PDA

View Full Version : Fuel tanker drivers protest


londonmet
12th Jun 2008, 20:00
So do they deserve to earn £40k per year?

I'm not sure. Although what made me livid was the looney leftie from unite saying the reason they want more cash is because Shell earn too much in the way of profits. You can bet your life on the fact they won't agree to a pay cut if Shell were loosing money. Thoughts?

Radar66
12th Jun 2008, 20:06
Thought it was over now? well, in Spain/Gibraltar anyway... :confused:

C130 Techie
12th Jun 2008, 20:08
Working on the basis of skills and responsibilities compared against current wage levels then No!

Why should the profits of the companies they work for have a bearing. If this were the case anyone working for British Gas, BT or any of the utility companies would be earning a fortune.

Parapunter
12th Jun 2008, 20:11
It is well paid for LGV work, we discussed it a bit the other day. When all's said & done, it's an industrial dispute & without knowing the ins and outs of the operation, it's difficult to say whether or not they're swinging the lead.

I don't buy for one moment the danger money argument since they're moving fuel around - the same could be said of a pilot hurtling through the upper atmosphere with their arse strapped to a tin can astride four barely contained raging infernos.

However, for all I know, they're being pushed to the absolute limits on their hours with minimum legal rest & under those circs, I'd want a good whack too. Knowing Hoyer as I do, I lean toward that scenario.

londonmet
12th Jun 2008, 20:17
Parapunter,

Good valid points. However - if they are being squeezed WRT duty limits then they need to take this issue up with management. WRT pay in my opinion this is a seperate issue. £40k is alot of money. Pay rise due where it's due - as in keeping up with inflation obviously.

Danger money excuse is not valid. Carrying 20 tonne of rock could also be considered dangerous.

C130 Techie
12th Jun 2008, 20:38
This strike will affect only 10% of petrol forecourts most of which hold at least 4 days of fuel stocks so in reality the effects should go unnoticed by the general motoring public.

Of course the media hype words this differently suggesting shortages and inconvenience to motorists which will inevitably throw the average Sun/Daily Mail reader into panic buying mode escalating this into a crisis of national proportions which will last well into next week. (I stand to be proven wrong)

The mass media should act responsibly. Feedom of speech and expression is one thing, wanton scaremongering is another.

londonmet
12th Jun 2008, 20:40
The mass media have alot to answer for. A title for another thread no doubt.

So........if £40k a year a reasonable wage for a fuel tanker driver?

L Met

C130 Techie
12th Jun 2008, 20:44
Londonmet

Sorry I didn't intend to hijack your thread.

Already stated in an earlier post that based on comparisons of current wages against skills and responsibilities then definately not worth 40K year.

londonmet
12th Jun 2008, 20:46
C130,

No worries mate. Very good points but that's another topic that easily gets my blood boiling. Seen all too much today WRT to David Davis' resignation.

L Met

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
12th Jun 2008, 20:54
Why should the profits of the companies they work for have a bearing.well, no reason - except that the exact same rationale, the upper levels of management use to justify their huge salaries, gigantic stock options, excellent retirement and severence agreements, swollen expense accounts and other sundry perks.

So are you saying it makes no sense in their case as well, or is it ok for there to be one rule for them and another for us?

===

You can bet your life on the fact they won't agree to a pay cut if Shell were loosing money.No they probably won't agree to it, but it'll still happen, or worse, they'll be "made redundent", "downsized", "riffed" or "their jobs sent offshore" or whatever management bollocks speak gets used, the result is still the same.

C130 Techie
12th Jun 2008, 20:58
I note that the union Unite is saying that the basic wage before overtime has not increased since 1992.

I wish I had been earning 32k in 1992. I would be interested to know what the average wage including ovetime is today.

For many people working overtime is a necessity to make enough money to live and make ends meet. Many people have far more responsible jobs and many don't have the option to work overtime. Bear in mind that on a basic wage of 40k you are already paying 40% tax on 4K of your earnings.

londonmet
12th Jun 2008, 21:04
well, no reason - except that the exact same rationale, the upper levels of management use to justify their huge salaries, gigantic stock options, excellent retirement and severence agreements, swollen expense accounts and other sundry perks.

So are you saying it makes no sense in their case as well, or is it ok for there to be one rule for them and another for us?


I disagree. It's all part and parcel of being a CEO/senior management of a huge multi national.

L Met

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
12th Jun 2008, 21:13
Oh well that's ok then :rolleyes:


So unjustifiable work conditions and irrational expectations are ok because someone has a different job title? or is it because "it's always been done that way".

I disagree with your disagreement :=




...and no, it's not really "part and parcel of being a CEO or being in upper management", though they would certainly like us to think that it is and in recent years have done a good job of making it so.

londonmet
12th Jun 2008, 21:18
So unjustifiable work conditions and irrational expectations are ok because someone has a different job title? or is it because "it's always been done that way".

Unjustifiable work conditions? Come on mate. £40k a year to drive a lorry does seem to me to be slightly over rated. As C130 Techie stated I would love also to have been earning £32k p.a. in 1992.

WRT to the senior management pay scales and bonuses it just goes with the role of the job. It's a way of life. It's like arguing that a junior civil servant should get paid the same as the Prime Minister/President. It just doesn't work. I'm sorry to say to you. Anyway back to the thread................:ok:

L Met

C130 Techie
12th Jun 2008, 21:18
I've deleted my afterthought to my earlier post.

As I stated earlier if people were paid in relation to the profits of the companies they worked for there would be some very highly paid utility workers in the UK. The pay disparity across the range of skillsets would be immense.

londonmet
12th Jun 2008, 21:21
As I stated earlier if people were paid in relation to the profits of the companies they worked for there would be some very highly paid utility workers in the UK. The pay disparity across the range of skillsets would be immense.

Agreed. Worryingly in times of hardship (potentially around the corner? Again, another thread topic entirely!) people would be looking at oweing their employers money!

L Met

selfloadingcargo
12th Jun 2008, 21:23
Average wage in the UK is £24k - including all the guys who earn millions in the City.

£40K is getting on for double the average.

Seems like a well paid job to me. Yes, they work hard for it, but you should be working tolerably hard for a salary so far in advance of the average wage.


(some would say you should be working hard for your wage whatever it is.....)

londonmet
12th Jun 2008, 21:26
Selfloadingcargo,

Yeah that is the figure i've also heard banded about. As you rightly say it's inclusive so there are lots of people earning well below that but working (argueably) alot harder - in terms of long hours/multi jobs/child care etc.

L Met

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
12th Jun 2008, 21:34
but londonmet, you're contradicting your own argument. 40k a year to drive a lorry may be overrated, but no more so than 40m a year to drive a company - regardless of the success of the company. At least the lorry driver actually has to arrive at his destination.

And when you say "it's a way of life": no it isn't. I doubt that pay disparities like we see now were anywhere near as evident (or as large) twenty, thirty or forty years ago. They've made us think that it's a way of life, but by the same argument, if you paid the lorry drivers 60k a year for a few years, that too would become a way of life.

You can't justify something symply by saying it exists.



Out of interest, what about pilot salaries? :E

londonmet
12th Jun 2008, 21:41
40k a year to drive a lorry may be overrated, but no more so than 40m a year to drive a company - regardless of the success of the company. At least the lorry driver actually has to arrive at his destination.

Oh please come on. Driving a lorry is hardly the same as steering a multi national. Period. Put the CEO of XYZ in a lorry and I reckon he/she could do it. Role reversal?

Out of interest, what about pilot salaries?

Yeah, what about them?

L Met

Parapunter
12th Jun 2008, 21:49
For what it's worth, tanker drivers carting fuel about have to hold an ADR licence in addition to their LGV licence. They are in short a higher form of life amongst drivers. They have traditionally earned higher wages than those on general haulage & jobs on tankers are hard to find - they're always in demand.

For me, as a haulier by trade, the wage level is on the high side, however I think this argument about profit shares is irrelevant. CEO's and drivers are not comparable. Most CEO's could be taught to drive lorries, I don't know of many drivers who could run companies.

What I think is salient in this dispute is not the pay issue - it's a market & if they're on 32 basic it's because the market has borne it. However, if as is reported, no pay rise has been tendered in more than 10 years then it is arguably long overdue.

That some find 32k for driving a lorry distasteful is neither here nor there.

londonmet
12th Jun 2008, 21:56
Parapunter,

Thank you for a good post. Answers a few questions.

L Met

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
12th Jun 2008, 21:58
Perhaps either could do the other's job, but that's not really the point. You seem to think 40k is an inappropriate salary for one job, but 40m is perfectly appropriate for another. That seems a little inconsistent, unless of course you happen to be a CEO.

What's so hard about being in charge of a company anyway? You're surrounded by flunkies and yes men and if you screw it all up, you still get to parachute out with a nice big settlement. You'll never see a lorry driver smack one up, be asked to leave but given several years salary.


As for pilot salaries, simple question: Where do you stand on them? In your own words, do pilots deserve what they earn?

londonmet
12th Jun 2008, 22:05
You seem to think 40k is an inappropriate salary for one job, but 40m is perfectly appropriate for another.

I don't think it's inappropriate per se. I just think it might be slightly inflated, for the tanker drivers that is. However, i'm not really sure. Hence the purpose of this thread......tick tock.

For me, as a haulier by trade, the wage level is on the high side, however I think this argument about profit shares is irrelevant. CEO's and drivers are not comparable. Most CEO's could be taught to drive lorries, I don't know of many drivers who could run companies.

It's like comparing a chap that works in a chippie to a dentist. Like comparing a chap that works in a bar to a chap that fixes cars. The skill levels don't match. Where there's a difference the salaries will be different. That sir is a fact of life. Also not many, infact if any, earn 40m per year. I arrest my case.

L Met

Parapunter
12th Jun 2008, 22:15
Actually, I am a CEO. Big Fish, small pond.:p

BarbiesBoyfriend
12th Jun 2008, 23:32
I love it when the pres etc advise us 'not to panic buy'.

Why not?

Me, I love a bit of 'panic buying'!

First thing I do when told NOT to panic buy is rush out and juice up my Audi. Thats 80 litres.

Then my classic car

Then the Wifeys SAAB

Than the chainsaw

And the strimmer

Any cans left in the garage?

Oh...... I'm such a panicker.:eek:

Overdrive
13th Jun 2008, 02:58
That some find 32k for driving a lorry distasteful is neither here nor there.

I agree. And what I do find distasteful is that people tend to have a very resentful attitude to others earning a good wage. Strangely, the resentment follows an irregular graph whereby the most spite is directed at those paid just ten or fifteen grand more.

The 1992 thing; I earned up to £40k then as a contract works supervisor, off a basic of £29k, which was about par for the time in the industry (working my tits off though I'll add). Technical support staff then earned not much less than the wage now for the nearest equivalent to my old job. Graduate trainees were started on £19k then. With no disrespect here... I hear well qualified younger people talk about £19k like it's BIG money. It isn't. They start on numerically lower than this now, over fifteen years on, and after the inflation of that period. Jobs have been downgraded.

Wages & salaries in very many of the sub-£40k jobs that I know about are a lot lower today... and profits from most larger organisations are much higher. It's the "essential" competive enviroment in play. People should maybe gnash on that instead.

selfloadingcargo
13th Jun 2008, 09:55
'Ere we go...

'Don't panic buy'.....what do we have? We have a long bl**dy queue at our local filling station, that's what we have, with pr*ts putting about £10 in to 'top up'. (Note, this is not a Shell station and not in the North east....errr, North-West, thanks Mariner)

The way to stop the queues is to have a MINIMUM delivery of £50. That way only those who need to fill do so - and because there aren't any queues, there's nothing to make all the other mindless sheep who see a queue decide to join it to get THEIR £10-worth...

Maybe I should go to the rant thread....

under_exposed
13th Jun 2008, 12:32
(Note, this is not a Shell station and not in the North east)


I notice you are in Somerset. Avonmouth has a picket line so no tankers are going out.

Mariner9
13th Jun 2008, 14:02
...and Shell's Stanlow refinery is in the northwest not the northeast :ok:

VfrpilotPB/2
13th Jun 2008, 14:03
There are a great many opinions as to what sort of wage should a person earn, for example who would be worth more to us the great British Public,

Wayne Rooney, Footballer, Granny basher and all round hero to many who earns around £150k per week..or

Mr Armhed Khan, Cardiac Surgeon in the same town as man above and only known in certain circles, Salary about £150K per Annum


Or

Chris Fogarty Chief Fire officer in a local town earning around £30K Pa

Or

Julie Walsh a Grade 2 Nurse who works 6 days per week x 12 hour shifts and earns around £18K Pa

Or Kingsman Jones just back from Iraq:eek: earning around £15k Pa.

Sombody has got this pay thing all wrong, how many of the great unwashed would swop with a tanker driver, wouldn't we have a much better Country if the people who really mattered to us all were paid a worthwhile wage, personally I think the Nurse , the Soldier and the Surgeon SHOULD be the highest paid in the land, followed by the Fireman, the Policeman and all the rest of us, at the bottom of the pile would be the Footballers, entertainers , Music men, and TV stars of that Ilk,

Then we would have a fair and equal society paid in accordence to their ability to help the whole lot of the populus.

Must go to this Utopia place sounds darn good! until then I am going with ma Jerry Cans and a hose round some car parks.

Vfr:ok:

G-CPTN
13th Jun 2008, 15:25
Hundreds of staff at BMW's Mini factory in Oxfordshire will be temporarily forced to cease production this weekend due to Spanish fuel protests.
Management at the plant, in Cowley, have told the BBC they cannot get hold of crucial parts as all airports and ports have effectively been blocked.
(from:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7451682.stm )

G-CPTN
15th Jun 2008, 00:46
The Left-wing union firebrand leading the fuel tanker strike already earns £4,000 a year more than his members will receive – even if their pay demands are met.
‘Red’ Ted Morgan is one of only two tanker drivers who 16 years ago rejected a £17,000 lump sum payout in return for a 25 per cent cut in their wages when Shell contracted out its delivery business to private firms.
The deal means he is now on £45,000 a year, in contrast to the other 641 men involved in the four-day strike, who are on an average of £36,500.
If the two haulage firms at the centre of the row pay the full 13 per cent rise Mr Morgan’s union, Unite, is demanding, his annual wage will leap to £50,850 while his drivers – who plan a second four-day walkout on Friday – would get £41,245.
Mr Morgan’s salary would outstrip the £50,000 earned by a British Army Major or the £48,000 paid to a police chief inspector; while his drivers would be on more than twice the salaries paid to junior hospital doctors, who receive £20,000, and newly qualified secondary school teachers, who are paid £19,000.
Sources close to talks at the conciliation service ACAS said that during six months of negotiations Mr Morgan, 45, had always refused to shift an inch on the original union claim. Yesterday, Mr Morgan refused to comment when approached by The Mail on Sunday on a 15-strong picket line outside Shell’s Coryton oil refinery in Essex.
He demanded to know ‘who were the muppets’ this newspaper had sent earlier to interview him at the £300,000 detached house at Vange, near Basildon, Essex, where he lives with his wife Denise and their only child.
Mr Morgan, who drives a Ford Mondeo while his wife drives a Ford Ka, also refused to discuss why he holds 400 Shell shares worth more than £8,000 – a stake in the very firm the dispute now threatens.

(from:- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026514/Revealed-Fuel-strike-leader-earns-thousands-union-members---hell-50-000-win.html )

Parapunter
15th Jun 2008, 01:15
The emoting is depressing. There is a lot of how we would like things to be rather than this is the reality. It's not fair that Wayne Rooney can spend fifty squillion quid on getting hitched when a nurse earns diddly squat by comparison.

However, I don't recall a wage fairy declaring that life should be fair...

Overdrive
15th Jun 2008, 01:22
‘Red’ Ted Morgan is one of only two tanker drivers who 16 years ago rejected a £17,000 lump sum payout in return for a 25 per cent cut in their wages when Shell contracted out its delivery business to private firms.
The deal means he is now on £45,000 a year, in contrast to the other 641 men involved in the four-day strike, who are on an average of £36,500.




Looks like Ted had his head screwed on, at least in that department. Rather demonstrates why so many companies are so fast to buy their staff out of any sort of access to the big profit pie. A lump sum of enough for a conservatory and used car is as far as most people can see though.

Typical run-of-the-mill British flavour hate campaign, whilst the money to pay them quickly and automatically racks up silently and unmentioned in the background. His house, his cars, wife, shares... so what?

I'm still waiting for the drivers to be blamed for the next penny on a litre...

Donkey497
15th Jun 2008, 12:23
What seems to be missing from most of the posts is that the Unite union is fighting the wrong battle (yet again after the Ineos debacle).

The union claims that Shell makes excessive profits while their members have not had an increase in basic wages over several years. However, what they consistently fail to acknowledge is that their members are no longer directly employed by Shell.

Several years ago Shell sub-contracted their fuel deliveries to third party companies. Therefore the dispute should be between the third party companies and Unite.

The argument that Shell should be funding a pay rise for the tanker drivers is ludicrous. It's absolutely equivalent to a postman claiming a pay rise from say EDF, or Eon, or Barclaycard because they make large profits and the Post Office makes deliveries on their behalf.

To my legally untrained eye, Unite picket lines at fuel depots and disrupting all deliveries is sailing very close to the wind as regards secondary picketing, as most of these facilities have common facilities shared by many oil companies, Chevron, Texaco, Total, BP, Shell etc..

Their dispute I think is also risky for the union members, as Shell have sub contracted their fuel deliveries, there may well be clauses in the contract that Shell could invoke should the contractors be unable to deliver a minimum level of service to terminate the arrangement. If this happened, then all of the drivers could find themselves suddenly redundant from their current companies, and although most would undoubtedly find employment with whichever other firms picked up the contracts, they would find themselves in an employers market, as well as losing all of their job security and pension benefits.

Always be careful what you ask for, as you may well get it.

skydriller
15th Jun 2008, 12:35
However, what they consistently fail to acknowledge is that their members are no longer directly employed by Shell.


I only discovered this today when it was fleetingly mentioned in a BBC news report.....Almost every story I've seen pitched Union v Shell, and its just not at all true.

Agree with the post above, if they are not carefull Shell will quit the contract they have.

Regards, SD..

Dark Star
15th Jun 2008, 12:56
Google Ad on here :-

Fighter Pilot £31,900

Overdrive
15th Jun 2008, 13:09
I'd rather do that for £31,900, than the tankers for double though :ok:













(At the risk of opening the "reasons-for-helicopter-salaries" can of worms :p)

G-CPTN
15th Jun 2008, 13:16
I don't remember the history, but, from what the Union guy said last night on the Beeb, the drivers were directly employed by Shell some years ago and had beneficial salaries and terms of employment including final salary pensions, then Shell divested themselves of the responsibility. The contractor(s) negotiated a reduction in salary in return for a lump sum (which the Union guy turned down apparently) and the rest is history, so what happened once could happen again . . .

BabyBear
15th Jun 2008, 14:58
Back in the late 80's when I joined Texaco I spent a day with a driver out of Manchester as part of the training. It so happened the driver was a shop steward and it was, from memory, within months prior to Texaco subcontracting all deliveries to Tankfreight. Not surprisingly this was a hot topic during our trip across to North Wales with the driver openly admitting that the Oil Co's had little option due to working practices. From memory the salaries were of a similar order, with bonuses regularly resulting in higher earnings than are currently being quoted. However the working practices were what really forced the Oil Co's down the subcontracting route. Terms and conditions existed at the time whereby an actual time allocation was made for each delivery based on distances, roads, average speeds etc. Unsurprisingly the unions had, through the years, negotiated very favourable terms which meant drivers could regulary do a full days work (as per the allowed time for the job) in little over half the time allocated (route dependant) and then go out to do another load at overtime rates.

I will not comment on whether £40K is a fair wage, however a bit of the background in how the unions and drivers have conducted themselves in the past may help in understanding why the current demands seem, to many, as unreasonable!

Cheltman
15th Jun 2008, 15:47
Seems that the union are giving Shell and the government a real temporary boost. While people are worried about getting fuel they will probably stop worrying about the cost. Good distraction.

Dick Fisher
15th Jun 2008, 19:13
I note that the union Unite is saying that the basic wage before overtime has not increased since 1992.

Can someone explain exactly how UNITE has looked after its members' interests since 1992?

LGS6753
15th Jun 2008, 20:31
I operate in the road transport sector. Most of my HGV class 1 (artic) drivers receive around £25k, more if they work overtime, nights or weekends. They do work for supermarkets, bulk companies, parcel delivery companies, retailers, automotive companies and the like.
Tanker drivers (as stated above) require ADR certificates to deal with hazardous products, which could justify a 10-15% uplift. The oil companies, even after outsourcing, offer drivers a relatively comfortable existence and knowing the companies concerned as I do, there is absolutely no pressure on them to exceed or even get near to their legal maximum hours.

In short, their existing pay arrangements are better than fair, so the pay claim of 13% looks greedy. As for the union official citing high profits at Shell - if he is proposing profit-related pay, he's out of step with the rest of the unions and probably just expressing his socialist hatred of those who are doing better then him.

On the other hand, if his left-wing ranting knocks another nail in the coffin of his pet government, we'll all have something to thank him for.

Afinehelmet
15th Jun 2008, 21:06
As a result of this strike the Jet A supplies at EDI are now dangerously low.

Airlines are having to tanker in all of their requirements for their sectors outbound of EDI.

If they don't they're having to stop off at GLA/PIK for fuel.

G-CPTN
15th Jun 2008, 23:14
As a result of this strike the Jet A supplies at EDI are now dangerously low. An aspect of the strike that has probably not been researched.
Having lived near Luton Airport and the Hemel Hempstead Buncefield depot before the pipeline(s) were installed I realise how many tanker-loads are required for (what was then) a moderate number of flights.

Donkey497
15th Jun 2008, 23:40
As a result of this strike the Jet A supplies at EDI are now dangerously low.
Beats me why this is the case. EDI, GLA & PIK all uplift their fuel from Grangemouth, which for the information of those who hadn't noticed, was only out of production for 2 days. So there's no supply shortage.
Also, there hasn't been a significant increase in flights out of EDI since Thursday.
And....... AFAIK having spoken with some of my mates who work in the refinery, the (GLA/EDI/PIK) airport fuel supply uplifts are not currently subject to significant disruption.

So why is there a shortage at EDI?:confused::confused:

Airlines are having to tanker in all of their requirements for their sectors outbound of EDI.

But that's what they do normally anyway..........:confused::confused:


Don't tell me that the CAA have actually believed the BBC/ITN propaganda and have mandated airline panic buying via NOTAM.......:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Haven't seen an abnormal filling station queue or closed garage yet.....

Krystal n chips
16th Jun 2008, 06:12
Another week of fun and frolics then ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/16/oil.transport

Been "interesting" to watch the various sides in all this on the meedja....Shell doing their rather unctious "Thank you plebs for being so understanding" bit of PR.....conveniently forgetting to mention that they will continue to screw the public once this dispute is over........some of the brothers with more sense than others....notably the one whinging about "no social life..am up at 0430"....awww !.....and who was told to shut up by one of his colleagues as this was not relevant.....your man from Hoyer getting a "rough ride" from C4 News.....he wasn't a happy bunny it seems......and the utterance of a long forgotten word...parity....not heard that one for a few years now.

For those of you who enjoyed "Life on Mars" therefore..and who missed the original period.......here's a little taste of what you missed.....happy days. :p:E

beamer
16th Jun 2008, 10:01
This pathetic strike would receive even less publicity than it deserves if the media, particuarly the BBC and Daily Express, would not highlight the issue every day thus prompting motorists to top their tanks up every time they venture beyond their front door. Put the negotiators on all sides into a locked room and don't let them out until they have an agreement.

Incidentally I had to make a journey on sunday afternoon, about a hundred miles roundtrip, and saw all garages open (even a couple of Shell) and no queues whatsoever !

Krystal n chips
16th Jun 2008, 18:28
Interesting side effect today on the M6....for a Monday....comparatively low traffic....and far fewer HGV's...same this evening...just wondering if this is UK wide or just one of those quirks that occur from time to time ?