Proper Use of Military Pesonnel?

[HTB]

This may be short-lived, and shoot me down if you like, but:

It must be true - Daily Mail says so - 80 RAF drivers are to be trained to drive fuel tankers as a contingency plan for the possble forthcoming strike by fuel road hauliers.

Presumably they will have some knowledge already, possibly as fuel bowser drivers (or they may just be plucked from a limitless source of LGV [formerly HGV] qaulified drivers); if so, this would leave a fairly large hole in manning of that speciality. Who would back fill (no pun intended) their posts at unit or depot level to provide fuel for our aircraft?

Notwithstanding any possible operational ramifications, is this a proper use of military personnel? Civil contingency planning involving military is supposed to cater for emergency situations; flood assistance springs to mind; foot and mouth; firefighter strikes (but only because of the protection of life aspect). I do not believe it should be enacted to interfere in industrial disputes (except the aforementioned firefighter case).

So, who is going to refuel your aircraft if 80 warm bodies are diverted to other duties?

Mister B

Anyway, shouldn't all available personnel be training for the summer jockstrap event...?

[OvertHawk]

I would suggest that massive disruption countrywide affecting almost every tier of the economy and society at large - including vital services, would constitute an "emergency situation".

[Stuff]

Same story on BBC News BBC News - Petrol strike threat: No 10 denies causing 'panic' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17533151)

The BBC has learned that more than 80 "highly qualified" drivers from the Royal Air Force will begin initial training by one oil haulage firm on Wednesday.

The union represents about 2,000 drivers

If all 2000 drivers go on strike then should be obvious that 80 cannot replace them. My take is that the 80 are to ensure fuel supplies to "critical" installations and not to supply fuel to the public.

[StopStart]

MACC. Support to civil logistics and infrastructure. Petrol stations running out of fuel has a huge economic impact as well as the threat of civil unrest because of it. 80 HGV drivers is no big deal in the grand scheme of things for the military and pales into insignificance when compared to the demands of the Olympics. I'm surprised it's only 80 drivers being called on to be honest. Yes it is proper use of UK military personnel.

Who's going to fill the aircraft? The same civvies that do it now probably :hmm:

[WW4995Heavy]

I've always thought that the striking truck drivers would think twice about giving the replacement drivers any stick for crossing the picket if they were from the forces.

That said, I suspect it is simply a SOP contingency plan for the government for what they perceive to be "vital services". It's the same when the firemen went on strike, they drafted the army in. At the end of the day, the army will always do as they are asked, civilians are a little more difficult to convince.

[Pontius Navigator]

Military tankers drivers in the RAF? Not many I'll be bound. Obviously those that have been trained and done deployed service but the majority in UK will be contractor personnel.

If Serco and the like was offered the job would they accept given Union issues?

[Stuff]

Given the likely massive financial losses that the fuel companies will incur with this strike it seems to make good sense to just fire all the employees and rehire people who actually want to do some work.

According to http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/employment-matters/docs/10-922-industrial-action-employee-guide.pdf the maximum claim for unfair dismissal during an authorised strike is £50,000.

Seems like money well spent if you ask me.

[Biggus]

PN,

...considering that, with the final demise of the Green Goddesses, "Serco and the like...." now provide emergency cover if the Fire Service go on strike, then I presume "Union issues" have already been considered and circumvented/discounted by the likely companies in question...?

[Pontius Navigator]

Biggus, true I suppose but I would guess they have to volunteer. My contractors would have been very happy to work beyond the contract. OTOH under the same contract my colleague's contractors on an adjacent site guarded their working hours jealously.

[FB11]

Maybe the choice of service indicates the additional bodies the RAF has?

OC Ops at Marham* will have to drive his own 1.4l Corsa to High Wycombe for a meeting instead of getting MT to drive him there and back in the Galaxy.

Ho ho ho.

*Add your choice of (ever reducing) base here as required.

[Max Contingency]

Be thankful. In many countries of the world 'proper use' of miltary personnel includes dressing them up in civvies and having them attend political events to cheer on el presidente. I'm comfortable that keeping vital services supplied with fuel in the event of strike action sits well within the role of anyones military.

[Ken Scott]

Maybe the choice of service indicates the additional bodies the RAF has?

FB11 - a rather snide remark. The original news report was of '300 Army' drivers to be used (DT, Tue 27 Mar), 80 RAF ones would just be its contribution to the emergency rather than an indication that the RAF was overmanned or under utilised.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Be careful what you wish for...come July there may well be mil pers emptying Portaloos in Stratford, so driving a tanker up and down the M6 may suddenly become an attractive proposition for those suitably qualified...albeit a busman's holiday...sorry:oh:

[NutLoose]

Err the last time they had a strike when the green goddesses where deployed I was still in, they sent candidates to Saints to the then driving school, they drove across the parade square circled around an instructor pulled up between 2 cones got out to be issued with an HGV, next man got in and did the same to the other side of the square..

The last tanker drivers one they had a mate in the cab with a pick axe handle in case any strikers got stroppy on the picket lines..

[FB11]

Oh Ken,

Do lighten up.

(Most of us on here do actually understand the manning levels of the services and the requirements to fulfil MACA/MACP commitments).

It was meant to be a light hearted distraction from geeks talking about the High Voltage arrtibutes of EMALS and AAG in the 'other' thread.

Apologies if it hit a raw nerve on how others percive RAF manning levels.

[racedo]

Be thankful. In many countries of the world 'proper use' of miltary personnel includes dressing them up in civvies and having them attend political events to cheer on el presidente.

Or dress up as Policemen during a big strike by oh lets say Coal Miners:E

[Severus]

During the last strike in 2000 when we sent ASMT drivers to drive petrol tankers from the local refinery, nearly half the drivers we sent put their PVRs in as soon as they got back to the unit as they had been offered much better paid jobs with no prospect of an OOA tour!!

[racedo]

Need to start doing the numbers on this

2000 supposed strikers but reality is 15-20% will work and screw the consequences as they self employed and need the cash.

3-400 military drivers provided with escort if required so no traffic hold ups.

Now on a "normal" basis there are never 2000 drivers every week as taking holidays, sickness, training etc etc then you lose 20% on average depending on time of year.

Add in limited hours that drivers work, Govt will overlook during an emergency, then reality is that is by expanding the hours drivers allowed to work, police escorts if required and get in deliver and leave to next then in short term the pumps could remain in use.

Of course if you consider somewhere like Carlisle where say 15 fuel stations in the town but on a normal basis 3-4 tankers required from different companies to fill the tanks, now you do it with 2 where they fill everybody up.

The key thing that always worries Govt is public panic, if everybody figures they can fill up when they require and everybody is getting resupplied then there is no panic buying.

Also add in that Joe Public may be told to leave the car at home which many will do and you can probably reduce fuel purchases by 10% over course of a week.

Its all possible, tight but possible and requires a lot of luck all going your way.

I have a sneeking feeling that Govt want this to happen and win it because it makes Brokeback Dave look tough.

[StopStart]

Babble. Just babble.

[cornish-stormrider]

I went out for a sandwich at my local Tesco's (insert supermarket of choice - plenty are available) and what did I see - 200m of queueing vehicles just to get into the filling station, never seen that before.

I didn't realise we had moved over to Communistical Living, which line do I go to so that I may purchase a loaf of black bread, some sausage and a bottle of peons vodka?

if they strike, they strike. I'll drive a tanker....

[SCAFITE]

Nobody wants these folk to go on strike, but they are not striking over pay, most of it is health and Safety and working conditions.

The trade union Unite says the strike ballot is about safety standards and terms and conditions. The union says the industry is too "fragmented" and wants a "national forum" which would hold the employers to account over conditions. It claims some workers have had their contracts repeatedly renegotiated and some have had six different pension providers in 10 years.Unite also says shorter delivery deadlines have created a "turn and burn" culture. Unite insist the dispute is not about pay.

These folk are not carrying pallets of toilet rolls but up to 30,000 Ltrs of highly inflammable petrol. Luckily we have very few accidents involving Road Tankers in the UK, this is down to the experience and qualifications of the drivers, but it seem like all other jobs they are being pushed for the last penny. If God forbid there was a bad accident and the subsequent enquiry shown bad conditions and rushed drivers, you watch the same two faced Tw*ts poking the finger at these so called evil Tanker Drivers, will soon be banging the drum of regulations. Some have short memories with some recent incidents involving Fuel storage and death were shown to be the fault of bad management, training and cost cutting.

If this dispute is genuinely about conditions of work for workers involved in a dangerous occupation, then they really need to get round the table.

[Herod]

Here in my Essex village, one station is already out of fuel, the other is packed, and cars are backed up down the road. To add insult to injury, they've put 2p on the price of diesel (150/l). Not helped by ministers suggesting the public store fuel in jerry cans!

[Abbey Road]

If this dispute is genuinely about conditions of work for workers involved in a dangerous occupation, then they really need to get round the table.

It isn't about H & S, though that is the trite line trotted out by Lenny the Chump and Unite. Len and Unite still want a showdown with the government, and they will do anything to get it. Len has already made a t1t of himself re his remarks about using disruption during the Olympics to squeeze the government and this is his follow-on. Par for the course. Morons, the lot of them.

[Heathrow Harry]

the guys chosen for duty are lucky men - they can come out of the RAF and apply for a job delivering petrol "with previous experience" - apparently pays £45,000 a year

[NutLoose]

Please, your are doing Morons a disservice bunching them in with that Chimp.

[MFC_Fly]

It claims some workers have had their contracts repeatedly renegotiated and some have had six different pension providers in 10 years.
Sounds familiar :ooh:

[Tankertrashnav]

the guys chosen for duty are lucky men - they can come out of the RAF and apply for a job delivering petrol "with previous experience" - apparently pays £45,000 a year


Not so easy. My son, a REME corporal vehicle mechanic is shortly coming out of the army. He has fuel tankers on his licence, as well as just about every other vehicle you can think of, and he looked into this job. Sounds like it's one of those worlds where unless your father and grandfather were tanker drivers, or you have some other influential "in", you can forget it. Closed world, and newcomers are not welcome.

[snowball1]

Will give 2MT something to do!

[Abbey Road]

Please, your are doing Morons a disservice bunching them in with that Chimp.
You're right! I apologise to all Morons for my previous remark! :E

[Bill Macgillivray]

When is the strike?

[Herod]

What's crazy is that people are panic buying now. The union have to give seven days notice of any action, by which time a lot of people will have used the "panic" fuel and will be lining up again.

[NutLoose]

Tankertrash has he tried getting into the likes of an airport fuel provider as opposed to road haulage.... Just a thought.

[TheWizard]

Do VC10/Tristar/Voyager crews count as qualified on tankers?? :}

[Courtney Mil]

To go back to the OP's question for a moment. Simple. Yes it is a good use of the military. It is part of the contract. What used to be called 'Aid to the civil power' is one of the reasons for having armed forces. They will, if the stike goes ahead, be used to maintain supplies to essential services to ensure the ambulances and fire engines (just a couple of examples) can get to you when you are in trouble. This is nothing new and we don't need to make a fuss of it.

If you don't think the armed forces are there for the national interest, then you may need to review your terms of service.:cool:

[Pete268]

Knowing just how the numbers of service personnel have been decimated in recent years, it is surprising that the RAF actually has the personnel to spare to carry out this tanker driving.

Added to which the recently announced outcome of the review into the MOD Police & Guarding Agency has thrown in this gem:

''Making increased use of regular service personnel to carry out unarmed access control duties at (or near) sites where they are stationed, with individuals undertaking periodic duties that will not reduce their operational readiness. At other military sites unarmed access control will be carried out by reallocating existing complements of the specialist military guards of the Military Provost Guard Service. Together these changes will allow the removal of MOD guard service officers from many Navy, Army and RAF sites''

(Extracted from Hansard for 27th March 2012 - House of Commons Hansard Ministerial Statements for 27 Mar 2012 (pt 0001) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120327/wmstext/120327m0001.htm#12032750000007) )

So we will now have airmen manning gates (again!), also driving tankers, whilst still going off to far lands, but as to where the personnel will come from god knows. Also who will 'backfill' for them will be another matter. No doubt civvies on overtime (costing more no doubt than the above plans will save) or time off cancelled to provide the staffing (cancel all leave until morale improves!).

[Tankertrashnav]

Thanks for the tip, Nutloose, I'll pass it on.

[racedo]

Looks like Coalition advance warnings are backfiring. Then again ratcheting up the rhetoric to people and the media about this is proving so negative to tanker drivers union that they know they have to reach an agreement.

[teeteringhead]

Heard a speech the other day on a similar subject by a retired general - Robin Brims, a good hand.

He recalled the troops being called in to clear snow outside a Glasgow Hospital, and his remarks were along the lines of:

"Size of Army = 140 000, size of NHS= 500 000. WTF!"

I guess we in the military have rather flexible Ts and Cs....... :ugh:

[Biggus]

If Unite, or whatever Union is involved, wants to do something useful, perhaps it should look into Tankertrashnav's comments on tanker driving being a "closed world", where "newcomers are not welcome".



Indeed maybe this is an aspect that an independent press should be looking into as part of the overall storyline for this topic?

[Wander00]

Sounds like the docks of 40 years ago

[Biggus]

Good chance for a spot of decent investigative journalism?




If Unite want some publicity for their issues, give it to them, but make sure its a warts and all report, on the good and bad within the industry....

[cosmiccomet]

I don't know if it is the Most Daring Raid...but certenly it is one of the list.

The Argentine Air Force had modified a Lockhead C-130H loading 12 dumb bombs in two pylons under the wings.
The original intended target was the Queen Elizabeth II...

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8254/52243133512685749041064.jpg

[Fareastdriver]

cosmiccomet

Try another thread.

[glojo]

Could Cosmic be suggesting what that 130 could be used for over here to deal with those queues?

My wife wants to get petrol for our garden machinery but she is afraid to attempt to put fuel into jerry cans as folks down here are getting abusive towards anyone filling containers with fuel. Madness and hopefully the trade unions will be put in their place.

proper Use of Military Personnel... Courtney Mil has summed it up Admiral ably (http://www.pprune.org/7105869-post34.html);)

[pr00ne]

"hopefully the trade unions will be put in their place."

What?!

An odd comment seeing as the Union has not even announced a date for any possible strike action, has to give at least 7 days notice of withdrawal of labour, and has agreed to attend talks at ACAS before instigating any further action.


I think you will find that the queues at the pumps are entirely due to some rather slack "speaking before engaging brain"nonsense from a certain David Cameron and Francis Maude.

Not exactly been a good few weeks for this mob has it. Inexperience and being hugely out of touch starting to tell.

[Biggus]

Given that there is now no possibility of a tanker strike over Easter, is there any chance of normality being restored at the petrol pumps?



I have a car that needs a "routine" fill up as it is running low, but would rather not spent an hour or more to accomplish what is normally a 5 minute task if I can avoid it!!

[glojo]

Pr00ne,
I understand what you are saying and I agree our ministers have not handled this situation in anything like a professional or competent manner, but please do not for one millisecond try to suggest that this trade union is not trying to apply industrial pressure to get their way.. How does their pay compare to that of our soldiers who drive trucks on roads that may have concealed IED's?

The ministers have behaved badly but what about all those leemings queuing for a few gallons or litres of fuel when as you righhtly say there is NOT going to be a strike anytime soon

[davejb]

I'm getting a bit fed up with this, every threat of industrial action, provided the law is followed, is an example of democracy in action - you may not liike it, but the way to change it is to pass new laws etc...

Our current government have responded to every bit of discontent by demonising those daring to exercise their democratic rights - I for one spent a good few years in blue, and like to think that I contributed towards maintaining this country's existence as one of the more stable democracies.

'They' have already had a fight with the public service workers, now it's the tanker drivers, and the military covenant is pretty well not worth the paper it's not written on - how high a percentage of the population does Cameron have to fight with before it begins to look like he's a significant part of the problem?

Yes, a tanker strike and petrol shortage would be a big problem for me and mine, so I'd liike DC and his minions to STF up with the sound bytes and try negotiating without running off at the mouth on TV about it....which surely is doing little to improve relations across the table.

Dave

[4everAD]

The government has now given temporary authority for tanker drivers here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17564277)to work beyond their usual hours to replenish stocks! So you threaten a strike do nothing and get overtime:ugh:

[Melchett01]

To go back to the OP's question for a moment. Simple. Yes it is a good use of the military. It is part of the contract. What used to be called 'Aid to the civil power' is one of the reasons for having armed forces. ...

If you don't think the armed forces are there for the national interest, then you may need to review your terms of service.

MACA/C/P are indeed valid roles for the military, but I do sometimes wonder whether or not that rather than being used as a last resort, the military has become the easy answer to every day rather than difficult questions. As soon as an issue that looks like it might be a bit tricky comes looming over the horizon, the Bat Phone rings and that's the military mobilized to help a spate of cats stuck up trees, de-icing pavements and filling in the gaps in Olympic car parking because it's too difficult / expensive to do it any other way, and as the military are there and paid for, we may as well use them.

I guess what I am suggesting is that whilst the military are professionals and will do what we are told by our Lords and Masters, it does grate more than a little to find out military roles being whittled away by years of underfunding, downsizing and capitalising on various 'peace dividends', only to become the Government's Handy Man. In some ways, it almost feels like we have re-instated the old General Duties trade and enrolled the entire military into it. And as UK plc sells off more of its critical infrastructure and enabling functions, I can only see the military being used more and more as the private enterprises that bought said infrastructure / functions find their wish to make a profit clashing with the Government's need to keep the country running.

And it's a rare occassion, but I do actually find myself agreeing with pr00ne on the Government's recent performance. Shame there is no ability to re-course them for poor performance.

[davejb]

Well said.

I have no argument at all with the idea of military drivers keeping petrol flowing to the emergency services, but I do object to the use of the military simply to break strikes. Using the military for car parking is just a complete p*** take, especially when they're already stretched to cover ill concieved foreign adventures. Of the two situations I think using the military as general dogsbodies offends me most.

Dave

[Dan Gerous]

I'm getting a bit fed up with this, every threat of industrial action, provided the law is followed, is an example of democracy in action - you may not liike it, but the way to change it is to pass new laws etc...

Our current government have responded to every bit of discontent by demonising those daring to exercise their democratic rights - I for one spent a good few years in blue, and like to think that I contributed towards maintaining this country's existence as one of the more stable democracies.

'They' have already had a fight with the public service workers, now it's the tanker drivers, and the military covenant is pretty well not worth the paper it's not written on - how high a percentage of the population does Cameron have to fight with before it begins to look like he's a significant part of the problem?

Yes, a tanker strike and petrol shortage would be a big problem for me and mine, so I'd liike DC and his minions to STF up with the sound bytes and try negotiating without running off at the mouth on TV about it....which surely is doing little to improve relations across the table.

Dave

Good comment Dave. The union have a grievance with their employers and are considering exercising their legal right to withdraw their labour. I have no problem with the forces covering stuff like firefighting as that is a safety issue, and even to deliver fuel to emergency services, but using them to break a strike is not on. As for CMD and all the scaremongering that has gone on all this week, along with "Pastygate", it shows our politicians in a very poor light, and out of touch with reality. Then again maybe he's going to let all you current military types do all the fighting, and while he does all the sound bytes.

[Courtney Mil]

Thanks for the responses, all. I stand by my statement. As servants of the country, we all signed up to be used by the Government for purposes that they see fit. And that includes helping out in national emergencies.

Defending our borders, airspace, sea lanes and overseas interests are the missions that we can all focus on very easily (unless you're George Galloway). But we also signed up to dealing with domestic emergencies: floods, natural disasters, civil unrest and action that would interfere with the normal conduct of our essential services and the country's activities.

Firemen go on strike, the Government (who run the country and decide what the Forces do) are fully justified in sending in the troops to save lives. The tanker drivers threaten a strike that could immobilize the country, do the same.

If you are serving at a time when the Government needs you to keep the country functioning, just get on with it. There is a world of difference between this and using the Forces as cheap labour to park cars for the Olympics.

It's a legitimate role, not to be confused with political expediency.

[Melchett01]

It's a legitimate role, not to be confused with political expediency.

But that's where the problem lies - it is politically expedient for politicians of whatever hue to now call on the military at the first sign of a little local difficulty that makes them look bad. If anybody thought Noo Labour were obsessed by spin, I think the current lot are just as obssessed by what might be termed 'presentational issues'.

Whilst political expediency might solve the immediate problem, all it is doing is curing the symptoms rather than the underlying cause. And eventually, even the most obtuse of us in uniform will realise that rather than being pawns for use in the protection of the country, we are potentially becoming pawns for use in the protection of political reputations. Whilst any individual serving will put his life on the line to defend colleagues and mates (and maybe even Queen and Country), I don't know many that joined up to act as a guarantor of the reputations and presentational issues of politicians who are seemingly incapable of reading the mood of those who put them in power or even exercising a little common sense.

Edited to add: Having just posted this, I then happened to stumble across an interesting commentary by Charles Moore in the Telegraph. Mr Moore and I appear to be in agreement on the current adminstration's ability to read the public mood, but interestingly, a comment from Conservative MPs to their local associations seems to suggest more than a degree of political expediency in the current situation:

But now that I have heard the Conservatives’ private explanation, which is being handed down to constituency associations by MPs, I begin to feel angry.

The private message is as follows. “This is our Thatcher moment. In order to defeat the coming miners’ strike, she stockpiled coal. When the strike came, she weathered it, and the Labour Party, tarred by the strike, was humiliated. In order to defeat the coming fuel drivers’ strike, we want supplies of petrol stockpiled. Then, if the strike comes, we will weather it, and Labour, in hock to the Unite union, will be blamed.”

Even I’m starting to wonder: what do this lot know about anything? - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9176237/Even-Im-starting-to-wonder-what-do-this-lot-know-about-anything.html)

[Courtney Mil]

Providing a supply of fuel to keep emergency/essential services running will neither disuade union memebrs from striking nor allow the Government to make us all think that life will be going on as usual. The tanker drivers are well aware that a few Service drivers cannot take their place or seriously diminish the effect of their industrial action. No one is stupid enough to think that any government could play the card that says, 'you go on strike and we'll just bring in the trrops so that your action is completely ineffective.'

That is not what's happenning here.

[glojo]

I am all for trade unions looking after the welfare of their members and making sure they are not exploited but have we all read the comments of Tankertrash

Not so easy. My son, a REME corporal vehicle mechanic is shortly coming out of the army. He has fuel tankers on his licence, as well as just about every other vehicle you can think of, and he looked into this job. Sounds like it's one of those worlds where unless your father and grandfather were tanker drivers, or you have some other influential "in", you can forget it. Closed world, and newcomers are not welcome. These are not employees on a minimum wage, or workers that are being exploited. They earn far more than other truck drivers that also carry high risk, high value cargo but we all need fuel and they can very quickly bring this country to a standstill.

Do we genuinely know the real reasons for this threat to consider industrial action? I have read that it is a case of those that are not earning as much as the highest paid drivers want an equal salary. Is this correct?

I dislike with a vengeance these closed shop attitudes by trade unions so perhaps I am bias but I know exactly where Tanker trash is coming from regarding his son.

When I left the Royal Navy I was told I had a wait of three or four months before I could commence training for my new career. Rather than twiddle my thumbs for that brief period I managed to get a job with a large haulage company based in Plymouth. During the interview I asked if being in a trade union was mandatory... 'No this is NOT a closed shop company and the decision is entirely yours!' After having a successful interview I went into the rest room and was immediately approached by the union shop steward who explained how much union dues would be and wanted to know why I had not signed up to join his trade union? It was then explained how failure to join would mean I would NOT be allowed to park my vehicle in the company yard as it 'might' get damaged. I would NEVER get any overtime and numerous other issues that made it clear it was a case of pay up or get out..... I hasten to add this was NOT the UNITE trade union, but it was the largest trade union in the country for transport and working class people. This type of strong arm tactic leaves a bad taste and all that person had to do was explain the benefits the union had to offer and then I may have voluntarily paid out the minimal amount of money that was required ;);)

Yes tanker drivers carry petrol or diesel but so what? They are trained to do this work and how would that compare with trucks that carry other dangerous loads or high value cargoes that expose the drivers to injury or being hijacked? (I wonder how much a cargo of fuel is now worth and will we soon be reading about these lorries being hijacked?)

I hope this issue gets resolved but fear that if the government does give in to these unknown demands, will we then see the train drivers walk out? By all means let trade unions protect the rights of their members but where does that line end? Look at our shipping industry, the Liverpool docks which was a huge thriving industry, the car industry and countless others that have been allegedly killed off... Open cast coal mines where coal is on the surface but it is cheaper to import coal from Canada rather then recover our own black gold!! Hopefully some of our military might get the required experience and who knows the 'rules' regarding recruitment might be relaxed.

[davejb]

Glojo,
according to UNITE the dispute is about the refusal to agree that there should be national standards on H&S for drivers, and a national forum established to oversee the industry to ensure standards are maintained.

The link below is to a page with a 4 page PDF described as a Q&A on the subject, which outlines Unite's taker on the matter, which should go some way to answer your question.

( Enough is Enough - tanker drivers campaign (http://www.unitetheunion.org/campaigns/enough_is_enough_-_tanker_driv.aspx) )

Personally I am inclined to believe Unite on this rather than the PM, as a teacher (these days) I am more than aware of the amount of barefaced lying that went on when my career was being used as a dartboard.


The drivers appear to be complaining that the private sector has become too concerned with short term contracts at the expense of ensuring a sustainable oil supply system, and I don't find it overly hard to imagine there might be an element of truth in that.

Dave