MORE INDUSTRY NEWS...
most recent
|
most popular
MORE TECHNICAL NEWS...
most recent
|
most popular
RELATED STORIES...
most recent
|
most popular
COMMENTED STORIES...
most recent
|
most popular


By Brad Gardner | June 18, 2010

The Australian Trucking Association is planning to re-enter the debate on safe rates – in a limited way – after passing a motion during its recent council meeting.

The group, which previously ruled out involvement in the matter, will now make a submission to a discussion paper on safe rates when it is released by Industrial Relations Minister Julia Gillard.

Gillard last year established the Safe Rates Advisory Group, which is due to submit its options paper to her soon. The Government will then release a discussion paper on its preferred scheme.

In papers from the ATA council meeting leaked to ATN, South Australian Road Transport Association Executive Director Steve Shearer called for the ATA to become involved.

But due to a separate motion passed, ATA Government Relations Manager Bill McKinley says the submission must not refer to freight rates, pay rates, employment conditions and the mechanism used to create the scheme.

The ATA originally opposed safe rates but eventually adopted no position on the issue on the basis it dealt with industrial relations, which is outside the ATA’s responsibilities.

But in his written recommendation outlined in the council papers, Shearer says the issue also deals with safety. He says the ATA should argue there is no direct causal link between pay and safety and that any scheme will not improve safety.

Shearer, who staunchly refuses any link between safety and rates of pay, claims the ATA “will be selling the industry down the drain” if it does not become involved.

He claims safe rates will only lead to increased costs to operators and a rise in union activity because the movement will use the scheme to push an industrial relations campaign.

“Once the TWU…succeeds in establishing a safety basis for wages and rates of pay, no matter how shallow unsubstantiated and false that may be, then the industry will never recover that ground and the TWU will be able to argue for rate and wage increases based upon road safety outcomes,” Shearer says.

ACADEMICS FIND LINK BETWEEN SAFETY AND PAY
A study by a team of academics in the US led by the respected Professor Michael Belzer found the probability of a truck crash fell by 36 percent for every 10 percent increase in wages.

A report commissioned by the National Transport Commission in 2008 found an indisputable link between pay rates and safety.

Authors Professor Michael Quinlan and Lance Wright QC criticised those who deny a connection, saying they provide “little if any research or credible evidence to discount or provide alternative explanations to research indicating that such connection exists.

The study recommended a federal body with the power to fix rates for employed drivers and owner-drivers.

Occupational health and safety expert Professor Ann Williams says there is “very good evidence of a link between driver payment, remuneration and safety outcomes”.

Barrister Adam Hatcher, who is a member of the advisory group, has called for chain of responsibility for pay to ensure operators are reimbursed enough so they can afford to pay their drivers more.

“The problem is not that most employers are simply ripping off their workers by denying them a fair wage, it is because they themselves can’t recover sufficient money from the person next up the contracting chain,” he says.


COMMENTS (6)
Comment by Unknown
posted 1 year ago
Everybody from [Steve] Shearer, ATA, NatRoad are pushing their own barrow on this.

We started out 10 years ago saying we must have as minimum freight rate that gives you proper cost recovery with a margin not lesss than 15% and it will stop the need for driving fatigue, taking drugs, speeding, overloading.

In meetings with industry in 2000 it was agreed after the rate was done with funds from the federal gov paying for tasman economics to come up with a rate that refused to give us a margin that we could agree to.

The TWU took control and it is now 10 yrs later and they still are stuffing it up.

The facts are every company cares more about its bottom line than subcontractors and road safety, nothing has changed.

In an ideal world this industry should shut down until we ,the people directly affected, bring it to a head.

You can be sure that the rate these people arrive at will not give us full cost recovery with a proper margin.

When any of the people who dont support safe rates can tell when they were last asked by a transport company what their rate of cartage is before doing a manifest might win a point.

What's your experience dick?

jerry brown-sarre
Comment by Frank
posted 1 year ago
A couple of thoughts for the previous comment.
A "Safe Rate"would be a minimum rate that allows people to maintain thier vehicles in a roadworthy and safe condition and to earn a sustainable income in the allowed hrs of work,so as they can provide for thier families, rather than drive excessive hrs just to make ends meet.A safe rate is a minimum rate,not a fixed rate.
If this were the case could you not see this having an impact on road safety,if it saved someones life would it worth it?????
With all the reports from respected academics from Australia and Overseas do you really think they are all wrong?
Do you think that the people at grass roots that operate in the industry every day don't know where thier problems lay?
Do you think maybe any costs may be spread out through out the chain from Clients right down to consumers therefore being minimal to each sector rather than considerable to one.
Efficency is important in all buisnesses maybe that could offset any minimal extra costs that a safe rates regime may or may not bring.

Frank Black
Comment by Frank
posted 1 year ago
A couple of thoughts for the previous comment.
A "Safe Rate"would be a minimum rate that allows people to maintain thier vehicles in a roadworthy and safe condition and to earn a sustainable income in the allowed hrs of work,so as they can provide for thier families, rather than drive excessive hrs just to make ends meet.A safe rate is a minimum rate,not a fixed rate.
If this were the case could you not see this having an impact on road safety,if it saved someones life would it worth it?????
With all the reports from respected academics from Australia and Overseas do you really think they are all wrong?
Do you think that the people at grass roots that operate in the industry every day don't know where thier problems lay?
Do you think maybe any costs may be spread out through out the chain from Clients right down to consumers therefore being minimal to each sector rather than considerable to one.
Efficency is important in all buisnesses maybe that could offset any minimal extra costs that a safe rates regime may or may not bring.

Frank Black
Comment by Unknown
posted 1 year ago
It would seem to the sceptics among us that the ATAs only objective in becoming involved would be to derail the process, certainly not to aid it in any way. It may well be argued that safe (increased ) rates to drivers and subcontractors will not produce safety, BUT it will certainly allow those who wish to operate safely to fit safety into the budget. There will always be those that will RAPE the transport industry for the increased $ at the expense of others. Once a sufficient rate is paid to ALL to allow regulatory compliance safer operations should follow. BUT it still gets back to eliminating the bad element in our industry. ATA is not seen by smaller operators to have the best interests of anybody smaller than the Major players in its agenda , and as such cannot represent the whole transport industry. NTC pretty quick to act on registration increases but nothing else. Adding another cost into an already tight budget, that will have to be good for safety.
Comment by Kevin
posted 1 year ago
Steve Shearer is totally correct, and if there is anyone home at the ATA they would do well to listen to Steve, the problem here is not being addressed as a 'whole of problem' the relationship between safety and viability is a small part of the problem, it’s easy to see that the people trying to fix the problem don’t understand the cause of the problem.

At least Steve Shearer can see that this is the case and understands the can of worms the ‘safe rates’ committee will open that will be a nightmare to repair, I know that people will tell me to put up or shutup, however every time the NRFA make a statement on the direction we should take it becomes bastardised by the highly published and vocal ATA, a classic example is the registration proposal to Ken Henry by the NRFA, it was followed a short time after by the ATA claiming a similar scheme which in our eyes fell short of the mark as an acceptable alternative to the current registration scheme.
The real reason the ATA are flip flopping around on safe rates is because the people they represent at the top end of town are contributing to the whole sorry state of low freight rates, they don’t want to lose their ‘dumb slaves’ who will work for nothing.
Owner drivers working in the freight industry remote from the multi-national carriers are doing okay because they are contracting direct to the client, if anyone in the safe rates committee decided to check, the problems only exists within the subcontractor sector for the multi-nationals and that is a substantial number of operators.
Comment by Dick
posted 1 year ago
My questions to the lerned few are;
1) what is a "safe rate";
2) if the "safe" rate can be determined and enforced how long before we will see an identifiable trend that can be contributed to "safe rates" in the already declining incidents of heavy vehicle "caused" accidents relevent to industry growth;
3) will the authors of the "safe rate" hypothesis be accountable if there is no measurable impact with considerable community cost.
Fair rates for all service providers and their subcontractors and employees in a national supply chain that is contantly driving transport cost down without regard for downstream impacts is a debate that should be had, however to imply that it would have greater than a minimal impact on safety in the transport sector is in my experience quetionable to say the least. Workplace safety is part of the culture of road transport,better efficency in the national supply chain is what is needed.

Add Comment
SUBMIT COMMENT
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Australasian Transport News - AT A GLANCE
Home News Subscriber Exclusives Diesel Prices Truck Sales Daily News Bulletin