How Demoting Christiane Hayashi Backfired

To briefly summarize:

San Francisco voters approved Proposition K in 1978 which put an end of the sale of taxi medallions.

San Francisco voters passed Proposition A in November 2007 giving the Board of Supervisors the option of transferring the powers of the Taxi Commission to the SFMTA. The Supervisors did so and the SFMTA took over the regulation of the taxi industry on March 1, 2009.

In January of 2009, Mayor Gavin Newsom, who had promised not to put medallions up for sale if Proposition A passed, came out with a plan to take all the taxis medallions away from the current medallion holders and sell them in order to cover San Francisco's $500 million dollar debt.

Chris Hayashi & the Wisdom of Solomon

Director of Taxi Services Christiane Hayashi has had an extraordinary impact on the cab business that goes far beyond anything you might reasonably expect from an administrator.

Her uniqueness become evident to me the first time I saw her at a Medallion Holder Association (MHA) meeting in 2009, shortly after Mayor Gavin Newsom had threatened steal all the taxi medallions and sell them to cover San Francisco's $500 million debt.

What struck me about her was the absolute absence of any sense of snobbery or superiority of rank.

Maybe I can best get my idea across by contrasting her behavior to that of MTA Board Member Bruce Oka who also came to the meeting. Oka was all smiles but he also let us know how important he was. He told us that he was in a hurry and could only stay a little while. He also hinted at inside knowledge of Newsom's plans that he couldn't quite express to us. In short, he acted like people of position usually do when glad-handing the lower classes.

Hayashi, who undoubtedly knew more about Newsom's plans than Oka did, simply sat down next to a few drivers and talked to them like they were fellow human beings. I've rarely seen anybody who held power over others act so modestly.

A Review of the Protests: A Unified Front?

 Ursula, "He's got go anyhow."
Gudrun, "I know - ccertainly he's got go. Unfortunately, where does his go go to?"
                                              D. H. Lawrence Women in Love

Cab driver and medallion holder Brad Newsham (photo, center) has been charged up by the protests at City Hall and by Yellow Cab driver Tariq Mehmood's ability to organize demonstrations.

"Tariq ... has at least tapped the passion of the larger driver body in ways that I, and others, have hoped to do over the years, but at which we have failed miserably," Brad wrote to me in a comment.  "I hope we can use this moment of passion to throw off the MTA's yoke, to reject and demolish their plan to use the cab industry as a cash cow ... And I hope we can find some unity of purpose as we move forward."

Judging from the above and other statements he's made, Brad appears to think that if enough drivers passionately unify to "strike" often enough and loud enough the "yoke" and the "cash cow" will somehow magically disappear.

You'd think the unity of purpose would have to come first. But here are few things more addictive than an adrenalin rush.

I couldn't help but notice, for instance, that a great deal of that "passion"of the last "strike" was directed, not against the SFMTA or their policies, but by one group of drivers against others. Newsham himself (along with fellow protesters like Mark Gruberg and Rua Graffis of the United Taxicab Workers and others) was slammed by Mehmood and his followers for supporting Deputy Director of Taxi Services Christiane Hayashi whom Tariq pathologically hates.

Other drivers were booed by some taxi drivers at the MTA Board meeting following the protests for supporting a plan that had been negotiated by taxi drivers (including a few of the one's doing the booing) at a series of Town Hall Meetings.

In addition, Mehmood and Newsham have diametrically opposed ideas of how the cab business should operate. Brad wants a return to the days of Prop-k when medallion were not sold but given to drivers on a waiting list. Tariq wants open auctions.

A Divided Industry

This is not a business where a word like unity makes much sense. The normal divide between owners and workers is but a hint how split this industry is. There are divisions between:

• Large cab companies and small cab companies.
• Medallion holders and companies.
• Medallion holders who bought their medallion prior to Proposition K (Pre K's) and those who "earned" their medallions (Post-K's).
• New medallion holders who've recently bought their medallions and other medallion holders.
• Medallion holders and non-medallion holding drivers.
• Non-medallion holders who are on the Waiting List to either get a medallion or buy one and non-medallion holders not on the list. 
• Drivers who work for companies with good dispatching services and those who don't.
• Yellow Cab driver Ivonne (photo) and the rest of us.

And none of the above takes into account the interests of the City, the MTA or the general public.

A Short Study in Complexity; or, How Not to Negotiate

MTA Director Malcom Heinicke wanted Peak Time Permits that were run by the taxi companies to be part of a compromise plan to add more cabs to the taxi fleet. This has been talked about for 30 years because it makes sense. There is way too much business for taxis to handle on Friday nights and way too many cabs on the street on Monday nights.

But at the Town Hall Meetings nobody wanted such permits - least of all the taxi companies. Instead the idea of Single Operator Permits (SLP) held sway. The SLP's would serve the same purpose except that they would be operated by cab drivers instead of companies  - specifically drivers who had worked in the industry for a long time but were not yet eligible to earn or buy a medallion.

It seemed like a win win win. More drivers would become their own bosses, there would be no more cabs on the street during slow times and the public would be served by having more taxis when needed.

A group of non-medallion drivers on the Waiting List presented some opposition because they wanted all new cabs to go to them. But the SLP concept was liked by most people at the Town Hall Meetings including Tariq Mehmood. There were different ideas, though, concerning how the SLP's should operate.

Mehmood and his disciples wanted the cabs to be run at fixed times. Most other people at the meetings like the ideal of a more flexible time frame. 

I won't go into the details but the logical thing to do would have been to try one solution and, if that didn't work, to try the other.

What Tariq Mehmood did instead was to take his clique into another room, come back, claim that all nine of his people favored his plan and that they were the majority so the majority should rule.

Other people at the meeting disagreed with them so Mahmood included an attack against Single Operator Permits as part of his "strike."

Enough Protests Already

A major reason for having a protest is to have the Powers-That-Be negotiate with the workers. The SFMTA has indeed done this with a series of Town Hall Meetings.

A more important reason is to get the Powers-That-Be to change their policies. The MTA has done this by: 

• Granting a 20% meter increase.
• Putting an end to the need for waybills.
• Putting Open Taxi Access on the agenda.
• Trying to reduce the 5% credit card fees.
• Re-examining their policy on back-seat terminals.

 On the other hand, it's not realistic to expect anything more than a compromise. The City and the public have their interests too. It's also childish to expect complicated issues to be solved immediately. It might take months to negotiate lower credit card fees, for instance, and (partly because of the constant protests) there hasn't been time to complete a study on the effects on the public of back-seat terminals.

The most recent protest was probably already one too many. The MTA was (and is) already negotiating with the drivers - which is more than any other Power-That-Be has done in the twenty-seven years I've been driving taxis. The one positive - looking into 3% credit card fees - could have been achieved without a protest.

There also were negative aspects to the "strike" that people like Newsham choose to ignore (see next post.)

I have a simple question. In an environment of "passion"as opposed to compromise or thought, in a world where people"strike" over petty details, how does one decide which group of strikers and which policies to support? 

The truth is that it's simply not possible to balance the various interests and solve the complicated problems in this business by honking horns and shouting. 

Next: Perpetual Strikes or the Fine Art of Shooting Yourself in the Foot.

Tariq Mehmood Stages Bitch-In at the SFMTA

Cab driver Tariq Mehmood (photo) doesn't like Director of Taxi Services, Christiane Hayashi. There are two reasons for this: 

1. Hayashi closed the Waiting List to new applicants last year in order to protect the seniority of long time drivers who had not put their names on the list before. Although Mehmood has driven for many years, he never put his name on the list but would be relatively low in seniority. He wanted to jump on the List before it closed and didn't get the chance - meaning that it will be a long time before Tariq will be eligible to own a cab. 

2. She neglected to put Mehmood on the Taxi Advisory Council.

Mehmood has repeatedly and bitterly complained about these things at  numerous SFMTA Board meetings. Last December he tried to make a major issue out of people waiting in line to renew their A-Cards - a problem that Hayashi had already solved as well as she could and one that won't be a problem in the future.

Yesterday, Mehmood finally had his moment in the sun when he led of group of angry, largely misinformed drivers on a rant against credit card charges, electronic waybills and in-cab video cameras.

Although the drivers raised some valid issues that should be considered, the tone of the protest was decidedly irrational and hostile.

At one point, trying to respond to a surge of shouting drivers led by Mehmood, Hayashi backed up against a railing. If she had fallen over the railing, she could have dropped one story and been seriously injured, if not killed.

The irony is that Hayashi has tried to put the back seat terminals and the video camera in for the purpose of helping some of the very drivers who were harassing her.

• Almost half the drivers in San Francisco are already being illegally charged 5% to 10% by Checker Cab, Royal Cab and Town Taxi others. The back seat terminals are intended to put an end to this.
• The PIM's in question are designed to prompt customers to tip large. Hayashi has seen studies showing that passengers who use these units tip 30% more than normal. That is - drivers should make more even after paying the 5% than they would make without the terminals.
• The in-cab video cameras are there to protect the drivers.

The fact is that Chris Hayashi is the biggest driver advocate around. She has written and had legislation passed making tipping and other corrupt taxi company practices illegal. She has written and had legislation passed that will allow Taxi Services to effectively fight illegal limos and taxis for the first time. And, after more than a year of pusing for them, she has finally gotten a couple of investigators to sic on the bad guys.

I would also like to point out for the umteenth time that the Drivers Fund wouldn't exist and the Waiting List would no longer exist had it not been for Hayashi's lobbying on their behalf. Indeed, I doubt that the Pilot Plan would exist had it not been for her extraordinary intelligence, dedication and negotiating skills. 

One other thing - these protesting drivers - many of whom have never been seen at a meeting before - seemed to be thought of the real cab drivers of San Francisco by Malcolm Heinicke. Yet this was clearly an ambush designed by Mehmood and fueled with misinformation and half truths.

How did these guys become more real than those of us who've taken the trouble to be at the various meeting and actually study the text of the proposals in question?

Do they really represent us? Or, do they just fit the "cabbie" stereotype of being loud, unthinking and out of control? 

MTA Board OK's Peak Time Cabs; Supes Spank Cabbies

The MTA Board and the Board of Supervisor both met yesterday and both dealt with similar cab issues - changing and clarifying the transportation code so that it would be easier to stop illegal activities - including doormen selling rides to illegal vehicles and illegal cabs and limos stealing rides from licensed taxicabs in San Francisco.

The legislation had the support of almost everybody in the taxi industry (drivers, owners, managers and medallion holders/drivers). It seemed like no-brainer and, for the MTA, it was. Malcom Heinicke spoke highly of the measure.

The Board of Supervisors, however, had a different take on the subject. Two amendments were added to the legislation by Supervisor Scott Wiener of District 8. One of them called for Taxi Services to report about progress in improving service 4 times a year. The other called for reducing penalties given to illegal limos and cabs from $2,500 to $5,000 down to $1,000.

Directory of Taxi Services, Christiane Hayahsi was unable to attend the meeting because she had jury duty. Attorney Michael Harris was supposed to speak in her place but apparently was unable to do so because the amendments were approved prior to the meeting.

Nothing like transparency, no?

What was the reasoning of Supervisor Wiener and the rest of the Board? The illegal vehicles are supposedly filling a niche and thus doing a public service???

There is more than a bit of irony here:

1. Supervisor Wiener is from the Castro - that's right! The second or third best served district in San Francisco. Cabs flood the area 90% of the time and I've never seem an illegal taxi there. Well ... everyone has their servant problems.
2. The amendment would give tacit support to a group of people who pay no license fees or business taxes and put customers at risk by not being insured. Or, is the paltry $1,000 Wiener's idea of a business tax?
3. The only service I've ever seen illegal taxis and limos do is steal my fares - often with the collusion of doormen who apparently would also have their fines reduced.
4. The only reason illegal cabs and limos have a niche is for the same reason prostitutes do - their expenses are almost non-existant and nobody has systematically gone after them.
5. After backing the amendment, members of the Board spent a fair amount of time urging each other to support low-paid workers of various kinds. Apparently they don't think cab drivers, who are among the lowest paid workers doing one of the most dangerous jobs in the country, are worthy of such consideration.

This isn't a done deal. The proposal with the amendment has to be "read" again at next week's board meeting and then will be voted on the week after that. As I understand it, unless the legislation goes back to a subcommittee, there will be no public comment allowed on the subject.

This might be a good time to remind our respective supervisors that we are not the uncouth, illiterate serfs that they appear to think we are. It might be good to let them know that we are voters - voters who talk to around 15 or 20 other voters each every day. ( The math is 1500 cabs x 2 shifts x 20 = 60,000 potential voters a day.)

Drivers can find the phone numbers and e-mail addresses of their respective supervisors at SFGov.org. You can find the voters in your taxis.

Peak Time Permits

The MTA Board also passed a resolution to send a proposal for Peak Time Permits to the Taxi advisory Council in order to work out a plan.

Director Malcom Heinicke was very happy because this was his baby and he was very pleased to see drivers as different as Tone Lee, Carl Macmurdo and myself all backing the idea.

However, there were, and are many drivers, who are strongly against putting additional cabs on the street - including possibly myself. My position depends upon what they do, how they do it, and who benefits from it. The devil is in the details.

At any rate, the TAC meetings should be interesting for a change. The next one's  on March 15th - the  Ides of March - the date when Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 B.C.

Should we beware the Ides of March?