Divide and conquer, sadly, still works.

That said, I think the upcoming OECD figures are the bigger bearing on this. Squeeze every last drop out of this quarter and then, technically, on a matter of semantics rather than economics, the country will not be in recession.

You cannot justify a strike that will have a severe impact on the country based on the fact that another group or sector is more greedy than this one. The economic climate we are in means anyone in a job should be thankful of that fact and they should be willing to compromise. If every industry did as you suggest they should and strike whenever their conditions are changed, the country would be chaotic.

Your other points on the economy are irrelevant, particular the bits about London rental prices. The general economic downturn is relevant however and the workers here should realise they are on a fantastic package in a relatively secure industry. Some of those striking are earning £50k+ and on final salary pensions. One company involved says their drivers average £45k a year. Some of the reasons given for strike action when interviewed on the radio this lunchtime included that their pension provider had changed a few times or that they had been asked to deliver to a tighter schedule so to maximise revenue. These are not issues the wider public is going to support like they have over previous large scale industrial action.

The dispute hasn't been caused or affected by Government. The panic buying has however, which I acknowledged.

Indeed you did and I apologise the misunderstanding.

The vast majority are on neither final salary pension schemes or £50k+ wages. Even then I would hazard a guess that those few who may be on £50k+, their subsistence allowance (night out money) is also included in that figure.

Some dirvers have had up six different pension providers in as many years. Imagine how it would feel for you to be doing the same job, driving the same vehicle to the same deliveries but for a different employer, with different T&Cs on an annual basis.

There is also the safety aspect to consider. I wouldn't be happy knowing that someone is piloting 25,000 litres of extremely volatile liquid, at an ever increasing speed, just to satisfy some accountant's perception of what can be done to secure a margin on the contract they've just won by undercutting the incumbent.

Some appear to be, some absolutely are not.

Where do you fit in? Prepared to take a real pay cut to assist the more vulnerable? Have your conditions changed so you're working longer for the same pay in a less safe environment?

Or should the only people who have to be the ones who might affect your little world?

Are the employers of the fuel drivers "all in this together" with them and having their terms and conditons altered?

....unless you have to drive to Cornwall over Easter on your annual rugby tour along with around 65 other families.

I'm an office worker, so there is no real H&S argument, but I've had a £10k pay cut through moving location, job role and having allowances and benefits cut. But I was in a position to see the company didn't have much choice, so I took it rather than be out of work. A mate who refused on principle and was made redundant (which equated to two months salary) has now been out of work for 10 months. It's not a nice environment in which to be unemployed at the moment and those in work need to be realistic about that. If there are issues with these companies, it should be discussed and there is action you can take that doesn't involve paralysing the country, but Unions aren't interested as it's not as much fun for them.

You don't seem to have noticed Cod'ead's response to your earlier rant - this dispute isn't about pay bargaining, as far as I know they aren't asking for any more money at all and there is no "deal" as you intimated earlier, its about H&S and increasing pressures on drivers to fit more and more work into the same number of hours.

Thats the thing with HGV drivers, there is a clearly defined limit to the hours that they can drive, so assuming that an employer is flogging them to the limit each day there is only one other way to make them produce more - make more deliveries, and there is only one way to make more deliveries - be faster at the point of delivery or drive faster to get there.

Now think about how you would achieve that when you're driving a truck full of petrol.

Thats what the dispute is about.

Seriously though, public support for tanker drivers will evaporate faster than the volatile hydrocarbons they transport if they actually strike. I suspect there will be non of the bollo*k$ we saw during the last fuel dispute where 2 taxi drivers were all that was required to "blockade" an entire refinary while the police looked on completely "helpless" - now we all know what would have happened if they had been miners don't we? All that will happen is that a lot of ordinary people will get shafted while supplies are "prioritised".

Get around the table and get it sorted, currently the government look like the t00ls. Let's keep it that way.

I'm sure the various shop stewards and union leaders are sat round a table now gleefully discussing bringing the country to a standstill.

Just for those too young to remember, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alfaques_Disasterthis is what happens[/url when one tanker full of explosive liquid/gas explodes on a roadside.

Obviously not on the scale of the above but there have also been increasing indidences of mis-fuelling at forecourts over recent years, where delivery drivers have pumped diesel into gasoline tanks and vice versa. It can be an expensive mistake in terms of potential engine damage but there's also the problem of adding a volatile fuel to a relatively benign one. You need a burning torch to get diesel to catch but add gasoline in the right ratio (70/30 gas to DERV is about right) and you've got the potential for some serious fireworks.

The Los Alfaques disaster involved LPG and many forecourts also dispense this fuel. The problem with LPG is that it's heavier than air and it will always run downhill or seep into drains and could manifest itself miles away from the original problem. IIRC (from my Hazchem training in the mid-70s) there was a disaster involving a crashed LPG tanker and a Scottish primary school.

Hence the word 'personally' preceding my statement.



It'll be a right old pain in the arris and damaging for a lot of people but personally speaking, a week minimising petrol use won't hurt.

www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2012- ... s-of-fuel/ Caught my eye.

www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2012- ... s-of-fuel/ Caught my eye.

You actually believe that, don't you?

Have you bothered reading any of what this threatened strike is about?

Do you want tankers charging around the country trying to make unmanageable deadlines? I've been a wagon driver, I know what the pressure can be like, and that was only carrying bits of plastic.
This is about H&S more than anything else, no matter how the government is trying to muddy the waters. Yes, there is an aspect of pension in there, but given what they're driving, they can have whatever pension they're due for me.

Erm, actually I don't think he does.

I wish you'd read more of his posts on this thread mate

Seem to remember the Tory supporting Country Side Alliance and thousands of lorry drivers up in arms when Labour was in power when fuel was nearly half the price. Where are they?

Why should anyone take a reduction in terms and conditions, the current situation is caused by things far beyond our control and the Tory answer as always is to batter the masses and look after the few on the premise that it costs very little to assist the already fabulously wealthy. Anyone on a million quid salary has just had a £42,000 pay rise (without even getting a salary increase) and the likes of Wayne Rooney (depending on how close media speculation is about his pay) will be getting £12,500 per WEEK extra (based on 250k per week), that is of course assuming (naively maybe) that these people are paying anywhere near 50% in the first place.

Does anyone think this encouraging of panic buying in the lead up to the first quarter results on growth or recession might mean we get growth rather than recession?

I think the numbers will be insignificant compared to a full quarters GDP

It would seem you're right
Speaking to my Bro-in-law who i found out drives tankers for TDG delivering fuel to Tesco, he managed £47k one year with plenty of OT so it's hard to imagine drivers clearing 50k+.

The drivers on the big money will be on nights, so given my pet theory that the only people who should work nights are prostitutes, burglars and the police, they're worth the £50k

Whoosh

Was being sarky about the post I replied to (sarcasm doesn't come across on here). I'm sure the union leaders are taking everything into account, but looking at their members interests above all.

Fwiw I agree with the rest of your post