• Home
• Used vehicles
• Product news
• Dealer news
• Compliance
• Buying advice
• Archive

an

t was a skiver's dream come true: 2 May 2001 was dubbed World Phone In Sick Day by a group of pseudo-anarchists seeking to undermine global capitalism. The idea was for employees all over the world to 'throw a sickle by calling their bosses and insisting they were too ill to work.

Not surprisingly, no official figures exist to show how successful the initiative was. But although trivial in nature, the stunt does raise some important questions about the cost to employers of sickness absence, the fairness of existing sick pay schemes and the extent to which employees abuse the system.

According to one recent report, more than three out of four workers in the UK take one or more sick days a year; half take up to four days and 12% average between five and ic) days a year.

Research by the Institute of Personnel and Development suggests workers calling in sick because of minor complaints such as headaches and colds cost industry around 1,4bn a year.

In the haulage industry, driver sickness absence can be particularly costly. No driver often means no delivery and that makes for unhappy customers.

However, the anecdotal evidence suggests that FIGNi drivers are more conscientious than most about turning up for work. Both employers and unions appear to feel that while skiving might be of epidemic proportions in some industries, it certainly isn't in haulage.

Fair play

"Fair play to drivers, most of them do have a conscience when it comes to work," says David Buxton, director of DJ B Transport, based near Bath. The firm specialises in delivering shopping trolleys to supermarkets around the count; "If they know they are going to let someor down then they come in," he adds.

Ron Webb, national officer for road tran port at the Transport & General Workei Union, agrees that sickness absence is much bigger problem in other industries th it is among truck drivers. But one reason f this, he adds, is that many drivers are forced go to work when they are unwell becau; some employers do not offer a fair deal c sickness benefit.

Webb claims the majority of road transpo firms pay out statutory minimum sick pa which leaves drivers heavily out of pocket. I other industries, such as manufacturin workers get a better deal, he says.

All employers are legally obliged to pay sk pay—but not for the first three days. The le; isiation describes these as "waiting days" an they do not qualify for any pay.

After that, statutory sick pay is paid at a ra. (for 2001-2002) Of £62.20 a week. This divided up according to the numbers of 'qua ifying' days in the week. If the employee still off sick after 28 weeks the statutory sic pay can be stopped.

"It varies considerably and depends o

the size of the company, the standard r the company and the level of negotiatio and bargaining," says Webb. "Whet there is no union membership thing are considerably worse. Some firm offer the bare minimum, only payin out the statutory amount. Others pa the flat rate that a driver would ear in a week for up to 40 hours, eve though most transport drivers thes days would have done 40 hour by the middle of the week."

The MG believes that in a. industry where workers rel heavily on overtime earnings t make a decent living, paying state tory sick pay or a flat rate for th week is both unfair and outdated. I wants all employers to agree to pay worker

.! equivalent of their average rnings as stated on their P6o .e certificate that shows what an aployee earned in the previous year). That way, it says, iployees will not feel penalised being sick.

Webb adds that only a tiny inority of haulage firms, usually ,? larger ones, offer anything .e this at the moment; many uliers would argue that if you ree to full pay it's an open inviion to employees to abuse the stern.

Ve're always getting this argument from aployers, he says. "To me that's just an cuse for poor management and poor produres to make sure they are monitoring sence. Employers tend to use that old stick they don't have to have sickness provi Ruth Pott, head of employment at the >ad Haulage Association, concedes that ost employers in the industry only pay the itutoly minimum sick pay—but she insists is is because they have been focusing on improving other benefits for drivers.

-I would agree with the unions that the majority of employers only pay the basic minimum—there's no obligation on them to pay any more than that," she points out. "Over the years employers have been improving benefits although most tend to focus on improving holiday pay. They, and drivers, perceive that to be more of a benefit because you only get sickness benefit if you're actually off sick."

The order of priority for most employers, says Pott, is to bring about improvements in

pay. reduce the working week and provide better holiday allowances. Only then are they likely to consider changing sick pay policies.

David Buxton says that his company, like so many others, usually pays the statutory minimum. He says the firm has experimented with insurance schemes that pay out if a driver falls ill, but says they haven't been successful.

"We try to be fair," he adds. if we know a driver has been ill then we do pay the daily wage but we can only do that for so long. We used to have a scheme where there was an insurance policy for drivers if they were unable to work. But our drivers don't have a lot of time off and they felt it was a waste of time."

Bob Monks, general secretary of the United Road Transport Union, says employers could make a big difference by identifying malingerers rather than penalising honest workers by paying the bare minimum.

"I think a fair deal for drivers would be a proper assessment of each person's individual illnesses," he says. "Nobody can justify the worker who habitually takes Friday or Monday off sick, but that becomes a management issue and managers should be undertaking investigations to find out why-99% of drivers are genuine employees and if they say they're ill, then they're ill. On statutory sick pay, they are way short of the mark."

However, Webb believes a change of culture is underway among road transport firms, albeit a slow one. lie sees evidence that some are moving towards improved sick-pay schemes, not least because of the current driver shortage.

"More and more drivers now want decent employment packages and more employers are starting to put sickness provisions in," he says. "This issue is top of our agenda." i aMvaari lkaRb iatanyg eo'fspolicedSo eOfscfoar tr ts 1 ci nl eL ao bn do uo tn t(hcemn 71-3

March) made a lot of sense. Let us hope that the Met's abnormal load set-up gets back to normal ASAP.

The term "private escorting" is misleading because it suggests contracting out a police function, with a cosy cartel making a fast buck at the expense of safety and operators. Self-escorting is a better description.

The proposal is that the operator notifies the authorities in the usual way. The police would respond, saying: 'Yes, you can move the load but you must provide an escort in accordance with ACP0 (Association of Chief Police Officers) guidelines."

They would be simple and non-statutory. They might specify that the escort driver must have had a C+E licence for three years, the escort vehicle type, its special lighting, livery and signing requirements, and the radios and mobile phones needed.

If the operator did not have his own escort facility he could use the services of a specialist organisation or a larger haulier.

Police escorts would still be required when the load was over 150 tonne gross or was particularly awkward. A police presence would still be required when the traffic had to be stopped or when it was necessary to authorise the breaking of traffic regulations.

The 'blue light' argument is a favourite one. Several years ago, as an experiment, ACPO escorted two similar abnormal loads ov( some distance. One was with several conventional police escorts with the associated delays. The other was with the police using an unmarked escort van in civilian guise and no problems or delays were experienced.

North Wales police are already authorising self-escorting. It happens a Jot elsewhere; indeed, I did it myself last summer with the agreement of the police and using a loaded tank transporter o a single carriageway. The movement was over by 06:00hrs rather than just started at 10:00hrs and on a busy road.

Paying for a police escort will not solve the delay problem. Apart from the cost of .£40 per hour, the police will still have to react to priorities on the day.

Insurance, liability and responsibility are thought to be problems. But if there was a foul up, and the police escort was thought to be negligent by allowing a car to collide with the load, who would be liable? How would that liability be determined? With the current self-escort proposals there is no doubt that the operator would be responsible and liable for his activities. Furthermore, the police could investigate an incident without fear or favour.

It seems to me that the Home Office ministers are user-friendl; and actually understand the issues. As no new legislation is required and a lot of research has been completed, the next step: are for ACK) or Home Office guidelines lobe agreed by stakeholders.

What is required is a national standard which all police forces would accept. But what we do not need is a shed-full of bureaucratic and expensive regulations. The escort driver would then in theory be more qualified—but in practice less experienced and skilled—than the abnormal load driver.

If this proposal were adopted, industry would save time and money; some loads could be moved at unsociable times saving inconvenience to the public; and police resources would be better utilised.