Why do we put up with mandatory assurance scheme?

[Nearly]

Dear Mr Farm assurance scheme, Due to a downturn in farm gate prices we are going to have to look at ways of streamlining our businesses and cutting out unnessecary costs and dead wood. To date your costs on our industry are showing little or no return and I have seen very little in the way of marketing the scheme, we are in, to add value to our products.

Therefore Unless we see a marked improvement in the performance of your company that we are all investing in we will have to seriously look at whether being members are beneficial to us or whether it's time for you to look elsewhere for employment.

Regards Uk Farmers plc

or in other words, Feck Off.

 

[Mishoo]

or in other words, Feck Off.

The odd letter being sent would be a waste of time and the ruin of the individual. We need at least 90% of the members here to have the balls to post off Drillmans letter to their respective assurance companies. Just imagine if this came to fruition and how things would then pan out.

 

[Drillman]

Another thought has just occurred to me. If as I've been told by the farm assured inspector the majority of the boxes they tick are legal requirements why are we paying to have them ticked when the likes of trading standards will do it at no cost to us?

 

[buffalo_soldier]

It was a nice idea back in the day and worth a try.
Ultimately it hasn't worked for a variety of reasons.

Rather than address this the stakeholders have decided to force some sort of relevance by making it mandatory. Thus annoying all its primary contributors through compliance cost and membership fees.

The only answer I can see is to scrap the current scheme and consult in all sectors on a replacement. If one is needed at all.
Trouble is as an individual there is little to nowt I can do. So I would look to my industry representatives to take this forward. But they are one of the stakeholders so sadly round and round we go.
The only thing I like about RT nowadays is the knowledge that it wont last, as nothing is forever.

 

[Henarar]

But they are one of the stakeholders

Should have a referendum on if they should still support it that's if there was any democracy in the job which there isn't, it would frighten them to death to let there members vote on anything like that, it may upset the cushy little apple cart

 

[Kidds]

it may upset the cushy little apple cart

There's nowt cushy about being an apple cart, I can tell you that.
I can also tell you I am already upset!

 

[Henarar]

There's nowt cushy about being an apple cart, I can tell you that.
I can also tell you I am already upset!

Sorry to hear that

 

[cudota]

Can a vote be set up at the top of the page like at election time

 

[Drillman]

must admit when it first came in for grain it was sensible stuff like checking that broken glass from lights didn't get in the grain etc. unfortunately it's turned into a box ticking exercise for jobsworths and needs a major rethink. Especially as all the money we pump into farm assurance isn't been returned by better prices. Mainly through a lack of marketing on there part.

 

[gone up the hill]

I have spent half the day in a long meeting and many issues were discussed including farm assurance/ the RT company, it seems that the problem for the RT company is that they have a limited income so hence cant afford to advertise the logo and what it stands for to the consumer, they believe that the job of promoting it should be in the hands of the supermarkets ( who clearly are not promoting what it stands for ),

My reply was that as the RT company own the RT logo then they should charge the supermarkets a fee per year to use it and that money could be put forward to promote it to the consumer aka the shopper and if they dont pay up they cannot use the logo and then the RT company/ NFU etc should run a PR campaign to say that such and such supermarket wont pay to use the logo so hence are not supporting British farms and as supermarkets hate bad PR they would soon back down and stump up!!

Hence to say it was agreed that was a very valid point!

Ref the Farm assurance inspectors, all the ones that I have had come on the farm have been decent chaps, who were sensible about things and people that you can work with.

 

[Farmer T]

I have spent half the day in a long meeting and many issues were discussed including farm assurance/ the RT company, it seems that the problem for the RT company is that they have a limited income so hence cant afford to advertise the logo and what it stands for to the consumer, they believe that the job of promoting it should be in the hands of the supermarkets ( who clearly are not promoting what it stands for ),

My reply was that as the RT company own the RT logo then they should charge the supermarkets a fee per year to use it and that money could be put forward to promote it to the consumer aka the shopper and if they dont pay up they cannot use the logo and then the RT company/ NFU etc should run a PR campaign to say that such and such supermarket wont pay to use the logo so hence are not supporting British farms and as supermarkets hate bad PR they would soon back down and stump up!!

Hence to say it was agreed that was a very valid point!

Ref the Farm assurance inspectors, all the ones that I have had come on the farm have been decent chaps, who were sensible about things and people that you can work with.

It's a good paper idea but I think that's as far as it could go.

It's a chicken and egg position! The RT means nothing as we haven't let the public know what it stands for therefore why would the supermarkets make a business decision by paying for it when their customer has no idea what it is.

The RT has 60,000 members. Say an average of £200/ year that's £12 million a year. I know it's not a lot in advertising cost but I'm betting £6 million plus goes on admin and board members pay.

 

[richard hammond]

It's a good paper idea but I think that's as far as it could go.

It's a chicken and egg position! The RT means nothing as we haven't let the public know what it stands for therefore why would the supermarkets make a business decision by paying for it when their customer has no idea what it is.

The RT has 60,000 members. Say an average of £200/ year that's £12 million a year. I know it's not a lot in advertising cost but I'm betting £6 million plus goes on admin and board members pay.

I was suprised to be advised that RT are insisting on completion of the Soil Protection Review to comply with their standards.
If its not one its the other, when they say jump., We say how high!!

 

[gone up the hill]

It's a good paper idea but I think that's as far as it could go.

It's a chicken and egg position! The RT means nothing as we haven't let the public know what it stands for therefore why would the supermarkets make a business decision by paying for it when their customer has no idea what it is.

The RT has 60,000 members. Say an average of £200/ year that's £12 million a year. I know it's not a lot in advertising cost but I'm betting £6 million plus goes on admin and board members pay.

The supermarkets would pay as they hate bad PR so if they couldn't use the logo it would imply they don't support British farmers and their meat/ milk etc is not British..

Why should we let the supermarkets use a logo that they haven't paid money for the right to use it!!

 

[Kidds]

Do Sainsbury's use the RT logo?

 

[gone up the hill]

Do Sainsbury's use the RT logo?

Not on meat, not sure on ready meals.

 

[Kidds]

Not on meat, not sure on ready meals.

I didn't think they did.
As this is the case I hardly see the other supermarkets wanting to pay to use it. I think it would just be the end of the RT "brand" and not sure if that is a good or bad thing.

 

[gone up the hill]

I didn't think they did.
As this is the case I hardly see the other supermarkets wanting to pay to use it. I think it would just be the end of the RT "brand" and not sure if that is a good or bad thing.

If it was replaced with a farmer owned and run brand that is properly advertised to the consumer aka about what it stands for/ is about to the shopper so they seek it ut when buying their meat/ produce etc then it would be a good thing!

 

[The Ruminant]

The supermarkets would pay as they hate bad PR so if they couldn't use the logo it would imply they don't support British farmers and their meat/ milk etc is not British..

Why should we let the supermarkets use a logo that they haven't paid money for the right to use it!!

I like your idea but I suspect the supermarkets would find a way to put a positive spin on it - something like "we are supporting British farmers by doing x, y and z and are introducing our own standards to support them further and to ensure you, the consumer, gets the best of British produce"..... or words to that effect.

 

[fliss23]

British Beef and Dairy Farmers, please please do my v quick survey on farmer's opinions on assurance schemes!
for a dissertation student in need of help! https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1K5OpRVQC3A8bIBnLv24dly1j5nAZ7CQ1Wx8GRqbCJF8/viewform