Another reason to boycott LIDL

Specific board for this popular undertaking.
Ben@Forest
Posts: 2066
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby Ben@Forest » 24 Oct 2014, 1:44pm

I think it's a case of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Ten years ago I found a utilities company I was sub-contracting to had to check the various legally required or recommended qualifications of its sub-contractors' employees. So they sub-contracted out say brush cutting and knapsack sprayer herbicide application but it was not sufficient for the sub-contracting company to say or sign that all their employees had such qualifications, the utilities company had to see copies of those certificates too.

Ten years ago I thought that was OTT, now I'd regard it as perfectly normal. So I can appreciate the argument that Lidl should have some oversight of what a sub-contracted haulage firm working for it is doing.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby TonyR » 24 Oct 2014, 2:55pm

TrevA wrote:Perhaps we should boycott Asda too ?

A few years ago, a lorry driver working for an Asda sub-contractor ran down a cyclist from behind on the A50 south of Derby. He was found to be over his hours and excessively tired.


If you're talking about the Karl Austin case then that's not true. The driver is reported as having an exemplary driving record. If it was some other case I'd be interested to know which one.
http://road.cc/content/news/56835-lorry ... capes-jail

Edwards
Posts: 5978
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby Edwards » 24 Oct 2014, 4:53pm

Tony R can you please copy the parts from the linked item that contradict me please.

You comment about Nelsons eye could be applied to you, the bad one that is :)
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

Edwards
Posts: 5978
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby Edwards » 24 Oct 2014, 5:41pm

As far as I am aware only certain persons employed by certain organisations have the power to inspect the Drivers Tacho graph. I wonder if some body could show me the law that allows Liddl to demand to see a drivers Tacho recording?

The blame for this should be put firmly and squarely with the Haulage contractor. If any person wanted to do something about the company to blame then they should complain to the Traffic Commissars that issued the operating licence for that company.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby TonyR » 24 Oct 2014, 6:11pm

Edwards wrote:Tony R can you please copy the parts from the linked item that contradict me please.

You comment about Nelsons eye could be applied to you, the bad one that is :)


The whole article contradicts your claim that the driver was working excess hours and over-tired. Nothing in that or any other article on the case that I've seen make any mention of it. To the contrary it reports without contradiction the claim he had an exemplary driving record. I'm pretty sure that if there had been evidence of excess hours and over-tired then road.cc would have mentioned it given the thrust of the article. But AFAICS it doesn't. Can you show me where it does?

That is in clear contrast to the Frys case where he was clearly over-tired and working double shifts for Frys so the employer is clearly involved and a chain of responsibility established to the employer.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby TonyR » 24 Oct 2014, 6:40pm

Edwards wrote:As far as I am aware only certain persons employed by certain organisations have the power to inspect the Drivers Tacho graph. I wonder if some body could show me the law that allows Liddl to demand to see a drivers Tacho recording?


I can't find anything that says that access to the records is restricted. If anything its to the contrary. Government rules say:

Transport undertakings must:

u ensure that tachographs have been calibrated, inspected and recalibrated in line with the rules;

u supply sufficient quantity of type-approved charts and printer rolls to drivers;

u ensure the return of used tachograph charts from drivers. Note that this responsibility continues after a driver has left employment until all charts are returned;

u properly instruct drivers on the rules;

u properly schedule work so the rules are met;

u not make payments to drivers related to distances travelled and/or the amount of goods carried if that would encourage breaches of the rules;

u download data from the Vehicle Unit and drivers' smart cards as frequently as stipulated in national law. In Great Britain it is a requirement that relevant data from VUs is downloaded at least every 56 days and relevant data from drivers' smart cards is downloaded at least every 28 days;

u make regular checks of charts and digital data to ensure compliance;

u be able to produce records to enforcement officers for 12 months; and

u take all reasonable steps to prevent breaches of the rules.


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... europe.pdf

The blame for this should be put firmly and squarely with the Haulage contractor. If any person wanted to do something about the company to blame then they should complain to the Traffic Commissars that issued the operating licence for that company.


Yes the blame for the breaches does rest with the haulage contractor but blame rests with the company for using a contractor that breaches regulations.

Edwards
Posts: 5978
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby Edwards » 24 Oct 2014, 7:11pm

TonyR wrote:The whole article contradicts your claim that the driver was working excess hours and over-tired.


I was referring to the link to the HSE web site. I do not recall ever mentioning the hours driven.

Your second link is the responsibility of the haulage contractor and at not point have you shown that Lidl have any legal access to the Tachograph records.
Would it be possible for you to do so?
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby TonyR » 24 Oct 2014, 10:21pm

Edwards wrote:
TonyR wrote:The whole article contradicts your claim that the driver was working excess hours and over-tired.


I was referring to the link to the HSE web site. I do not recall ever mentioning the hours driven.

Your second link is the responsibility of the haulage contractor and at not point have you shown that Lidl have any legal access to the Tachograph records.
Would it be possible for you to do so?


Well it would help if you didn't post without any reference to which link you meant directly after I had posted a link to the tachograph rules.

But the answer is simple. You claimed:

Edwards wrote:As far as I am aware only certain persons employed by certain organisations have the power to inspect the Drivers Tacho graph. I wonder if some body could show me the law that allows Liddl to demand to see a drivers Tacho recording?


I've just shown your first sentence to be false and that operators are expected to inspect the tacho data. The second sentence is equally misleading. Something is allowed in law unless it is specifically not allowed. You are welcome to come back to me with the law that bans it being shared but I suspect, like your claim in the first sentence, you are making it up.

Gearoidmuar
Posts: 2176
Joined: 29 Sep 2007, 7:35pm
Location: Cork, Ireland. Corcaigh, Éire má tá Gaeilge agat.

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby Gearoidmuar » 25 Oct 2014, 7:36am

Blaming Lidl in this case is barking mad.

The driver should ALSO have been sentenced to not have a mobile phone for life.

Edwards
Posts: 5978
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby Edwards » 25 Oct 2014, 7:51am

TonyR wrote:I've just shown your first sentence to be false and that operators are expected to inspect the tacho data.


The operator is not Lidl. You have not shown Lidl had or has access to the Tacho data.

You are missing the real problem, that of rogue operators that are willing to do such dangerous practices.
They are undercutting the safe operators and putting them out of business. Thus making our roads more dangerous.

So if you want more dangerous roads blame the shop or any person who has goods delivered.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby TonyR » 25 Oct 2014, 8:58am

Edwards wrote:
TonyR wrote:I've just shown your first sentence to be false and that operators are expected to inspect the tacho data.


The operator is not Lidl. You have not shown Lidl had or has access to the Tacho data.

You are missing the real problem, that of rogue operators that are willing to do such dangerous practices.
They are undercutting the safe operators and putting them out of business. Thus making our roads more dangerous.

So if you want more dangerous roads blame the shop or any person who has goods delivered.


Lidl's access to the contractors data is simple. They just require it as part of the contract to reassure themselves they are not engaging a rogue contractor. There is nothing legally stopping them doing that and most reputable companies would require it for reputational reasons if nothing else. If the contractor won't supply it find another contractor who will. Its not rocket science and contrary to your expectations its going on all the time in industry as part of not only HSE requirements but ISO9000 quality control requirements. Do you think the supermarkets now demand auditing access to all the data from their meat suppliers and do their own checks following the horsemeat scandal or do they just say its not our problem and carry on as before as you would seem to have it?

The only reason rogue operators are still in business is because companies turn a blind eye to their dangerous practices to save a bit of money. The way to get them driven out of business is to demand that companies like Lidl vouch for their contractors which means they have to take an interest and do proper checks on them. Lidl's fault is for not doing those checks or not doing them properly and if they didn't have access to the tacho data they could have and should have for the purposes of assuring themselves they weren't employing a rogue company that would put lives at risk with rogue practices.

My employer has a major construction project underway. It is requiring all contractors to meet non-legal standards it has set for the cyclists safety of construction vehicles and drivers - similar to the mandatory standards Crossrail imposed on its contractors. If the contractor employs a sub-contractor they too will have to have compliant vehicles and there will be inspections at the site entrance that will turn away all non-compliant vehicles and impose penalties or cancel the contract if the number of non-compliances crosses a threshold. And it will check driver records to make sure they are competent and been trained on cyclist safety. If its a one off delivery that cannot be done compliantly then the contractor has to pay for the lorry to stop at the city boundary and have a pilot come on board to supervise the driver along the designated route to the construction site. The message is simple. You don't have to comply with our cyclist safety standards but we don't have to employ you if you don't - its your choice. And guess what? All the contractors are doing the modifications to comply. If there's a will..........

Edwards
Posts: 5978
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby Edwards » 25 Oct 2014, 10:10am

TonyR wrote:Lidl's access to the contractors data is simple. They just require it as part of the contract to reassure themselves they are not engaging a rogue contractor. There is nothing legally stopping them doing that and most reputable companies would require it for reputational reasons if nothing else


You are making an assumption that you can not back up with actual facts.
My knowledge of LGV transport is not current but UK and European law restricted persons who had access to the Tacho data.

Can you show the law that gives the customer access to the Tacho data of a driver?
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

Edwards
Posts: 5978
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby Edwards » 25 Oct 2014, 10:32am

I do not have access to the data in this particular case so can not comment on it directly.

But it is possible for a driver to drive at night and work in the garage during the day. Driving hours, duty hours (other tasks) and rest hours are separated. Rest hours do have a minimum continuous time limit.
The exact hours in 24, number of days in 7 and hours per month are also laid down.

So it is possible that this driver was not in breach of those hours. We will never know as unless they were used in evidence in court. The police, Traffic Commissars plus a few organisations have a right of access to them.

Simply saying Lidl are to blame in this case is easy to do but will not change the system as the law is there. In my opinion it would be better to try and get the law changed.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby TonyR » 25 Oct 2014, 10:38am

Edwards wrote:
TonyR wrote:Lidl's access to the contractors data is simple. They just require it as part of the contract to reassure themselves they are not engaging a rogue contractor. There is nothing legally stopping them doing that and most reputable companies would require it for reputational reasons if nothing else


You are making an assumption that you can not back up with actual facts.
My knowledge of LGV transport is not current but UK and European law restricted persons who had access to the Tacho data.

Can you show the law that gives the customer access to the Tacho data of a driver?


It doesn't require a law to give access to the tacho data just as it doesn't require a law to allow me to read this forum. You need to come up with a law that prevents them being given access to the data. In its absence access is allowed and subject only to mutual agreement between the company and contractor. And as we've already seen with Government rules on employer access to the tacho data your knowledge, current or not, would appear to be faulty.

Edwards
Posts: 5978
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Another reason to boycott LIDL

Postby Edwards » 25 Oct 2014, 12:51pm

TonyR wrote:It doesn't require a law to give access to the tacho data



TonyR wrote:u be able to produce records to enforcement officers for 12 months;


Are Lidl enforcement officers?
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar