INDUSTRY IN REVIEW

By Don McCurdy

Glad I didn't buy any.

The two existing taxicab companies in Monticello, New York are upset. Reportedly, the village has lifted the cap on taxicab permits and, gasp, opened up the market to competition! Both complained that they paid 30k for their medallions and filed a lawsuit demanding 900k from the city, but at least one of them didn't buy their medallions from the city. The article didn't specify if the medallions were purchased from the city for a big sum which would seem to be germane to the discussion. If the city didn't sell them to the companies I don't see them having a case, however, I am not an attorney nor have I played one on television.

Doesn't anybody actually read the law?

Well, according to reports the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) sued Vegas Western Cab Company on behalf of a driver who had one arm amputated and was denied employment at Vegas Western. The company settled for 30k according to reports, but I can't help but wonder why they didn't hire the driver in the first place?

Automatic transmissions and power steering eliminated the need for two arms to drive a long time ago. Surely, a transportation company manager is aware of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). My own experience with handicapped employees is that they are exceptionally loyal and grateful for an opportunity to be self sufficient. I might recommend a local community college for the offending
managers, perhaps, a business law course. I found them quite helpful when expanding my horizons.

Mile High still miles away.

Recent reports out of Denver state that the Mile High Cab case has been referred back to the administrative law judge who has already rejected it. To make the case even more interesting one of Mile High's future competitors is asking the PUC to increase their fleet from 300 to 450, the exact number of permits that Mile High is asking to start up their company. Huh? Aren't these the same competitors that said there are enough cabs on Denver's streets already? If the reports are accurate it would appear that one of Mile High's potential competitors already believes that there is a need for 150 more cabs. If that's the case why is the judge convinced that there are already enough cabs to cover Denver? The case gets more and more entertaining and points up the fallacy of closed entry.

It's never too late.

It's never too late to start believing in free enteprise. In a not so widely publicized story the Des Moines, Iowa City council is considering allowing two new taxicab companies. Somebody must have not been making their political donations. Reports are that Des Moines has been a virtual monopoly for decades with the two current companies having the same owners. Reports of poor service, black balling drivers and generally running poor operations have been circulating in the industry for at least a decade. The surprising part is that it took so long for the city to wake up to their issue. Better late than never. We'll see how it all turns out.

Sometimes "its company policy" just doesn't work out.

It often amazes me how much stupidity can be expressed in the words "its company policy." Consider the case of Freeport New York's Express Valentine Taxi Company driver Roy Sutherland. Company policy is that if a customer doesn't pay the fare then out they go. No big deal, right? Well, if the customer is a 7 year old child with a disability you might just want to consider some other options for what's "company policy."

Roy, who is reported to be 66 years old, should have retired because now he's going to have to pay for an attorney to defend his charges of endangering a child. I can hardly wait to hear how the judge takes the "its company policy" defense. Were I the owner of the company I would divest myself of the driver and anyone he talked to at the company that recommended that he put the 7 year old out of the vehicle. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to be around anyone that stupid.

Imagine that.

Cincinnati is considering a radical new approach to getting a taxicab in the city, flagging. That's correct, Cincinnati is considering allowing customers to actually just flag a cab. How revolutionary! I'd laugh, but there are equally ludicrous "regulations" in cities across the world. Something that no doubt sounded good to some regulator at some point in their existence. I am told that London Bobbies are to hold their capes for drivers having toilet emergencies although I've never actually seen that. Congratulations to Cincinnati though, at least getting some of the garbage off their books.

What would a prudent man do?

No doubt that question will be asked if the situation makes it to court. Recently, in our fair city of Houston, Texas there were two taxicab drivers murdered. Interestingly enough the brain dead morons perpetrating the crimes called both taxicabs to the exact same spot. The issue is that the company, Yellow Cab, didn't inform their drivers of the first murder so the second driver, two days later, had no idea that a driver had been murdered that was called to that exact location. So what would a prudent man do?

Drivers quoted in the article believe that the company should have notified the drivers of the murder in the area allowing them to be more vigilant. We will probably never know if the information not being given to the drivers was intentional or not, but as one of the detectives put it, "I'm sure they are reviewing their procedures." Yellow touted their introduction of in cab cameras which were not mentioned in any of the articles discussing the murders in 2000 which raised the bar on what a prudent man might do to protect their drivers. This incident certainly doesn't appear to raise the bar. I'd settle if it was me, boys.

Same old story.

In what could only be described, at least in my mind, as the same old story it is being reported that Miami wants to put cameras in all taxicabs. Amazingly, the drivers don't want to pay for them. Gasp! Of course they don't want to pay for them, nobody ever does. Reports are that they could cost as much as $4,000. What? The only way a camera system installed in a taxicab could cost that much is if the government got involved in "selecting" a particular system. If there is a single provider then there's no impetus to keep the costs down.

The article I read could easily have been a DC meter article, the arguments were pretty much the same. While I understood the issue in DC I don't understand the issue in Miami. If the driver wants a camera let the driver install one, if not, don't force him. How much simpler could it be? If the driver would rather have a shield, some drivers do prefer a shield, let him, her have a shield. If the driver would rather have a concealed carry permit, let the driver get a concealed carry permit. The point is that it's the driver's safety, let the driver choose what makes him comfortable. Let's not pretend some guy who knows nothing about the industry is in a position to make a better decision than the driver simply because he got elected to the city council.

If you have any comments regarding this or any of my articles please feel free to contact me at dmc@mcacres.com. —dmc