|
|
INDUSTRY IN REVIEWBy Don McCurdyThat was quick. Last August, we all read with optimism the great news that all DC cabs would be outfitted with credit card equipment preferably working by the end of 2013. Who could have foreseen that there would be delays? Well, okay, anybody breathing. At least the writer of the newspaper article got it right, the request for delay is a function of the lack of desire to accept credit cards, not the availability of equipment. If nothing else, taxicab drivers are consistent. With credit cards comes the inevitable paper trail that exposes the driver to the realities of the tax man. So much for sending money back home. There is an enormous underground economy here in the US, and it's not limited to taxicab drivers. The government appears to be doing little or nothing to correct the situation. I know we're all supposed to be paying our fair share. Would that be fare share for taxicab drivers? Nothing seems to be amounting to much of a share. Credit cards leave a paper trail along with the percentage the driver has to pay. So, the longer it can be delayed the better for somebody. The story fails to mention the lost revenue for the government from unpaid taxes, but it sure does tug at the heart strings of those poor drivers. I get an outstanding rate at my small company and end up paying between six and eight hundred a month for the privilege of accepting credit cards. Can I get a sympathy piece written about my cost of doing business?
Actually, we have several winners and several losers. It seems when the Charlotte Mecklenburg Airport started limiting the number of companies with access to the airport they created a list of both winners and losers. While the article was sympathetic to the plight of the companies not granted access, it made me wonder why that is? If a company is licensed by the city why would it not be allowed access to city property to service potential customers? Why is it that drivers end up paying a huge fee to the company for the "right" to access city property to ply their trade? Well, the short answer is money. Passenger pays the driver, driver pays the company, company pays the airport. Those willing to pay the piper get to dance, those who can't, won't. Don't pay the piper, don't get to dance. Pretty simple. More and more government entities, city state federal and even airport authorities, make up rules and regulations that make it easier and more convenient to get the wool off dem sheep. Ultimately, we are the sheep, the passengers. This "fee" paid by the companies to the airport is simply a hidden tax slapped on by a government entity. Why are some excluded? Well, it's much simpler to get the money from three companies rather than eight companies, or fifty companies. Many airports only use one company. As long as we don't get confused that somehow this is a "customer service" issue instead of an easier way to tax issue then the answers all seem pretty logical.
Colorado has some interesting laws governing taxicabs. First, they're regulated by the Public Utility Commission. Second, regardless of the law or the intent of the law, the judges seem to do whatever they please when it comes to regulating the industry. The entire Mile High Cab debacle is a clear example of judicial over reach and outright protectionism. Now it comes that a judge is recommending laws to regulate the industry that will, in effect, further limit transportation options to the good citizens of Colorado. The "other device for calculating any component of rates charged based upon time and mileage" phrase suggested by Administrative Law Judge Harris Adams, is clearly aimed at Uber who middles transportation services between customers and licensed operators pretty much nationwide. Is that what judges do in this new world we seem to be creating, suggest laws limiting competition? Seems to me that the recall idea going on in Colorado needs to expand its horizons. Time to kick some cronies to the curb and find some candidates that serve the people's interests.
Recently, I read a statistic published by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) and wondered exactly how they figured out this valuable information. I wondered if the stat reported actually reflected the entire story or just a cherry picked statistic from a group of statistics designed to further an agenda. Now, I try pretty hard not to be a conspiracy theorist, but when the government changes the unemployment rate to a "survey" instead of a real statistic and comes up with a rosy unemployment number, when the work force has shrunk to 1978 size, you have to wonder, are all government statistics garbage? Well, maybe not, but a lot of them appear to be designed to help us understand what a great job the government is doing. Uh huh. Regulators don't like Uber. The stats presented by the regulators indicate Uber isn't a panacea for drivers. What a mind numbing coincidence. I guess the absence of geographic, time and car service data was just poor reporting on the part of media. Perhaps not. Anyone with any time in the industry knows that a central business district request is considerably more likely not to load than a request in a less taxi populated area. Was the 117k requests all of the requests, or just the ones that were chosen to be mentioned? Were the bulk of these "no loads" in Manhattan or is the rate generic city wide? Who knows.
Further statistics available show that only 26% of the taxicab riding customers know that a NYC taxicab drivers averages only $130 per shift. Really, yawn. That's interesting. Is that the compelling reason to put the computer screens in the back of taxicabs, for passenger surveys? I grasp the idea of regulations being important, but how much regulation is regulation for safety sake and how much regulation is regulation for regulation's sake? When I read of proposed changes in regulations and the why of the proposals I have to wonder if the purpose of regulation is to further the industry or just a bit of tinkering because they can.
Ever hear one of those recordings where all calls are recorded "for training purposes?" Of course you have. Well, perhaps Ahmed Egal, former driver for Broadway Cab in Portland should have considered recording his trips, "for training purposes." Ahmed recently had his taxi permit revoked for dropping off some passengers on the interstate. Oops. Ahmed compounded his problem by stone walling the city investigator by not understanding that they have the authority to punch his ticket. Broadway GM Raye Miles, whom I have met and seems perfectly reasonable, conducted an investigation and was surprised that Ahmed had refused to talk to the city investigators. Ms. Miles is reported to have stated that Ahmed "had a story to tell." The passengers in question claimed to be "showing affection" to her partner when the driver started making "inappropriate comments." Now, I've carried some intoxicated, which the driver claimed, alternative lifestyle folks of both genders, and it can sometimes get quite steamy inside a cab when "showing affection" affection gets started. Couple that with the probable religion of Ahmed and an interior recording of the cab may have afforded an opportunity "for training purposes." I highly recommend to drivers that all conversation in taxicabs be recorded for their protection, but audio and video would be preferable with proper marking. I have heard much tape of conversations that sounded nothing like what the passenger claimed.
Now, you know that I rarely comment on overseas taxicab issues, but a recent article from Harare, Zimbabwe brought to mind the NYC feel good regulations regarding potential "sex workers." Harare city council is considering a discounted fare structure for women in short skirts. The idea is that offering a discounted fare for "provocatively dressed" women will get them home faster and help prevent them from getting sexually assaulted. Nope, I did not make of that up.
|