Driving Instructors Branch of Unite the Union June 2013 | Page 7

remains. The justification for the continued use was because it might dilute the code, as the code is only voluntary how can it possibly dilute something that has no sanctions or penalties for non-compliance. We feel the continued use is dictatorial.

With regards to possible sanction for non-compliance; we realise that due to the very nature of the employment status of driving instructors, there is very little that can be done other than to remove the instructors’ signature from the code.

Drawbacks of Voluntary Codes

While voluntary codes can have significant benefits, they can also have harmful effects when not properly developed and administered.

•Poorly designed or implemented codes can frustrate or mislead. As well, codes not backed by action can have legal consequences under deceptive advertising regulations and through contract and tort law actions.

•Poorly designed or implemented codes can bring negative publicity and lead to loss of business that can be difficult to recoup.

•Codes that raise expectations but do not deliver can have a negative impact on any industry.

•Codes that are poorly designed can be anti-competitive.

•Codes should not create barriers to trade. A poorly designed code could.

•Codes can create an “uneven playing field.”

•Consumers can develop a false sense of security about the characteristics of a service that is not actually the subject of a code. As well, firms that do conform may be penalised: they may have to bear unrecoverable costs associated with adhering to the codes and could be tainted by the non-compliance of others.

•The development and implementation of voluntary codes may not be sufficiently transparent and inclusive

Codes should have unanimous support from industry leaders, before it is presented to rank and file members, this way the code has the greatest chance of being accepting if it does not have unanimous support it is doomed to failure.

CoP for employees are easy to apply and enforce, CoP for the self employed are more difficult to implement.

CoP for employees are easy to apply and enforce, CoP for the self employed are more difficult to implement. The self employed a strictly governed by a plethora of regulations. Any CoP would take second place behind any legal requirement to operate the business in line with current regulations.

CoP should have built into them a structured conciliation process that is transparent. A conciliation process should be conducted by the industry and not a regulator. With all voluntary codes either party can refuse to comply with conciliation and any result would not be binding on either party. As the conciliation process should be conducted by the industry, who pays for this? In a self employed situation the problem is exasperated.

This is why imposing CoP on the self employed is fraught with problems.

I quote from above “should have unanimous support from industry leaders before it is presented to rank and file members” This draft does not have unanimous support.

The current draft has still to be assessed by the legal department at Unite the Union, but our members’ opinions to date reject this draft.

We at Dib-Unite feel that this draft has not been approved by consultation with associations’ membership; it has been approved by committee.

Considering the take up of the existing code of practice I see this going the same way. There is very little support from the rank and file ADI’s for a code of practice.