INDUSTRY IN REVIEW

By Don McCurdy

Apples and Grapefruit

A recent Newsweek article discussed the time frame for placing a complaint against an Uber driver and a Washington D.C. taxicab driver. Granted, Uber has a much more sophisticated driver rating system than any I’ve seen. However, you’re still dealing with the company. The complaint is filed against the UBER driver by way of the company as it would be vs. a taxicab driver.

UBER's rating system is based on five stars. If an UBER driver's rating falls below 4.6 then he or she may be asked to leave UBER employment. The process may take weeks but, at times, a few months. On the other hand, it will take years for a complaint to be registered against a taxicab driver in Washington, D.C.

The DC taxicab driver version of the story is reporting that complaints v. UBER, apparently, need to be filed with a governmental authority for action and not simply managed on the company level in order to provide a fair hearing to the complaining party. During my years in the industry I’ve heard complaints ranging from the mundane to the insane, but the complaints were managed at the company level, not the government level. The government was not involved in the process.

While it makes a great Uber puff piece, the comparison of company to government response times is grossly unfair. On the surface the article appears to be informative, but the real information that gets somewhat lost is that you are comparing government to private industry. Private industry will always perform better than government controlled business/industry. I have yet to see a case where government won that race.

At the same time, however, cities are able to perform reasonably as in the matter at hand. In New York City, for example, passenger complaints are heard by the NYC Taxi Limousine Commission Taxi Court within weeks of a complaint filing.

In this Washington, D.C. matter, however, the question is whether complaints filed against UBER drivers in Washington, D.C. receive the same scrutiny as they would if they were heard in a governmental hearing as in New York City? Probably not.

Maybe tomorrow!

Reports are that the court of appeals has said that the city of New York does have the authority to specify what kind of vehicle the “taxi of tomorrow” will be. One of the knocks on the vehicle selected, the Toyota NV200, was that it was not wheel chair accessible. The company has since made a version that is wheel chair accessible to improve their status with the handicapped community.

The current complaint is reported to be that it loads from the rear instead of the side which “exposes the passenger to traffic.” Structurally, a rear loader is more stable than a side loader and we had no “exposure” incidents during our time using rear loaders. According to reports, the Greater New York Taxi Association is not going to appeal the decision.

Level playing field?

Uber, et al, and the taxicab drivers of Atlanta are both wanting “a level playing field.” Ever notice how the same phrase can mean something different to different groups? Well, Uber’s complaint is unequal treatment at the airport and the taxicab driver’s complaint is unequal treatment on the earth. Slight difference.

Uber’s claim is that they’re not allowed the access to the airport that taxicabs have and taxicab driver’s complaints are that Uber doesn’t have to abide by the taxicab regulations. Similar sounding phrase but vastly different. The complaint around the nation is that Uber provides essentially the same service, in selected areas, as the taxicabs but doesn’t have to abide by the same rules.

It’s pretty funny hearing Uber complain about not getting a level playing field. They have a major advantage already with little or no regulation. So, when you hear Uber utter the phrase “level playing field” take it to heart that what they really mean is that they want an Uber playing field.

Just in time.

Reports out of Philadelphia are that the Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA) is rolling out a fleet of wheelchair accessible cabs. Reports are that the PPA initially attempted to set the opening bid for the wheelchair accessible taxicab medallions at $450,000 but ended up selling them for $50,000. Hey, what does a number matter?

The new vehicles started hitting the streets with a target of 150 by 2020. New regulations are reportedly proposed by the PPA that will require new vehicles be brought into service to be wheelchair accessible and that they have less than 500 miles on them when brought into service. Combine that with some competition from Uber and that ought to just about wrap it up for the taxicab industry.

No wonder they’re called the parking authority. Their mission appears to be parking a bunch of taxicabs. Give it a couple more years of PPA’s stellar regulations and they’ll be paying you $50,000 to take the medallion.

Can’t get enough.

Well, all of the crooked political deals are catching up to Chicago and one alderman is reported to be recommending a $1 surcharge on all taxicab rides to cover the city’s 30 billion dollar pension crisis. So, let’s see, the mayor stiffed the drivers on a fare increase but now the drivers are wanted to be tax collectors for the city? To level the playing field the alderman is proposing a $1 a ride surcharge on “shared ride” service trips also.

How about a $5 a week kickback from each pensioner that is contributing to the budget shortfall or perhaps a 50% cut in pay for the city aldermen who have put the city in such a precarious financial situation in the first place? The corruption between the public sector unions and city leaders throughout the country have cities on the verge of bankruptcy.

Union friendly city and state officials have negotiated unsustainable pension plans that they wouldn’t be around to suffer the consequences of. Now, they want a group that received zero benefit from such contracts to be the tax collectors for their boondoggle. Yeah, you sure can’t get enough good government.

Ostensible Employee.

Reports out of San Francisco are that a jury has found Yellow Cab liable in a traffic accident that one of its drivers had with a passenger on board. The passenger was severely injured and was awarded 8 million dollars.

The jury stated that the driver was not an employee of Yellow Cab but was an “ostensible employee,” meaning that the driver appeared to be an employee of the company to outside observers. With a price tag of $8 million the case will most assuredly be appealed. If the case makes it to the Supreme Court the protection of independent contractor status taxicab companies have enjoyed may well be negated.

An adverse ruling on the independent contractor status of the drivers and liability of the company could put companies nationwide at risk for amounts well in excess of their insurance. Uber and Lyft are also potentially at risk of losing their driver’s independent contractor status, though they are quick to point out the differences between themselves and taxicabs. Interestingly, some of the same talking points Uber uses to explain away their liability are exactly the same as Yellow Cab used in its defense. Time will tell. n

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

—dmc

© 2015 TLC Magazine Online, Inc.