It is currently illegal for taxi companies to charge drivers for cashing credit card slips. Period.
Illegal? So what?
The illegality of credit card charges means little to the hundreds of cab drivers who are forced to pay fees as high as 10% or 12% to get cash back for their receipts.
Taxi Services Enforcement and Legal Affairs Manager Jarvis Murray, in fact, is looking into complaints against various taxicab companies for charging their drivers fees to cash their receipts.
Jarvis said that it is an ongoing investigation so he couldn't give me the names. But he did say that Luxor Cab, Yellow Cab and Green Cab do not charge for cashing the slips.
In any case, the anonymity of the offending companies will end soon.
At the last TAC meeting Councilor John Lazar of Luxor Cab insisted that Director Christiane Hayashi provide the names of these companies to the council and she agreed to do so at the Monday 3-14-11 meeting.
As a preview, I've been told by drivers that Royal, Town Taxi and Checker have all been charging 10% for the service.
At Checker, drivers go to a shed on the property where a Russian speaking woman cashes the receipts. Royal drivers were being sent to the same shed but rumor has it that Royal isn't using her services anymore. Town Taxi has recently reduced it's charge from 10% to 5%. Regent Cab, the other hand, discourages it's drivers from taking credit cards - also a violation of the rules.
Since the fees from the credit card companies are usually 3% or less, the Taxi companies are making themselves a hefty profit from these exchanges - with the money, of course, being taken from working drivers.
Many drivers simply don't take credit cards for this reason, putting themselves at risk for citations and and annoying the public.
Tmw - The new backseat terminals and legal charges.
Showing posts with label Jarvis Murray. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jarvis Murray. Show all posts
Friday, March 11, 2011
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Airport Commission Nixes Airport Plan
President of the San Francisco Airport Commission, Larry Mazzola, sent the Airport's plan to end shorts back to the drawing board after listening to airport and MTA spokesmen as well as seventeen members of the public.
Tyg McCoy, Deputy Airport Director, presented the plan saying that the airport had worked together with a committee of twelve people from all aspects of the taxi industry to formulate the plan which would pay cab drivers a minimum of $17 for all rides, pass $3 of the $4 airport fee back to the drivers, and eliminate shorts. He said that, although there were numerous ideas floated during the committee meetings, the "vast majority" of the drivers were behind the SFO plan.
Linda S. Crayton, Vice President of Airport Commission, asked him if he'd done a survey of the taxi drivers. He said that he hadn't but felt confident that the plan had a broad consensus in its favor.
Then, during public comment, all 17 of the speakers trashed the plan. Medallion holder and advertising star Brad Newsham, even threatened to lead a strike against the SFO on February 5, 2010 if the plan went into effect on February 1st.
The opposition to the plan was not a case of one group organizing a protest but rather a true consensus of the real "vast majority" of the industry. Speakers against the airport's plan included: members of the United Taxicab Workers, the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association and the Medallion Holders Association as well as Marty Smith, who is a manager at Luxor Cab, and myself.
Among the reasons given for attacking the plan were:
Tyg McCoy, Deputy Airport Director, presented the plan saying that the airport had worked together with a committee of twelve people from all aspects of the taxi industry to formulate the plan which would pay cab drivers a minimum of $17 for all rides, pass $3 of the $4 airport fee back to the drivers, and eliminate shorts. He said that, although there were numerous ideas floated during the committee meetings, the "vast majority" of the drivers were behind the SFO plan.
Linda S. Crayton, Vice President of Airport Commission, asked him if he'd done a survey of the taxi drivers. He said that he hadn't but felt confident that the plan had a broad consensus in its favor.
Then, during public comment, all 17 of the speakers trashed the plan. Medallion holder and advertising star Brad Newsham, even threatened to lead a strike against the SFO on February 5, 2010 if the plan went into effect on February 1st.
The opposition to the plan was not a case of one group organizing a protest but rather a true consensus of the real "vast majority" of the industry. Speakers against the airport's plan included: members of the United Taxicab Workers, the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association and the Medallion Holders Association as well as Marty Smith, who is a manager at Luxor Cab, and myself.
Among the reasons given for attacking the plan were:
- It would drastically reduce driver income.
- It would stop many drivers from working the airport.
- It would thus hurt service to the public.
- It would not stop cab drivers from racing.
President Mazzola, reading the writing on the wall, ended public comment after one hour and instructed McCoy (and presumably us) to come back with a plan that actually had the support of the drivers.
Even Javis Murray of the MTA, who spoke in favor of the plan, told me after the meeting that he and the MTA backed the plan primarily because it would end "time-based shorts." He added that he would back any plan that would stop dangerous driving on the part of cab drivers.
Both Barry Korengold of the SFCDA and medallion holder Murai, who were on the Airport Committee, told me that that the Airport's presentation was misleading.
It sounded, for instance, as if the plan called for a minimum of $17 plus a $3 charge back on the $4 airport fee which would equal $16 (17+3-4) to the driver.
Actually, the plan calls for the $17 figure to include the $3 charge back, meaning that the drivers would only get $13 (17-4). ($13 an hour is approximately how much is costs a cab driver to operate a taxi.)
The SFO also plans to move airport shuttles down to the same level as the cabs thus putting them in direct competition with the taxis. This wasn't mentioned during the presentation and is vehemently opposed by cab drivers.
Most of the people I talked with who attended the Airport Committee meetings felt that (with the exception of McCoy) SFO spokesman negotiated in bad faith and used the committee to create the illusion of a consensus. SFO officials pretended to listen to the drivers and then went ahead with basically the same plan that they started with in the first place.
Korengold and Murai also pointed out the Airport Committee had voted overwhelmingly to support a distance-based short system like they have in New York City - only to have the SFO shoot it down without further discussion.
Both Barry Korengold of the SFCDA and medallion holder Murai, who were on the Airport Committee, told me that that the Airport's presentation was misleading.
It sounded, for instance, as if the plan called for a minimum of $17 plus a $3 charge back on the $4 airport fee which would equal $16 (17+3-4) to the driver.
Actually, the plan calls for the $17 figure to include the $3 charge back, meaning that the drivers would only get $13 (17-4). ($13 an hour is approximately how much is costs a cab driver to operate a taxi.)
The SFO also plans to move airport shuttles down to the same level as the cabs thus putting them in direct competition with the taxis. This wasn't mentioned during the presentation and is vehemently opposed by cab drivers.
Most of the people I talked with who attended the Airport Committee meetings felt that (with the exception of McCoy) SFO spokesman negotiated in bad faith and used the committee to create the illusion of a consensus. SFO officials pretended to listen to the drivers and then went ahead with basically the same plan that they started with in the first place.
Korengold and Murai also pointed out the Airport Committee had voted overwhelmingly to support a distance-based short system like they have in New York City - only to have the SFO shoot it down without further discussion.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Taxi Services Speeds Up the Medallion Applicant Process
Medallion applicants will no longer necessarily have to have a hearing in order to be issued a medallion. In the future the process will go like this:
1. The SFMTA will notify the applicant of the availability of a medallion.
2. They will concurrently post the notices on the SFMTA website and several other places inviting the public to assist in its investigation of the applicant.
3.The applicant will supply proof that he or she is qualified for a medallion.
4. SFMTA investigators will review the materials and decide whether to issue or deny the application for a medallion.
5. If they decide to issue the medallion, a member of public will have 20 business days to protest the issuance and request a hearing.
6. The SFMTA must set the hearing within 60 days.
7. The burden of proof for not issuing the medallion would be on the member of the public.
If, on the other hand, the applicant is denied issuance, he or she has 20 business to request a hearing and the SFMTA must set the hearing within 60 days. The burden of proof would be on the applicant.
These procedural changes were presented by Jarvis Murray (photo, standing) at this week's TAC meeting.
The official explanation is that the change is being made because the hearings have become a bottleneck slowing down the entire process. But I suspect that the ignorance of the taxi business exhibited by many of the hearing officers (an officer at a recent hearing reputedly berated an applicant for NOT playing the airport) may also have had something to do with the decision. Hopefully, with fewer cases to be heard, only officers schooled in the cab business will be presiding from now on.
A Change in the Public Speaking Format
Also at the Taxi Advisory Council meeting, Chairperson Chris Sweis announced a change in the order in which the public will be allowed to speak on an item. Prior to Monday's meeting, the public spoke first. From the last meeting on, the order will now be:
- Reports on a subject will be given.
- The council members will discuss the subject.
- The public will be allowed to comment (without asking specific questions).
- The council members will be allowed to make motions and vote.
The change was made because many members of the public, including myself, felt that they were unable to address a subject properly unless they were given the opportunity to speak after the council members had spoken. And, indeed, I think that the public contributed much more to this weeks discussions than they had in the past.
I also think that Chris Sweis (photo) is to be commended for showing the largeness of mind to change his procedures in order to suit us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)