To All Concerned About the Taxicab Industry in Chicago:

On Dec. 14, 2007, the City of Chicago and the Dept. of Consumer Services issued new Proposed Amendments to the Public Chauffeurs Rules and Regulations. The City is only giving us until Dec. 31st to respond with our objections. We in the AUPD (Association of Unified Professional Drivers) have looked over all the amendments and compared them with the standing rules and regulations, and have determined that we have serious concerns with many of the proposed amendments. It is our determination that the implementation of these amendments, with their increased fines and penalties, have the potential to destroy the taxicab industry as we know it here in Chicago, and drive many hardworking members of the transportation industry, already besieged and beleaguered by the existing City fines and practices, into financial ruin, if not completely out of the industry. Our words may sound like hyperbole, but please believe us: we are not exaggerating. We are strongly in opposition to these new rules, and are determined to fight them in every possible way we have at our disposal.
We in the AUPD have taken on the much-needed task of addressing the many pressing concerns and needs of the cabdriver/workers in the Taxicab Industry in Chicago. There are many issues that the cabdrivers themselves have brought to us that we would like to be addressing at this time. The proposed taxi fare increase, tabled by the Transportation Committee this past October, is one such issue. These new proposed amendments are another such issue. As our arguments in response that follow will show, they are unreasonable, illogical, and sometimes impossible to comply with. The increases in the dollar amounts for the fines, coming on the heels of Commissioner Norma Reyes’ testimony that we didn’t need a taxi fare increase at this time, is also hard to fathom, and adds insult to our injuries.

We are strongly opposed to the following Proposed Amendments to the Public Chauffeurs Rules and Regulations.

Rule 3.05 “……denied renewal of Chauffeur license if the applicant has within the twelve months…..received three (3) complaints and/or citations….”

This is a completely unacceptable rule. For one thing, given the fact that the United States is a multicultural society, with a recent history of racial and cultural intolerance that has not been completely overcome and transformed yet, it is much too easy for cultural and social differences to become misconstrued between the average American and the taxi drivers who hail from over a hundred different nations and cultural traditions, and result in ‘complaints’ being filed against persons who don’t and can’t possibly have the recourse to analyze what actually happened and defend themselves adequately in a court of law. In point of fact, one person has within the last year filed over 600 complaints against cabdrivers for picking up passengers in front of Ogilvie Transportation Center. This rule would also result in any passenger who feels any animosity towards his cabdriver, or who has some misunderstanding with them having the power to destroy a driver’s livelihood on a whim, by filing a complaint. This situation results in the driver becoming a virtual ‘slave’ to the demands or whims of the passenger, who could possibly coerce the driver by simply threatening to file complaint against her or him. It gives too much power to the passenger, and none to the driver. It is unacceptable.


Rule 5.02 e Requires a “Not for hire” sign…when a cab is on a radio call or off-duty for one reason or another.

We object to this rule on strict principles. The City of Chicago discontinued use of “Not For Hire” signs on our lighted rooftops one year ago. We have over 10,000 cabdrivers working in the City of Chicago. It is unreasonable to expect that every one of them to One: be aware of this rule. Two: remember to flip the visor each and every time they need to buy gas, run an errand, take a break to eat, take their children to school, go shopping, take a radio call, or return to their garage for a shift change. This rule lends itself to unreasonable expectations on the part of City officials and abuse of authority should it be implemented on any regular basis. We are independent contractors after all, and we should not be forced to be accountable to anyone for individual scheduling decisions we make on a daily basis in the cabs we lease. The City should issue them at their own expense if they want us to have the opportunity to display them. We would encourage drivers to display them out of simple courtesy to our potential passengers, but we refuse the idea that we should be forced to display them on penalty of fines.


Rule 5.02 a “No taxicab shall refuse any person…which is unoccupied by a passenger…”

This is a completely unacceptable rule. It assumes that when a cabdriver leases a cab, they are automatically at the beck and call of anyone who happens to wave at them to hire them. Of course, we do agree that we should not refuse to transport persons based on their ethnicity or destination. We understand that this practice could lend itself to discriminatory practices, which we condemn explicitly. However, if we are to be defined as ‘independent contractors’, rather than employees of either cab companies or the City, then we demand a certain amount of discretion when it comes to defining our work schedule. We refuse the idea that we must be available for work for a full 12 or 24 hours that we lease our taxicabs for. Many of us have family, school or plain life obligations (dentist appointments, childcare scheduling, classes, etc.) and we can’t be expected to disrupt our lives to follow this rule. This rule also does not take into account the fact that we actually have wildly varying shift changes at different times of day, which we can be fined by the affiliations for if we don’t return the cab in time (also by City Rules and Regulations, by the way). So if I am forced to pick up a passenger at my shift change by this rule for an $8 fare, I might be fined $15 for returning the cab late. It is unfair, unjust, and unacceptable, and we reject it.

Rule 5.02 “Any chauffeur who….refused a fare on grounds of not knowing where a passenger’s destination is…required…after the first offense,…to complete again the Public Chauffeur Training Course”

This rule is patently unfair, unreasonable and illogical on the face of it. For one thing, I should hope that a chauffeur who really doesn’t know where a destination is would inform the passenger of this fact and they can both work together to determine whether the trip is possible or not. Of course, a cabdriver should carry maps and guides that could assist them in the finding of a destination, but even these are no guarantee that the passenger is actually giving a real address, knows the actual address, or is even coherent enough to communicate a real address. Furthermore, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000 addresses in the City of Chicago and possibly up to a million in the surrounding suburban areas, if not more. To expect any cabdriver to know where every possible destination is of any random passenger is completely unreasonable. We can’t be held accountable for doing every passengers work for them. If they can’t give us a number and a name of a real street that is in the map book, then we should not be held accountable for this situation.

The penalty of being forced to take the Training Course again after one offense we also feel is too harsh, and it makes no sense besides. This Training Course does not train Public Chauffeurs how to get to every one of the possible 1,000,000 plus destinations in the Chicagoland area. We suggest that the Training Courses in themselves do not train anyone how to purchase or read a map book or guidebook to the streets of Chicago. If the City is really interested in having us know every destination we could possibly be faced with being given by a passenger, they should issue us map books and guide books and training on how to use them during our original Public Chauffeur Training Course. Alternatively, the City could also issue us each palm pilots with every known address in the area in order to make sure we can find the way.



Rule 5.05 “ Chauffeurs shall not knowingly misinform passengers….or city officials”

This is such a vague rule as to be essentially meaningless. It is already a crime to lie to a peace officer. In this case, what could it possibly mean to ‘misinform’ or give ‘false information’ to a passenger or prospective passenger? And what could the penalty possibly be? If I tell a passenger I’m from Pakistan when I’m really from Tajikistan, could I be fined? Or if I tell them I live in Rosemont when I really live in Humboldt Park? This rule as written is too vague. The “knowingly’ part is completely unprovable, besides. If I inform a passenger that I believe taking Clark St. to Rogers Park will be faster than LSD, how can it ever be proven that I ‘knew’ it would take longer?

Rule 5.11 a “A Chauffeur shall thoroughly search the interior of the vehicle for lost articles immediately at the termination of each trip.”

Although we agree in principle that cabdrivers should be aware of items left in the vehicles we lease, it is unreasonable to assume that we can or should be held accountable for this kind of search after every trip. This rule shows a complete disregard for the logistics and exigencies of how we carry out our business. For instance: we work on busy streets downtown, where passengers are disembarking in heavy traffic, where to get out and search the back seat “thoroughly” would impede traffic, and put us at risk of further tickets at the hands of authorities or the ire of drivers of other vehicles; we work outside heavily trafficked bar areas, where police are yelling at us and moving us along at a quickened paces, and where to stop and search would mean passing up other potential passengers (where, by the way, this behavior would constitute breaking the other ‘refusal of fare’ rule, putting us in a bind where whatever we do, we’d be breaking some rule or another); we work on dark streets in dangerous neighborhoods, where stopping to search the back seats could put us at risk of robbery or murder. These are all too great a risk to put us in, in order for us to take care of passengers who are so careless as to leave valuables in public spaces. We refuse the idea that we should be held responsible for the carelessness of passengers who leave valuable items in the taxicabs they are exiting.

Rule 11.06 d “All taxicabs operating at the airport must be equipped to accept credit card payment. An owner operator who does not accept credit card payment can not pick up passengers at the airport”

As independent contractors, we believe that it is unjust to force owner operator entrepreneurs to accept credit cards or be refused the opportunity to pick up fares at the airports. After all, owner operators are independent businessmen, who should be allowed to make their own business decisions about whether there are cost benefits to their businesses to absorb the costs of accepting the occasional credit card, or whether they would rather forego the benefits of doing credit card business, due to the added costs they would incur. There are plenty of other cabs that accept credit cards.

Rule 13.03 b “At O’Hare staging area, no taxi cab in the two lines that are closest to the moving lane shall be left unattended…[a chauffeur shall] remain within 10 feet of his vehicle.”

This rule assumes that the human beings who drive cabs for a living shouldn’t have the freedom to choose what they do or when they do it. A cabdriver should have the right to pray when it is time for him or her to pray, to use the bathroom when they have to go, to socialize with our friends, or to purchase food to eat or drink when we are hungry or thirsty. We are adults after all, and are responsible for moving our cabs in the line when it is time to go. The occasional lapse in judgment or sense should not have to be regulated by law or rule or fines by the City government. We can and do police ourselves just fine, thank you. Furthermore, this rule does not take into account the real work conditions of the taxi staging area at the airports. There are times when there are only three lines total at the staging area, and a two-hour wait. There are also times when the lines are moving so slow that being two lines away from the moving lane might mean a one to two hour waiting time. If consistently enforced or followed, this would mean the cabdrivers would be virtual prisoners in their cabs for long periods of time, with no ability to pray, go to the bathroom, socialize, or feed themselves. We reject this rule.

Rule 13.03 e “Cabs left unattended in “no parking” zone within the staging area or immediately outside of staging area will be ticketed and towed.”

We believe this rule is directly targeted at the Muslim drivers who park and pray during the sunset praying times for about five minutes, while on their way to the terminal to pick up passengers. We believe it is discriminatory, and overly harsh in its penalties. The drivers themselves are about twenty feet away from their cabs, hardly constituting a situation where cabs can be called ‘unattended’. This practice has not caused any problems of obstruction of traffic. The lanes are kept open for moving vehicles. If this situation worsens in any way, we believe a more sane and reasonable solution could be worked out between the City authorities and Islamic community organizations that would not unduly punish persons carrying out their religious duties.

Rule for penalties: “any violation of these rules…shall be subject to following penalties: $75-750 fine and/or license suspension up to 5 days and/or revocation of Chauffeur license”


In some ways, we in the AUPD and in the cabdriver workforce as a whole, find this rule to be the most cruel, unfair, unjust, and wildly unreasonable of all. Please read this carefully: “any” violation “shall” be subject to penalties (not some or any specific number of violations, and not could or could possibly), and the penalties range, seemingly arbitrarily, from $75 up to $750 plus license suspension and revocation of the license itself! The way this is worded means that a driver who breaks any of the rules could not only lose one weeks pay ($750 is at the high end of what a driver could make in a week if they are lucky and drive 80 hours), or 25% of their monthly income, but could possibly lose another weeks pay (50% of a monthly income), or even their livelihood itself!

We ask you, citizens, members of the media, and government officials of the City of Chicago: have you seen any of the rules above that was so criminal, that was such a blatant disregard of social mores, or caused so much disruption of the daily life of the citizens and workers of Chicago, that would warrant someone losing 25-50% of a months wages, or their livelihood altogether? Is there any among you who are at risk of, or who would accept a workplace rule (not a law regulating crime, mind you, but a rule) that would put you at risk of losing half a months pay or your job if you broke it? We believe we know the answer to that question.


Peter Ali Enger, Spokesperson for AUPD


Melissa Callahan, Chairperson for AUPD

If you have email, also (in addition to regullar US mail and the phone calls) email this letter to the Mayor, Commissioner and the entire City Council.