Same old story.
Reports out of Austin Texas are that the city is proposing 405 new permits to operate a taxicab. The Taxi Driver’s Association of Austin is reported to want to form a co-op with the permits, or at least have them justified by the companies before issue.
The franchise owners are against that idea, of course, and claim that it would “suspend social justice for the vast majority of professional taxi drivers who live, work and vote in Austin.”
Really? First off, in my opinion, “social justice” is a great sounding phrase that means nothing. Now, if you want to talk about “equal justice”, sign me up. If you really want equal justice for taxicab drivers give the permits directly to them.
For decades owning a taxicab franchise in Austin has been the equivalent of getting a license to print money. Drivers cannot be truly independent because they have to work at one of the three franchises. Easy for regulation, but hardly worthwhile for drivers who work exclusively at the airport or have developed a substantial amount of personal business.
Let the drivers decide who has the best “value added” service by allowing them to affiliate with whatever company provides the services they choose, or none at all, providing they measure up to the city’s standards. I’m sure that would easily fit into the franchise holders “social justice.”
Issuing the permits to a new “co-op” franchise would simply give the drivers a wider selection of masters to choose from rather than allowing them to choose a service they desire, or none at all.
Oh, is that all?
A recent article on a public relations website points up that the taxicab industry now has to compete with Uber and for the first time, compete. It then goes on to say that what the industry really needs is a major PR campaign to help it compete.
Oh, really? You can sell a bag of dung as pasture scented potpourri with a great advertising campaign, once. Without quality control and response to customers concerns once is all you are likely to get.
Yes, public relations is an aspect of the overall picture, but if you continue to view paying the lease as the only criteria for a quality driver you’ll continue to lose market share. A great PR campaign can get people to try your product, but if your product is not a good one the positive benefit won’t last.
Yes, we are in Kansas, Toto.
Nothing will make a politician wet their pants faster than hate mail from the public. In a “compromise” move, the Kansas legislature approved legislation reported to compel Uber to tell drivers if there is a lien on their vehicle they have to get comprehensive auto insurance. It is reported that it is then up to the driver to actually purchase the insurance. No background checks are going to be required although it does mandate that Uber is not allowed to hire convicted felons.
I would submit that every reason any regulatory body ever had to regulate taxicabs was just thrown out the window by the Kansas legislature because of public complaints. Since Uber can generate an outcry and taxicabs can’t, Uber is not regulated and taxicabs are. Makes perfect sense to me.
So, what is the difference?
An article out of Miami lamented the fact that Uber and Lyft are operating illegally due to the legislature not acting on legislation authorizing their activity. In the article, a young lady said she had never taken a cab in the fifteen years she lived in the city but has ridden with Lyft twice. So, what is the difference between the two?
Well, taxicabs have a poor reputation and Lyft et al are new and shiny. The reality is that there are considerably more regulations on taxicabs then there are on the “ride sharing” services. Consequently, the ride sharing services can operate independently responding to what works in various markets, while taxicabs are chained to the anachronistic regulations that compel certain behaviors.
While Lyft et al are not required to work neighborhoods considered high crime, or under served as politicians say, taxicab drivers are. While you have to give credit card information in advance of a Lyft et al trip you don’t with a taxicab. In fact, you can be completely anonymous in a taxicab by simply paying cash.
Great, except that if you have cash the driver is eligible to be robbed of that cash or assaulted by someone not wanting to pay the cash or they may simply jump out and run when it is time to pay. In my mind that would make the taxicab driver due just a little more respect for their willingness to take on those extra dangers.
Similarly, customers pick an anonymous driver when they flag down a taxicab, but they know that the driver and vehicle has been licensed by the local regulatory body. So, are the two different? Yes, they are. Lyft et al aren’t going to replace the taxicab until they accept cash which hopefully won’t happen, or taxicabs only take plastic which I doubt will happen.
I’m sure the IRS will be happier with Lyft et al drivers since their income is absolutely traceable and taxicab drivers, well, not so much. There are certainly other differences which the “ride sharing” services tout, but every other advantage can be matched with proper attention by the taxicab industry.
Taxicab drivers in Broward county are required to pass background checks and take a five day course that Lyft management is reported to deem as “too onerous.” Amazing, that’s exactly what taxicab companies have said of government regulations when they were initially proposed.
What ADA?
An article out of Lincoln Nebraska reports that wheelchair riders are somewhat upset that Uber and Lyft are not providing wheelchair transportation as prescribed in the Americans with Disabilities Act. The article has the usual complaints about slow response times of taxicabs during peak times, but it also made another interesting statement.
The article’s statement that applying nondiscrimination legislation would “undo that competitive advantage and make the services less practical, or even impossible to provide while still turning a profit,” really brought home how regulation can affect a business.
In similar cases reported in the Daily Beast, Uber claims the ADA doesn’t apply to them because they are not a taxicab company and don’t have a “fleet of drivers.” Uber is currently being sued in several states so the issue should be coming to a head shortly.
Uber drivers are also reported to be refusing service animals which is an entirely separate matter to wheelchair service since no special equipment is required. It will be interesting to see if Uber can beat the rap on this as easily as it seems to on other regulations.
The one problem with the ADA is that it’s federal and federal bureaucrats are considerably less inclined to respond to a public outcry.
I’ll sue!
DC drivers are doing just that. Reports are that the district’s taxicab drivers have had enough. They claim that the city has created an “irrational, two tiered regulatory system”, re: rideshare companies. It’s pretty hard to deny that the two services provide essentially the same service but operate under two different sets of rules.
It’s a pretty safe bet that I won’t be on the jury, but it will be interesting to hear the city explain away the idea that Uber is not providing an on demand service dissimilar enough to taxicabs to not be under the same regulations.
If you have any comments regarding this or any of my articles please feel free to contact me at don@mcacres.com.
—dmc
