|
Page
2 of 2
But
these trends can be fought, and must be
fought. Yet the fight, the cause, also must
also be morally defended, so it cannot be
said the reduction in labour and regulatory
costs only benefit the capitalist bosses.
This
is a political fight when fully engaged
in the media and in the streets, so one's
ethical armour must shine brightly and hard
as Krupp plate, so the proponents of new
efficiencies can readily demonstrate to
the lowest simpleton that the savings will
go to the ill-paid workers whose toil fills
the containers and the European shopper
in retail price reductions and that the
shipping sector's main aim is to defend
freedom choice.
The
latest edition of Hackett's Global Port
Tracker North Europe Trade Outlook suggests
that with the core EU economy showing "signs
of remaining in the doldrums . . . at best
we are facing a mild recession, at worst
something more severe as capacity continues
to sharply outpace demand."
It
would appear that the old way of looking
at things points to a model of economic
stagnation and decline if one takes a pessimistic
view. But one also might see this as a period
of adjustment - albeit painful adjustment
- in which ways of doing things must be
re-examined and make it clear to all that
the impact of change can be cushioned but
not avoided.
Strikes
and conflict are unavoidable. One must tell
entrenched dockers who are paid unreasonable
sums for doing little or nothing that they
are not wanted on voyage. Such confrontation
will be painful and perhaps even bloody.
But it is the only way to adjust to the
many faceted "new normal" we face.
The
sector needs as many people as its various
tasks requires. It does not need as many
as were required in years gone by. And it
needs people with skills paid at rates that
are normally paid for such work - and not
at exorbitant if not extortionist rates
because one set of workers belongs to a
union that can exact what it wants and put
the cost of their greed on shoppers in Europe
and factory workers in the Far East.
Turning
to the regulators, whose number have grown
astronomically in recent decades in a cycle
of creation that is pretty much established.
It starts with an accident or incident.
Academics make dire predictions, spawning
NGO concern groups, often government funded,
to demand action, fanned by a press-release
driven media, driving politicians to take
action and civil servants to formulate regulations,
and create burgeoning inspectorates of expensive
university educated personnel.
While
this is a tough nut to crack, it has been
suggested that the way to dampen the regulatory
urge is compel a cost-benefit analysis on
what they propose against what it would
cost to leave it alone.
Too
often we regulate on the basis of what might
be, forgetting that the worst is not the
surest, not even the most likely. The better-to-be-safe-than-sorry
lobby argues that even the most remote possibility
of catastrophic outcome must be countered
by the most extensive preventive measures.
Such arguments are set out to justify the
high costs of measures against alleged global
warming. Such money is not deployed against
the possibility of the earth being hit by
a large meteor, because that has yet to
become a fashionable fear to arouse the
media, and generate an NGO concern group.
But given the relative risks why is one
justified the other not. Such question needs
to be asked and answered.
What
is required in Europe to adjust to the new
normal brought about by low oil and mega
ships, and not to bemoan low freight rates,
but rather to address other costs that subtract
from profitability and deal with them forcibly.
Page 1 2
|
