i can see, you’re the only person in this thread to have talked about wages / trade minimum wage and cartels, you could have saved the wear on your keyboard if you’d faced a mirror
stevieboy308:
if firms agree with each other to fix prices, then is that not a cartel? and not legal in this country
If the transport unions agree and impose what is effectively a trade specific minimum wage in this case that is no more a cartel than the national minimum wage.The only difference is that it would be a realistic minimum.As opposed to the unrealistic one which the government have set up based on the usual cheap labour agenda of the CBI.All of which by implication means that haulage rates at least have to be harmonised to reflect that minimum wage.
you’re doing it again! you’ve picked up the [zb] end of the stick!
as far as i can see, you’re the only person in this thread to have talked about wages / trade minimum wage and cartels, you could have saved the wear on your keyboard if you’d faced a mirror
No.It is definitely you who seems to think that something along the lines of the 1964 US Master Freight Agreement is a ‘cartel’.
When I’m saying that it is only fixing ‘overall’ transport rates,as opposed to just the wage component of that rate,that fits the definition of a cartel.
stevieboy308:
do you think a reduction in fuel price / tax would make much difference? i don’t
Bearing in mind the average haulage operation’s balance sheet and how much money is left for wages after the government has ripped off the industry for a massive amount of its revenues in the form of fuel tax.Added to which the unions get their act together in going for a decent minimum wage in the industry,which you obviously don’t agree with,yes the ability to run trucks on red diesel would make a massive game changing difference in that regard.But of course that would then upset the RMT and their cronies in the Labour Party.
right, they let trucks run on red as of tomorrow, what’s going to happen to rates?
stevieboy308:
if firms agree with each other to fix prices, then is that not a cartel? and not legal in this country
If the transport unions agree and impose what is effectively a trade specific minimum wage in this case that is no more a cartel than the national minimum wage.The only difference is that it would be a realistic minimum.As opposed to the unrealistic one which the government have set up based on the usual cheap labour agenda of the CBI.All of which by implication means that haulage rates at least have to be harmonised to reflect that minimum wage.
you’re doing it again! you’ve picked up the [zb] end of the stick!
as far as i can see, you’re the only person in this thread to have talked about wages / trade minimum wage and cartels, you could have saved the wear on your keyboard if you’d faced a mirror
No.It is definitely you who seems to think that something along the lines of the 1964 US Master Freight Agreement is a ‘cartel’.
When I’m saying that it is only fixing ‘overall’ transport rates,as opposed to just the wage component of that rate,that fits the definition of a cartel.
do you do this on purpose? you’re not reading and understanding what i wrote
stevieboy308:
do you think a reduction in fuel price / tax would make much difference? i don’t
Bearing in mind the average haulage operation’s balance sheet and how much money is left for wages after the government has ripped off the industry for a massive amount of its revenues in the form of fuel tax.Added to which the unions get their act together in going for a decent minimum wage in the industry,which you obviously don’t agree with,yes the ability to run trucks on red diesel would make a massive game changing difference in that regard.But of course that would then upset the RMT and their cronies in the Labour Party.
right, they let trucks run on red as of tomorrow, what’s going to happen to rates?
With that type of addition to the income side of the balance sheet,as opposed to outgoings,there would be enough room for rates to fall ‘and’ to provide the unions with a justification for an increased minimum wage structure.With the win win result of more demand for road transport and therefore drivers which further increases the justification for increased wage bargaining.
Carryfast: No.It is definitely you who seems to think that something along the lines of the 1964 US Master Freight Agreement is a ‘cartel’.
When I’m saying that it is only fixing ‘overall’ transport rates,as opposed to just the wage component of that rate,that fits the definition of a cartel.
do you do this on purpose? you’re not reading and understanding what i wrote
how do you reach that conclusion?
I reached that conclusion because it was you who raised the issue of inter company rate cooperation,in regards to an industry specific minimum wage structure,being a ‘cartel’.
Assuming that you agree that wouldn’t be the case then why the continued references to the issue.
yoyo5:
Hi Weeto, I can understand your sentiments, but unfortunately the world does not work along those lines, even more so the Transport Industry.
I have been involved in Transport since 1968, and over all of those years I have seen and heard it all, that does not mean I know it all !far from it, but believe me I have worked through every Government. Times when Unions held sway, and every other conceivable combination that you can think of.
And a real honest answer is in that time the Transport Industry has all ways worked on an individual basis ! with each company offering its best to the customer at the rates that it hoped would get the work and turn a profit.
The proof of the pudding being when company’s amalgamated, you would still get different rates for the same job from both company’s.
So I cannot see things ever changing as company`s chase work offering the lowest rates, The outcome being your wages have to come out of a small profit margin, and so will not increase.
Yeah thanks, and yes I understand what your saying, compared to you my 26 years in the industry makes me a new comer still, and I do know it is a bit knackered, and also know from experience that working for a company with a union is has a lot better Ts & Cs and wages structures than one that doesn’t.
Carryfast: No.It is definitely you who seems to think that something along the lines of the 1964 US Master Freight Agreement is a ‘cartel’.
When I’m saying that it is only fixing ‘overall’ transport rates,as opposed to just the wage component of that rate,that fits the definition of a cartel.
do you do this on purpose? you’re not reading and understanding what i wrote
how do you reach that conclusion?
I reached that conclusion because it was you who raised the issue of inter company rate cooperation,in regards to an industry specific minimum wage structure,being a ‘cartel’.
Assuming that you agree that wouldn’t be the case then why the continued references to the issue.
once again fella, it’s you who brought up wages and cartels, here you go and i’ve included the the post from weeto i was relying to that you conveniently left out!
Carryfast:
stevieboy308:
weeto:
Like drivers, the vehicle owners won’t stick together to get a good deal for the whole industry, they are as much to blame for the situation its in as us as drivers are.
Rate cutting to get a poorly paid contract doesn’t help anyone.
The only thing that will help this industry as a whole is for the rates employers are getting being increased, more profit = more money available to pay drivers a better wage with better working conditions.
Dont believe it? spend a £1 and get a copy of your companies accounts and be suprised by the lack of profit they are making on the massive turn over they are declaring.
I did this once, before I asked for a pay rise, knowing they were struggling, just to see what they would say, and they were honest and said they couldnt afford to pay any more.
Profit goes towards investment in the company, with no investment there’s no future.
I’ve seen accounts for a haulage company which had a £15 million turnover return only £80,000 profit, not much money left there to give 100 staff a wage rise.
do you want a cartel?
do you shop around at renewal time for your car insurance?
The idea of ring fencing a set figure in costings and pricing quotes,so that wages are isolated from the competitive tendering process and therefore aren’t compromised by undercutting,isn’t the same thing as a cartel.
post up a quote of me if i’ve got it wrong to back up your claim
again you’re reading stuff which isn’t there or deliberately twisting it, by making up what i do or don’t agree with because i’m repeatedly pulling you up, there’s an easy fix for that
sweepster:
Who’s mad enough to work 15 hour’s?
That is why we all need to get Unionised and stand up. I’m in a Unionised company who have good t and c’s and a decent wage.
I was currently in disagreement with my employer. I informed the Union and it was sorted out in my favour, as I knew it would be.
My company has cut rail to go by road.
stevieboy308:
once again fella, it’s you who brought up wages and cartels, here you go and i’ve included the the post from weeto i was relying to that you conveniently left out!
post up a quote of me if i’ve got it wrong to back up your claim
again you’re reading stuff which isn’t there or deliberately twisting it, by making up what i do or don’t agree with because i’m repeatedly pulling you up, there’s an easy fix for that
The relevant quote is contained in the reply to weeto.IE weeto ( rightly ) suggested co operation between individual operators regarding at least setting the wage component of rates ( which I’ve said is what the Master Freight Agreement was effectively all about ) and your question obviously implied ( in your view ) that is the same thing as a cartel.
God forbid you’d have to deal with group conflict resolution with a prime objective in a situation where time is pending . How do you decide who has the remote for the tv? (for me its no discussion - she has it )
Maybe best to agree to disagree on this cartel thingy. You lot keep going round and round. It’s like a barmy war of attrition.
stevieboy308:
once again fella, it’s you who brought up wages and cartels, here you go and i’ve included the the post from weeto i was relying to that you conveniently left out!
post up a quote of me if i’ve got it wrong to back up your claim
again you’re reading stuff which isn’t there or deliberately twisting it, by making up what i do or don’t agree with because i’m repeatedly pulling you up, there’s an easy fix for that
The relevant quote is contained in the reply to weeto.IE weeto ( rightly ) suggested co operation between individual operators regarding at least setting the wage component of rates ( which I’ve said is what the Master Freight Agreement was effectively all about ) and your question obviously implied ( in your view ) that is the same thing as a cartel.
Dude, please highlight where weeto, in the post I was replying to says anything about suggesting co operation between individual operators regarding at least setting the wage component of rates.
God forbid you’d have to deal with group conflict resolution with a prime objective in a situation where time is pending . How do you decide who has the remote for the tv? (for me its no discussion - she has it )
Maybe best to agree to disagree on this cartel thingy. You lot keep going round and round. It’s like a barmy war of attrition.
At the end of the day the main/sole object and of any Union is to stop the under cutting of wages,terms,and conditions between individual employers to create a competitive edge.
The biggest irony being that the establishment managed to convince the working class that it is in their best interests to remove most/all of the methods available to the unions to do that in the form of joint/secondary/sympathy industrial action.However the idea that the idea means a ‘cartel’ was never part of the establishment’s reasoning for that.
stevieboy308:
once again fella, it’s you who brought up wages and cartels, here you go and i’ve included the the post from weeto i was relying to that you conveniently left out!
post up a quote of me if i’ve got it wrong to back up your claim
again you’re reading stuff which isn’t there or deliberately twisting it, by making up what i do or don’t agree with because i’m repeatedly pulling you up, there’s an easy fix for that
The relevant quote is contained in the reply to weeto.IE weeto ( rightly ) suggested co operation between individual operators regarding at least setting the wage component of rates ( which I’ve said is what the Master Freight Agreement was effectively all about ) and your question obviously implied ( in your view ) that is the same thing as a cartel.
Dude, please highlight where weeto, in the post I was replying to says anything about suggesting co operation between individual operators regarding at least setting the wage component of rates.
Why don’t you just give up trying to justify your obviously incorrect idea,that what weeto was obviously referring to,in the form of cooperation between employers in setting rates/prices,in order to pay a decent minimum wage,has any connection whatsoever to the definition of a cartel.
I don’t know why you quoted me as what you’ve written isn’t slightly related to what I’ve said other than the word cartel setting the whole cartel discussion wheel off again
If there was a head banging against wall smiley then I’d choose that.
Freight Dog:
I don’t know why you quoted me as what you’ve written isn’t slightly related to what I’ve said other than the word cartel setting the whole cartel discussion wheel off again
If there was a head banging against wall smiley then I’d choose that.
I was actually referring to the issue of anyone amongst the working class ‘agreeing’ to disagree with the idea that there is something wrong about calling for,or even jointly striking for,rate/price fixing to stop the issue of the erosion of wages,terms and conditions being used as a method of competition between individual employers.
It’s that ‘agreement’,instead of keeping up the 1970’s attitude of total united disagreement,backed by industrial action,which is why the unions and the working class,that they are supposed to represent and as a result the economy,are where they are now.
stevieboy308:
once again fella, it’s you who brought up wages and cartels, here you go and i’ve included the the post from weeto i was relying to that you conveniently left out!
post up a quote of me if i’ve got it wrong to back up your claim
again you’re reading stuff which isn’t there or deliberately twisting it, by making up what i do or don’t agree with because i’m repeatedly pulling you up, there’s an easy fix for that
The relevant quote is contained in the reply to weeto.IE weeto ( rightly ) suggested co operation between individual operators regarding at least setting the wage component of rates ( which I’ve said is what the Master Freight Agreement was effectively all about ) and your question obviously implied ( in your view ) that is the same thing as a cartel.
Dude, please highlight where weeto, in the post I was replying to says anything about suggesting co operation between individual operators regarding at least setting the wage component of rates.
Why don’t you just give up trying to justify your obviously incorrect idea,that what weeto was obviously referring to,in the form of cooperation between employers in setting rates/prices,in order to pay a decent minimum wage,has any connection whatsoever to the definition of a cartel.
Freight Dog:
I don’t know why you quoted me as what you’ve written isn’t slightly related to what I’ve said other than the word cartel setting the whole cartel discussion wheel off again
If there was a head banging against wall smiley then I’d choose that.
I was actually referring to the issue of anyone amongst the working class ‘agreeing’ to disagree with the idea that there is something wrong about calling for,or even jointly striking for,rate/price fixing to stop the issue of the erosion of wages,terms and conditions being used as a method of competition between individual employers.
It’s that ‘agreement’,instead of keeping up the 1970’s attitude of total united disagreement,backed by industrial action,which is why the unions and the working class,that they are supposed to represent and as a result the economy,are where they are now.
Er. You’ve just done it again I’ve no dog in this fight. I was trying to suggest you guys agree to disagree?!
Are we even having the same conv…Oh never mind…
Back to swiping the tv remote from the misses when she isn’t looking!
Carryfast:
I was actually referring to the issue of anyone amongst the working class ‘agreeing’ to disagree with the idea that there is something wrong about calling for,or even jointly striking for,rate/price fixing to stop the issue of the erosion of wages,terms and conditions being used as a method of competition between individual employers.
It’s that ‘agreement’,instead of keeping up the 1970’s attitude of total united disagreement,backed by industrial action,which is why the unions and the working class,that they are supposed to represent and as a result the economy,are where they are now.
Er. You’ve just done it again I’ve no dog in this fight. I was trying to suggest you guys agree to disagree?!
Are we even having the same conv…Oh never mind…
There is nothing to agree to disagree about.
The argument is simply that weeto ( correctly ) pointed out the need for rate/price cooperation/fixing between individual employers in order to improve the wage situation.
Stevie then replied with an inference that such ‘fixing’ would fit the definition of ‘cartel’ and damage ‘competition’.While ‘also’ making the contradictory agreement that under cutting of wage rates between employers damages the economy.
seeing things that are not there and twisting things, i was clarifying who said what to who.
)