INDUSTRY IN REVIEW

by Don McCurdy

Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time.

It seems that Las Vegas strip clubs are starting to feel the pinch in the bidding war for suckers, er, I mean customers. The initial corruption of bribing taxicab drivers for "customers" delivered to their doors seemed like small potatoes to strip clubs years ago, but now it's gotten to the point that a couple of the clubs have started whining to the courts that the Nevada Taxi Authority isn't enforcing the existing laws which are supposed to control this sort of thing. The fact of the matter is that this issue was cussed and discussed a few years back and pretty much forgotten. I predict it will again this time.

The clubs now complain that the "kickbacks, bribes, extortion, tips" (depending on who is telling the story) are costing them millions while the drivers whine that it's the limo drivers and doormen conspiring to cheat the taxi driver out of what is rightfully his. The entire thing would be laughable if it wasn't so downright sad, each thief whining that the other thief is getting the goods.

In my not so humble opinion it's a situation that was created when the first strip club paid the first driver the first dime. Now the expectation has been created and the clubs find themselves trapped in their own graft. Oops. The drivers, who certainly aren't blameless here, now demand that the graft continue, or else. Or else what? They'll close down the city.

Let me see if I understand what you're saying here, if the city, state, court or whoever won't allow us to extort money from strip clubs we're going to shut down the city? It's good that I'm not connected to the Taxicab Authority in any way or there would be a lot of ex-taxicab drivers in Las Vegas. The fact of the matter is that the Taxicab Authority has allowed the taxicab industry to be prostituted by the strip clubs with the corruption being spread to the limousine industry and, of course, the ever present hand out, the doorman.

The solution is really pretty simple. In my opinion, the Taxicab Authority needs to return the taxicab and limousine industries to those thrilling days of yesteryear when they provided transportation. If the drivers want to be pimps or shills for the strip clubs let them hire on as that and stop pretending they're taxicab drivers. All you really have to do is set the fine at $10,000 per infraction for the driver, the club, and the doorman and I could have the problem solved for you in a couple of months. Well, for half the take, of course.

Strike, Strike, Strike!

Well, it came and went so fast it's hard to say what happened. The big strike that is. Ok, so they had another big strike in Chicago and still nobody noticed. The United Taxidrivers Community Council (UTCC) spokesman said that the drivers were "sending a message to the city". Well, if the message was "we're a bunch of clowns who don't have our act together" it looks like there's a pretty good chance the message got through. Not only did the UTCC strike, but they threatened another strike if they don't get a 16% raise by January 1st.

You can't even say these boys got Bloomberged, Mayor Daley didn't even mention the strike or what the city's strategy to "survive" it might be. Well, you know what Mae West said, "the only thing worse than people talking about you is people not talking about you".

It pretty much goes without saying that the taxicab drivers in Chicago have some legitimate complaints. Instead of a legit fare increase to cover the legitimate cost of a living increase the city gives the drivers a bogus "fuel surcharge" that evaporated when the price of gas went down. Don't get me wrong, the price of gas going down is a big deal for cab drivers, but that doesn't mean their rent went down, or the cost of car repairs, or the cost of food for their families. Meanwhile, the "visionaries" running the UTCC might consider getting their heads in a bit better position to see their way forward.

Finally, somebody is doing something!

Well, ok, it's sort of something. The Palm Springs, California city council passed a passenger bill of rights. Oooo. They're also going to have "undercover passengers". All good stuff, but what about the flip side of the equation? Does the city give the driver a bill of rights? For instance, is the driver required to take verbal abuse? If so, how much? Does the driver have to clean up after drunks for free? Is the driver allowed to ask for a deposit? Does the city council of Palm Springs have any clue what drivers go through out there on the streets? Do they even care?

It all sounds real good when you hear about the "passenger's bill of rights", but a substantial portion of the story is going untold. Yes, most of the "bill of rights" were rather obvious, but if their version of the "undercover passenger" is as anti-driver as "Operation Refusal" the good city needs to rethink their driver's "rights" since courts have ruled that drivers actually have those and they cannot be taken away by city councils. But, hey, it sure does feel good.

Deeply troubling, deeply.

In what can only be described as a Bloomberg moment Mayor Michael Bloomberg is reported to have stated "I think it's more deeply troubling that they're trying to kill our kids" when he found out that critics of his latest proposal to ram hybrids down the taxi industry's throat were "deeply troubled". Kill our kids? Come on Mikey, don't you think that you might be overstating your case just a teeny weenie little bit? Let's look at the facts:

Mikey said yes
court said no
now Mikey's ego
can't let go.

I wonder if there are any rappers in the New York City taxi industry? One would have to wonder what the mayor might think if someone tried to run his business the same way he wants to run the taxi business? Frankly, I'm shocked that the mayor has not decided to ban taxicabs altogether since they're killing our kids.

It never ceases to amaze me at what exactly politicians will try to get us to believe to promote what they want. I'm thinking that it's not necessarily a bad thing that New York City has term limits since it's obvious some things in New York have no limits. Perhaps, the good citizens of New York City might consider Bill Clinton, at least he didn't inhale.

Meanwhile on the west coast . . .

A recent press release, ok, I don't normally cover press releases, announced that Administrative Services CO-OP (ASC) signed a deal with a compressed natural gas provider to expand their fleet of natural gas burning taxicabs.

ASC operates four other taxi companies in the Los Angeles area — Los Angeles Yellow Cab, South Bay Yellow Cab, Fiesta Taxi, and United Checker Cab. It has been reported that Funding for the new CNG cabs was provided by a grant from the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee and the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

Now, let me see if I can get a quick handle on this deal. We're all looking to provide cleaner air so we aren't "killing our kids". Well, ok maybe a few polar bears right now and our great grand kids later. Whatever, the point is that we all want cleaner air. So the next question is do we club private industry into submission or do we entice them with funding assistance?

Why is it that some feel that the government should partner with business to achieve results while others believe government should just demand from business? Two stories, two methods and two results. So, I guess the question really is who is "killing our kids", the critics of government excess or our "rulers" who believe that they alone should be deciding how to "save the children"? Down here in Texas we call it catching more flies with honey than with vinegar. I suppose there are some who think the government should just ban flies altogether. That would solve the problem.

I wonder how come I don't get to do that?

The Chattanooga, Tennessee taxi board has denied a request from East Ridge Cab for more taxis. Interestingly enough one of East Ridge's competitors from Millennium Taxi is on the taxi board and his complaint is that it is too hard to get drivers because the requirements are too stiff. Huh? Let me see if I understand the situation completely.

The company with no board member wants more taxis. You would have to wonder why if you can't get drivers, but the company with a board member "wants a study" first. To further sweeten the story one of Millennium's drivers is "on probation" for "theft of under $500" after being videotaped stealing $676 at the local airport. I still have trouble with that new math. That aside, the articles I read failed to mention if the Millennium owner recused himself on any votes that might adversely affect his competition or benefit his drivers. If he didn't, how come I don't get to vote if my competitors get to expand or not?

And we bid a fond adieu.

We'll miss them of course, but it looks like the rush to surcharge is rushing in the other direction. Articles abound announcing the dropping of this or that surcharge which brings me to one of the biggest reasons I have an extreme dislike for surcharges instead of legitimate fare increases.

Yes, it's true that the price of gasoline, one of the many components that make up the cost of operation for a taxicab and nothing else went down. Vehicle maintenance and repairs, insurance, lease, vehicle prices, medallions, and a host of personal items have all increased in price with no relief in sight. How is it then that the various regulatory bodies can only come up with a "surcharge" for gasoline? How about a mortgage surcharge? If not a mortgage surcharge surely a property tax surcharge since we all know that they're never coming down?

Why the myopia with gasoline? The lease most drivers pay to the company is far more than a days worth of gas, even at $4.00 a gallon. How about a lease surcharge? Or, how about an easy mechanism that recognizes that driver's cost are increasing by a measurable amount and each year that a small fare increase is a necessity for drivers to not lose income to inflation? Hey, you work it out for the city staff every year. What's the problem?

—dmc

© 2015 TLC Magazine Online, Inc.