Simple way of finding out: take a match to it. If it burns your eyebrows off - petrol (flammable, you see). If the match fizzles out - diesel (not flammable).

You might be suprised by the extent that pipelines are already used in the UK to transport fuel. OK, it's predominantly primary distribution (refinery to storage site) rather than secondary distribution (storage to retail), however it is a huge volume.

Look at the UK Petroleum Industry Association website for details: [urlhttp://www.ukpia.com/industry_information/distribution.aspx[/url

Here's the map of the main existing pipelines:
[urlhttp://www.ukpia.com/Libraries/Download/UK_map_of_refineries_and_terminals.sflb.ashx[/url

I'm pretty close to this dispute - my department manages the secondary distibution of approx. 150 million litres of fuel each week to our forecourts. Whilst I'm not involved on a day to day basis with fuel (I manage our rail network), I have been more involved in the last couple of weeks: trust me when I say that H&S is NOT the main reason for this potential industrial action.

There are lots of other people who are 'pretty close' to the dispute who say it is the main reason. What unique insight can you offer to convince us to trust you over all those other people?

H&S doesn't get your average man to strike. It is just a PR exercise in trumpeting up minor concerns because they make better soundbites than the real reasons behind the strikes.

I believe the primary objection is the continued erosion of employee terms & conditions as each new contract has been awarded. If you think this would not have any concomitant effect on H&S, then I believe you're wrong.

You've caught me out. I'm not "pretty close". I lied. I don't work for a retailer who sells >150 million litres of fuel each week. I wasn't involved in the decision making and re-tendering process of the largest secondary fuel distribution contract for 25 years after TDG were bought by ND last year. I haven't met with Justine Greening a couple of times this year, most recently last week in London, to discuss mode shift and fuel distribution.

Sounds like its all your fault then.

Burn him - has anyone got any petrol ?

I might have, not sure, i was collecting it out of a burst pipe in a bucket from B&Q, it could be diesel though.

I bet that was fun. Did you tell her that Desparate Dan wants his chin back and Oliver Cromwell wants to know when she'll be finished with his warts?

TBH, she's pretty clued up: I expected much worse from a tory minister.

She must've been bloody well briefed then because she's never come across as particularly bright or knowledgeable on transport matters.

[url=http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-do-tanker-drivers-earn-45k/10116?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterThe +£45k myth exposed[/url

The rich, the priority must be to reduce tax for people who earn more than £150k w@nkers don't know much worth knowing? OMG, tbh, Wow! Amazing!

Otherwise, what would you expect?

Am I the only one totally stumped by this, and indeed by everything this Billypop character writes???....

I have read that i am on 60 k for a 3 day week. It was in the wail so it must be true

And all you do on those three shifts is get your head down, safe in the knowledge that the alarm will sound in time for you to switch the points for the 03.45 up-train to Much Binding in the Marsh

It's not exposed at all, it's supported if anything.



So she agrees that if they do overtime the figure is quite plausible. Given that the media have been banging on all week about how there are too few qualified drivers to support current demand by around 2,000, it's very likely that they all have the opportunity to earn overtime. Which is something the quoted driver admits happens 'every shift'.



So he's saying they are always doing overtime. So they are in fact very likely to be averaging earnings of £45,000 a year in a relatively stable and safe industry.

I don't begrudge them what they earn. Good on em. I could earn more if I did all the overtime that I was offered but you cannot put a price on time off and seeing your family. My basic hours are still far more than some do in a week

It's not supported, it merely shows misleading and incorrect information given out by those that have precipitated this crisis.

A salary is a fixed amount, the ONS shows the average salary is around the £35,000 quoted by the Unions than the £45,000 quoted by the crisis-causing government.

Since the government are constantly banging on about people working more why are they then decrying those that choose to work overtime? And why did they lie about the average salary? Or "average" and "salary", like "jerrycan",words this government don't fully understand?

So you are falling back on a pedantic difference in words between 'salary' and 'earnings' over this, despite them claiming it's not about pay anyway?

The truth is they are highly paid as drivers go, earning £45k on average. They also work in an industry with an excellent H&S record. They don't want their cushy position to be compromised and feel it has been, but the issues they have are minor.

Yes forgive me for expecting the government to know what the words they are saying actually mean. The rest of your first paragraph makes no sense.

Yes they are highly paid as drivers go. That's because the job they do is more important and dangerous than most drivers jobs. The fact they get paid more than regular drivers is irrelevant, it's called a market rate. By "cushy" position I assume you mean the "excellent H&S record" which the management are trying to erode. Damn those greedy drivers for not wanting to die at work.
The ONS and that article clearly shows they aren't paid on average £45k. Only someone who doesn't understand the meaning of the word average could take that article as saying they are paid on average £45k.

The article quotes the Office for National Statistics. In a battle between them and the company who released their average earnings figures, I know who I would believe. In any case the figures quoted are purely for drivers of large goods vehicles and are not specific to this industry. So the article is taking an irrelevant statistic gathered no doubt on a voluntary form and extrapolated by the ONS then making an assumption about the top 10%. Given the numbers of drivers mentioned in the article, it wouldn't exclusively be fuel tanker drivers making up that top 10% so her deductions are flawed and based on flawed statistics.

Given the evidence in that article there is nothing to suggest that the fuel tanker drivers involved do not earn £45k a year on average.

The screen shot of the payslip clearly shows an overtime element of £783, accounting for around 25% of his salary. The salary extrapolated would show a gross annual of around £36,000, from a basic of around £27,600.

It's also worth pointing out that the hours a driver may work are rigidly controlled by EU law and in the main, are rigidly enforced by employers because a failure to do so can lead to massive fines and restrictions or even revocation of the operator's licence.

Given the basic salary and assuming a basic week of 40 hours it's going to be difficult to get to £45k and remain within the law.

Thats the first and obvious thought that I had too.

Doesn't seem to be quite so obvious to some though.


As one who works or is on standby for 12 days out of every 14, my salary is always quoted as the figure shown on my contract and not the figure on my P60 every year, its what I'm contracted to do and the overtime and standby payments are voluntary, additional and changeable and not therefore admitted to any organisation who makes a pretence at needing to know.