Back-Seat vs Front-Seat Tipping: A Competition

Aside from the potential problem of glowing cab drivers and the desire of many to live anonymous lives, the major objection to the back-seat terminals revolves around the 5% charge.

According to Director Hayashi, the main reason that she insisted on the back-seat terminals is that VeriFone's studies had convinced her that their prompting system would make drivers more money.

Most cab drivers, on the other hand, are convinced that this is marketing hogwash. It's amazing how firmly held this opinion is. Drivers who have never even seen the back-seat units, swear that they won't work.

Almost every driver I've talked with tells me that they already get great tips because they have wonderful personalities and are unusually good looking. But, so far, I haven't found a single driver who has records to back this up. I include myself in this category. I'm hot and charming - yet I don't have any numbers to prove the effects of my dynamic personality.

And, even if I did have the numbers, who is to say that I wouldn't do even better with a back-seat terminal?

I called up Hansu Kim, President of Desoto Cab and VeriFone consultant, and suggested that he have a competition with, say, Green Cab to prove that the back-seat terminals are better.

Kim enthusiastically embraced the idea, saying that he "would make a bet with me that Green would put in the PIM units when they fully realized that their drivers would make more money."

I then went over to Green Cab, where I work, and asked Mark Gruberg what he thought of the idea. Mark said that he'd already been thinking about something along those lines and was eager for the contest.

To clarify: the contest would be whether the front-seat or the back-seat terminals prompt a higher tipping percentage.

I think that Kim and Gruberg should be working out the details soon.

Let the competition begin!

Why I Am Not Standing with "THE" Drivers

A long-time, cab-driving friend of mine demanded to know why I "chose not to stand with the drivers" on the issues of their recent MTA protest and also demanded to know "who appointed" me to defend Chris Hayashi.

The fanatical, "you're either for us or against us,""she's guilty - why waste money on a trial?" tone of my friends interrogation pretty much answers these questions by itself. I was right. The protest was an ambush. And, the fact that my friend, who is ordinarily intelligent and thoughtful, should be so filled with anger and fear that she wouldn't even listen to another point of view is yet another reason for me to stand against "THE drivers."

As for the Deputy Director, when you consider all the things she's done for the taxi industry and the drivers, she shouldn't have to be defended for trying to create another "win-win" solution to a difficult problem.

More reasons why I don't stand with THE drivers.

1. There is no such thing as THE cab drivers in San Francisco. We are contentious group. There is no one, or no one group, that speaks for us. The claims made by the protesters of representing 5,000 drivers is completely bogus.
2. "THE drivers" who showed up were attacking on the basis of half-truths, hysterical fears and misinformation. 
3. Screaming and shouting is rarely conducive to clear thought.
4. I stopped letting other people do my thinking for me when I was 15 years old and made the mistake of telling a burly Christian Brother that I thought there was no God.
5. In short, the day that I let Mary McGuire and Tariq Mahmood decide what my opinions should be will be a long, cold day in hell.

I've been a cab driver for over twenty-five years and I've always found that one of the greatest virtues of my fellow professionals is that they do think for themselves.

Therefore, whenever I speak my mind, I am standing up for THE cab drivers of San Francisco.

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? 

LIMITED DRIVING REQUIREMENT - A Proposal by the SFCDA

The Taxi Advisory Council is still collecting data and reviewing some effects of the Pilot Program so far.   Because of delays in the implementation of the program and the many issues presented to the council, we have not yet discussed long term medallion reform.  I feel much further thought and discussion is necessary before making a final recommendation to the SFMTA  Board.

There are many who would like to see all medallions eventually transferable.  I would like to point out that if all medallions become transferable, there will no longer be the advantage of jumping the line by purchasing.  Everyone will have to wait again, only now when their name comes up, they'll have to split their medallion income with the bank.  This will exclude many older veteran drivers from owning a medallion.  We therefore feel a significant cap on the number of transferable medallions is essential.

Barry Korengold
President, SFCDA
Vice Chair, Taxi Advisory Council

Medallion Reform Proposal by the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association

We believe that as in most occupations, career cab drivers deserve a dignified end to their career. This plan will benefit a broad spectrum of interests. It will benefit the city by putting money into the SFMTA, it will benefit all cab drivers by contributing money to the driver's fund, maintaining gas and gate shifts, as well as continuing San Francisco’s long honored system of earning a medallion through time spent on the road, rather than by having to go hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt. This plan will keep medallions going to veteran drivers at the top of the list and allows for elder and disabled medallion holders to reduce or eliminate their driving requirement or to sell their medallion. It benefits the public by maintaining quality, career cabdrivers in the industry.

We feel that although purchasing a medallion might be a good choice for some younger drivers early in their careers, many other drivers have already invested 20 years or more of their lives servicing the public for low pay, long hours, with no benefits, doing one of the most dangerous jobs in the country. Therefore, there needs to be a way for drivers who have made a career of driving a cab to be able to obtain a medallion.

In order for medallions to continue going to veteran drivers, as has been the respected practice in San Francisco for the last 32 years, there needs to be a cap on the number of transferable medallions. We suggest a third. Because of the slow movement of the list, we feel two thirds of the medallions should continue to go to the top of the list without purchase. When new medallions are issued, one third of that number would become transferable. In other words, if 30 medallions are issued, 10 more medallions could become transferable.

The City should sell no more medallions outright, as each one deprives a career working cab driver from obtaining their medallion, which can be compared in other industries with tenure or a management position after usually at least 20 years on the road.

We propose that when a medallion holder reaches the age of 55, the driving requirement could be voluntarily reduced to 600 hours and the holder would contribute $100 a month or $1,200 a year to be split between the SFMTA and the Drivers Fund.

When a medallion holder reaches the age of 60, the driving requirement could voluntarily be reduced to 400 hours and a contribution of $200 a month ($2,400 a year) would be split between the SFMTA and the Drivers Fund.

When a medallion holder reaches 65 or becomes disabled, the driving requirement could voluntarily be eliminated with a $400 monthly contribution ($4,800 a year) to the SFMTA and the Drivers Fund. The medallion holder would still retain the medallion and still be able to drive.

To allow for inflation and market changes, these payments could also be set at a comparable percentage to medallion income instead of a dollar figure.

All reduced or eliminated driving requirement medallions would be run as a gate and gas cabs. This would create stability for companies as well as maintain available shifts for drivers.

A medallion holder would have the option to sell when they reach 65. If they chose to hold on to their medallion with a reduced or eliminated driving requirement, they would retain their medallion the rest of their lives, but would no longer have the option to sell. When these medallion holders die, their medallions would go back to the list. A medallion holder over 65 who continues driving, could make their decision at the time they wish to stop driving.

Since there would be a cap on transferable medallions, eventually there could be a waiting list to sell. A qualified medallion holder waiting to sell would not have to pay to eliminate their driving requirement until able to so, at which time they would make their decision.

We’d like to make this comparison of revenue from the current transfer fee of $50,000 per medallion to the revenue from this Limited Driving Requirement plan. With the amount of debt undertaken when buying a medallion, the purchaser will likely hold onto their new medallion for more than 10 years, probably closer to 20 or 30 years. After 10 years of participation in our recommended program, a 75 year old driver will have contributed $48,000 to the SFMTA and the Drivers Fund. If the same driver took advantage of the plan starting at the age of 55 he will have paid in $66,000, and still be contributing to the fund and the SFMTA.

We feel this plan is healthier for the industry overall. It will allow senior and disabled medallion holders to stop driving and allows older career drivers to still obtain a medallion. This will also help color schemes maintain gas and gate medallions, and provide more available shifts for non-medallion holding drivers.

Fighting Parking Tickets

An article in the Examiner gives you a place to vent about your parking tickets dptwatch.com. There are actually many sites, one of them on Yelp.
Another is called The Expired Meter.
I've personally had a fair amount of success fighting tickets - parking and moving.

I was ticketed twice in front of my house for not having my wheels turned away from the curb on a hill. Yes - but as you can see from the photo there is no curb and, when there is no curb, you are supposed to turn your wheels away from the street.

It took me 6 months to beat these tickets but that's okay because they don't charge interest until they (the Supreme Parking Court) makes a final decision. They rejected my dispute through the mail but, when I went in person to the august MTA, I won the battle with my photos and a copy of the Driver's Handbook. The "judge" I spoke with didn't the know the law himself and thanked me for teaching it to him. I haven't been hit with this particular bogus ticket since.

Always fight. Take pictures and quote the law. Remember cops, especially parking cops, often don't know the law that they think that they are enforcing. If you know the law, it gives you an edge.

I repeat - fight! I've won about 75% of the time. Fight even if you're guilty. Don't they ticket you when you're innocent? Remember - a good story can trump a bad law. Fight! Fight! Fight!

Back Seat Terminals: Demonstrated

Athan Rebelos (photo, person) and Hansu Kim (photo, hands) were kind enough to show me the VeriFone PIMs at Desoto Cab Thursday.

I now understand that I made some mistakes in my previous post on the subject. For one thing, the terminals will broadcast ABC news feeds so, indeed, they can be described as TVs. (I'll mention another misconception later in the post.)

I came as a skeptic. I wasn't convinced that customers would tip more and I was very concerned about drivers not being able to control the sound.

In fact, I felt that, if I couldn't turn off the sound, I didn't want the damn thing in my cab.

The truth, as it turns out, isn't quite so simple.

• There are sound control arrows on the front seat terminal that Athan is pointing at in the picture and the driver can turn the sound all the way off.
• The ads and the public service announcements will NOT have sound.
• However - the caveat - the customer can turn on the sound for the news if he or she wants to and it overrides the driver's control.

But, the speakers are on the back of the suicide seat so they point away from the driver, meaning that the sound is fairly low when it is on. Furthermore:

• The system resets with each new fare so the sound should not remain on after a customer leaves.
• From talking to customers who have used the terminals in NYC, the first thing most of them do is turn off the sound if it is on anyway.
• So very few customers are likely to turn the sound on at all.

Conclusion: the sound at worst should be a minor annoyance.

What about the 5%? Will the tipping prompts really give the drivers more money?


The terminals have prompts that encourage the customers to tip well. If the fare is low (under $10?), they are prompted to tip $2, $3 or Other (photo).

On longer rides, the customers are prompted to hit 20% or Other. In addition, the 20% is calculated to include any extras such as airport or bridge tolls.

Hansu Kim says that studies have shown that customers tip up to 30% higher than they would without the prompts.

I don't know if I quite buy this. After all they are studying a novelty. Once the newness wears off, the tipping will probably level off as well.

On the other hand, the natural thing to do with these screens is to hit the $2 or the 20% buttons.

There is also the fact that (at VeriFone anyway) the customers do not have to sign the receipt for under $25. In fact, according to Mr. Kim the minimum for a signature is now going up to $50. This makes taking a credit card almost as fast as cash. The customers like this and, if the customers are happy, they tend to tip more.

In short, tt's hard for me to see how the tipping on these terminal would not more than the cover 5% drivers are to be charged for cashing the receipts - even in a worst case scenario.

For drivers at Town Taxi and Checker, even covering the 5% would be a huge improvement by itself. And, who knows? The drivers (other than Green's) at Citywide Dispatch might even start accepting credit card calls.

Why should the drivers be charged at all?

1. As I've mentioned, many of them are already being overcharged now.
2. The use of credit cards is expanding rapidly with huge costs to the companies. These PIMS will allow them to recover their costs.
3. The drivers should make more money.
4. The public should be better served.

The Merchant Accounts


There have been some complaints from drivers about these accounts - mostly due to the delay in being able to use the funds.

The normal hold on the money is 24 hours to 48 hours. On three day weekends, this can mean up to 4 days without the drivers being able to touch their money.

However, Hansu Kim says, that with a month or two, VeriFone will start "instantaneously crediting the driver's accounts," meaning that there will no longer be any hold on the funds..

It should also be kept in mind that these accounts have been set up so that the taxi companies can't touch the money and thus the unscrupulous companies amongst them will be unable to misappropriate the funds.

Advertising Revenue

As previously reported, 90% of the revenue will go the vendors and 10% will go to the drivers. The companies will NOT get a share.

On top of this, it will probably take three years before anybody makes a profit off the revenue. VeriFone estimates that it will take that long for the advertising money to cover the installation costs.

One More Thing


Contrary to rumor (spread partially by me) Hansu Kim says that he does not own shares in VeriFone. He says he is a paid consultant for the company and will neither receive a commission nor in any way make a personal profit from the sale of the units.

Kim also says that VeriFone will not hold a monopoly on the systems. CMT (being used by Luxor) and Wireless Edge will also be involved.

TAC Interim Report: Brain Storm

TAC welcomed Richard Hybels of Metro Cab as a small company councilor replacing Athon Rebelos who, in turn, moves over to take Jane Bolig's position as the Desoto rep. Jane is apparently retiring from cab politics for awhile.

The subject for the day was supposed to be the Interim Report to which Barry Korengold of the SFCDA added an Amended Interim Repot.

But, before the discussion really got underway, Dan Hinds Of National Cab tried to speed up the process by motioning for an immediate vote on whether or not to continue selling medallions to persons 70 and over or disabled and, if the vote was "yes," to have a second vote on whether or not to expand the program to 60 year olds. He also had two other votes in mind if the first two passed.

Instead of speeding thing up, however, the conversation bogged down trying to find a precise definition of the motion. I'll spare you the gruesome details but it reminded me of a freshman philosophy class. ("Perhaps - but how do we know we know what reality is?") After an hour and a half of hair-splitting debate and obfuscation, Dan Hinds no longer understood what his motion was and withdrew it.

During a short break, a driver who was attending the meetings for the first time, walked out muttering, "These guys are deciding our future? The effing idiots can't even take a vote."

When we returned from break, it was a whole different ball game. Chairperson Chris Sweis, with a dazzling display of leadership, took control. He said that the Taxi Advisory Council not only represented the the taxi industry but also "served the public." He said that it was more important to do the report right than fast. He suggested that they begin by making a list of all recommendations that council members thought would improve the cab business.

What follows is the complete list - including several ideas from the general public:

Now all they have to do is put this list into a coherent whole and chose the best options.