INDUSTRY IN REVIEW

By Don McCurdy

Nothing like a win, win situation.

Well the big strike is over and now we all sit down and try to figure out what we witnessed. News reports vary, as do claims of victory.

"The strike didn't hurt a thing." "Did to." "Did not." "Did to." Ok, so the jury is still out. The real question is still unanswered, what was accomplished? The contested GPS system is still being installed. I do have to admit that the drivers have a point.

Let's all strap a flat screen television on our backs with no volume knob on it and carry it around every day, all day long. Whoever thought up that idea needs to man up and go get his TV. While I shy away from mandates as a general rule, the rest doesn't seem too onerous to me.

The right to privacy line sounds good, but it's routinely argued that a taxicab is a public place when drivers are advocating cameras. As a former business traveler I can tell you that you'll get no points from me refusing credit cards. All that said, where to now?

The strike didn't bring the city to its knees, or the bargaining table. The TWA (Taxi Workers Alliance) is a genuine player despite getting chumped by the Mayor. I wouldn't beat my chest too hard, Mayor, the idea that the strike had little effect is pretty much what we don't like getting on our boots here in Texas.

The point is, yes there is a point, that the city's arrogance in the handling of the driver's concerns came back to haunt the good citizens of NYC. I guess the good citizens of NYC need to figure out who the bad guys are, the TLC with their "like or lump it" attitude or the drivers going slowly out of their minds listening to the same commercials endlessly. I guess the TLC members have never heard of Travis Bickle.

So, what happened in Philly?

Philadelphia's branch of the TWA by all accounts was more successful in jamming up travelers than the NYC gang. So what happened? I mean, why'd they pitch it in early?

When they announced a two day strike I thought it a bold move. Getting cab drivers to stare at long lines of people wanting a cab and not caving would have indicated a level of discipline that I didn't see happening. When on the verge of making it happen they quit. Their spokesman said that they'd "made their point". Really? What might that be? Thankfully I'm not planning strategy for the TWA in either location, but I have to wonder exactly who is? Their complaints are known, their goals are what was too cleverly concealed.

United Steel Workers?

Apparently the Boston Cab drivers are being recruited by the United Steel Workers Union. I won't say it baffles me, but what does cab driving have to do with steel working? What happened to the Teamsters?

During the late 70's the Communications Workers Union tried to organize the drivers in Austin. I thought that was a little weird also but hey, we talked on the radio.

They gave up after a few months and aborted the attempt. There seemed to be an issue with collecting dues on a regular basis. Organizing independent contractors is certainly not for the diffident and seems especially difficult with taxicab drivers.

Drivers will often agree on some items but have trouble with an entire agenda. While I have seen successful organization efforts on a single item I have never seen a group band together on an entire agenda of items. Generally, the organizers have a laundry list of grievances, some of which the drivers like, some of which they don't. That's a lesson I learned in the union organizing exercise.

Newport News gets it done!

Newport News has rewritten their taxicab regulations. The process only took six years. The city manager said they'd been "working diligently" to get the job done. Six years?

One of the real problems with trying to "achieve a consensus" is that all agendas must be soothed which usually ends up with a toothless lion that serves no one. While I am not an advocate of just ramming regulations down the industry's throat, too much capitulation to industry whining leads to ineffective regulation.

If limited or closed industry entry systems are in place it is the duty, in my opinion, of the regulators to qualify and measure acceptable service levels. Open systems allow more for market forces to control the service received. Please, do not interpret this to mean that I am for open entry with no controls over the size or economic viability of new entrants. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Allowing entry for single car or even small car companies, under 25, can fragment a city's taxicab industry into pieces too small to provide meaningful service to residential customers. Past experiences demonstrated that the airport and central business district get well serviced while the residents go wanting. Regardless, congratulations to Newport News. Now you can get down to fixing the unintended consequences of your six year effort.

You can't take it with you.

Even in San Francisco you can't take it with you. Recently, it's been reported that several permit holders have died and yet their permits did not go to the next driver on the list. How can this be you wonder?

Well, as you recall several years ago Proposition K was circumvented when a judge ruled that permits could go to the heir of a permit holder despite the fact that the permit never had the name of the heir on it. Well, that opened the door through which relatives of departed permit holders now wish to walk.

Regardless of the legal questions which the courts will undoubtedly be forced to decide, the failure of the taxi companies to even report the death of the driver bears testament to the state of corruption that exists in the San Francisco taxicab industry.

The voters decided the fate of the city's permits a long time ago. Since that date there have been numerous methods used to circumvent their will. This is but another sad example of the extremes that people will gone to when the industry has insufficient oversight.

The permit should have been handed over to the city where any claims against it could have been examined. The way it was done just makes thee industry managers look like a bunch of crooks, which I'm not entirely convinced isn't true.

They figured it out.

Last month I commented on the sad tale of the little old man that, sniff, the NYC TLC busted operating an illegal cab. This month's comments are about the Los Angles police department's Bandit Taxi Enforcement Program.

It appears that they are on the way to a record number of busts for operating illegal taxicabs. Congratulations. Apparently, several high profile accidents and a rash of complaints motivated the city to action. There were, of course, council members styling and profiling for reporters, but the reality of the situation is that citizens across the country are not being protected by their city councils.

The issue is unimportant or too difficult or there just aren't enough funds or whatever the excuse. It's good to see that somewhere they realize the seriousness of the issue and are taking steps to deal with it. In most cities Charles Manson could be driving an illegal cab and no one would be the wiser.

Would it be that other cities, like say Montreal, understood the problem. Montreal taxi inspectors can't seem to curb illegal taxis, but they do manage to find reasons to ticket those who bring the issue to light. In what appears to be an obvious case of payback the Montreal taxi goon squad has targeted the taxi driver who brought the issue to the fore. You have to wonder if the city of Montreal is as embarrassed as they should be.

Could you define "good condition"?

Recent reports out of Melbourne Australia have regulators there instituting new policies, including driver residency requirements and a 90 hour training course.

Apparently taxicab drivers in Melbourne disagree with what "good condition" means. The real issue was the lax rules required to get a license prior to the implementation of these more stringent guidelines. Allowing anyone to get a license to operate a taxicab indicates the level of respect the public at large has for taxicab drivers.

Melbourne, like a lot of US cities, is attempting to find the right level of regulation. Too little and you have chaos, too much and you put the drivers and companies out of business. There are certainly companies that need to get put out of business, but it's good to have a backup before you push the inefficient or arrogant into the grave.

Testing, testing.

It constantly amazes me that cities "test" security cameras. Well, yeah, they worked in Toronto, but will they work in Kingston, Ontario? Huh? Do you suppose that they tested the internal combustion engine there before mandating it in their cabs?

Ok, so it's true they didn't mandate the internal combustion engine. Let's face the facts. If your city is conducting a "test" of the effectiveness of cameras in preventing attacks they are just plain stalling. Yep, it's true. The company representatives have gotten the city to back off mandating cameras while they conduct a "test".

So what happens if the 3 or 4 cabs that have cameras don't get robbed? Was the "test" a success? What happens if they do get robbed and the criminal's image is captured, is the "test" a success? What exactly would the result have to be for the "test" to be considered a failure?

Let's look it square in the mouth, it's a dodge. It's a delay in the hope against hope that there's some way that we can keep these things from being mandated. I'm not sure which is sadder, the company's disregard for the safety of their drivers or the regulators falling for such an obvious ploy.

It's happening.

Several months ago I suggested that the rights of the blind to travel with their dog and the claimed right of Muslim drivers to refuse to carry seeing eye dogs were bound to clash and end up in court. Not to mention, as predicted, the company was left holding the bag.

The Vancouver taxi company settled with the passenger prior to the B.C. human rights tribunal hearing so the issue really hasn't been settled. Sooner or later the issue will have to go to the courts both in Canada and the US. I guess North shore Taxi saw the $2500 settlement as the best case scenario for them, but it left the issue with no definitive answer. It'll be back.

Who should pay?

A recent rant in the Burbank Leader regarding a surcharge to cover taxi loading expenses leads me to the question, who should pay? The unnamed author thinks it should be the taxi companies. I would speculate that they have no idea how the industry works. Since the company derives its income from the leases and fees paid by the drivers it would simply be passed to the driver to pay the surcharge.

In some cities the driver does pay the fee, in others the passenger pays the fee. Who is receiving the service? It's certainly not the taxi company It's either the driver or the passenger.

The reality of the process is that it generally comes out of the driver's tip if the driver is compelled to collect for the airport. If the passenger has to pay the surcharge prior to getting into the cab it would at least demonstrate to the passenger who is getting the money. Some wrongfully believe that the driver gets the money.

It was long one of my pet peeves that the taxicab driver should not be put in the position of tax collector. If you're going to collect a tax from cab riding airline passengers you should at least have the nerve to collect it yourself.

—dmc

© 2015 TLC Magazine Online, Inc.