Is the surcharge on?
Is it off?
How much can I charge?
Call the Chicago Dispatcher Taxicab Fuel Surcharge Hotline for up-to-the-minute information on the surcharge.
The number is (312) 437-8294.
You can even call for your passengers who don't know about the surcharge to let them hear the message.
It's good but another best way to let the passenger know about the surcharge is tell him or her IT'S THE LAW OF CITY OF CHICAGO AND READ THE FUEL SURCHARGE INFO ON BACK OF THE CAB.
I wanted either a permanent fare increase or the $1 surcharge to be added to the flag pull meter entry rate rather than hitting the extra button on meter because it looks confusing with the additional passenger charge.
KST,
Most drivers, including myself, would have preferred a fare increase right now.
The fact of the matter is that we got a surcharge instead. What's good about the surcharge is that it is automatically triggered by gas prices and isn't decided on the whim of Alderman Allen and the Transportation Committee.
The real payoff for this surcharge will be after there is a fare increase. The language that allows the surcharge will stay (unless some lawyer who doesn't understand how it works screws it up). So, after the next fare increase, we will have the comfort of knowing that if gas prices do jump up again later, we won't have to ask the city council for relief.
I think we need to give this a chance to work, and at the same time, press for a fare increase. If that screwball lawyer gets this surcharge removed, it doesn't mean we'll get a fare increase and the city council will probably never consider a surcharge again.
George
Where does it say in the Petition to the COurt that the surcharge should be removed?
You're asking for a stay of the ordinance and for the judge to restrain the city from enforcing it.
The risk you run from filing this is that the city could remove the surcharge and give us nothing, thereby eliminating the legal exposure you're creating for them. In other words, you could make it very easy for the city to say, "Fine. No surcharge. Problem solved."
I don't recall a single cabdriver listed in this petition nor the attorney who filed it testifying against the surcharge at the hearing.
I'll double check this with Jonathan but I don't believe we got a single objection sent to the Chicago Dispatcher by any of you.
There isn't a single objection by any of you posted on this site prior to the date of the hearing.
You picked a fine time to decide to speak up.
Furthermore, I believe the majority of those who testified did support the surcharge.
Who did you guys consult with before filing this petition? Or did you just decide to act unilaterally and decide on your own what's best for the rest of us?
George
George says about the recent lawsuit against the City of Chicago over the recent ordinance changes affecting the taxicab industry:
"You're asking for a stay of the ordinance and for the judge to restrain the city from enforcing it.”
“The risk you run from filing this is that the city could remove the surcharge and give us nothing, thereby eliminating the legal exposure you're creating for them. In other words, you could make it very easy for the city to say, “Fine. No surcharge. Problem solved.’
“I don't recall a single cabdriver listed in this petition or the attorney who filed it testifying against the surcharge at the hearing.”
“I'll double check this with Jonathan but I don't believe we got a single objection sent to the Chicago Dispatcher by any of you.”
“There isn't a single objection by any of you posted on this site prior to the date of the hearing.”
“You picked a fine time to decide to speak up.”
Furthermore, I believe the majority of those who testified did support the surcharge.
“Who did you guys consult with before filing this petition? Or did you just decide to act unilaterally and decide on your own what's best for the rest of us?”
My response:
Dear George:
If you had read the brief carefully and thought about what your have read, you might have found that the Petition for Injunctive Relief is asking for several stays of several ordinance sections pertaining to taxicab operations.
With respect to the alleged the risk of repealing the $1 surcharge, your own survey tends to support my contention that it is no more or less than dog droppings in the first place.
I find it hard to believe, that even a staunch supporter and defender of the status quo powers that be such as yourself would fall for this disgraceful scam, sham and shame perpetrated by the City on drivers.
As far as testifying for the surcharge, the deal was done when the City decided to hold hearings.
Sorry George, but no matter who testified nor what was said would have changed their minds. These hearings are CIRCUS ACT to make it look "fair" somehow, much like the Demonstrative Hearings Department, which is a kangaroo court to extort money from drivers and owners.
I also find it unbelievable that you are so naïve -- that innocent-babe-in-the-woods act just don't fly.
The people who testified at the scam hearings sorely needed and wanted more M O N E Y.
Did they want stricter enforcement, higher fines, less opportunity for a fair hearing, reduction in suburban fares and more discretionary powers for the commissioner who cares only about how much cash she will bring in -- and not for the economic fairness, health and safety of drivers and owners?
How many owners wanted a brake testing machine that was practically guaranteed to fail "police package" vehicles?
How many owners wanted to have their medallions confiscated be cited for unsafe vehicles, and be ordered to pay fines?
ON acting unilaterally: I have a constitutional right to do so! If you're not with get out of my way.
I have been wronged; my six co-plaintiffs have been wronged.
All cab drivers have been wronged. And all you can do is harp about bad timing and risking the loss of a surcharge that is way too little and way too late?
Go cry on Norma's shoulders about! As long as you see fit to support the City's screw-ball antics, you are no friend of the taxicab driver.
In case you forgot, we are not in some little Dictatorship, this is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Do not dare chide or criticize me, my co-plaintiffs and our attorneys for exercising our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
"Do not dare chide or criticize me, my co-plaintiffs and our attorneys for exercising our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS."
Oh, the contradiction.
This one time a homeless man asked me for money and I gave him what was in my pocket. It was about 70 cents. The man rolled his eyes at me and mumbled something about me being cheap. That's what this sounds like.
We were given something and we are calling the city cheap. Maybe they are being cheap and yes we do deserve a lot more but when the homeless man called me cheap I was more inclined to taking back my money than to give him more. We need to be appreciative for what we have gotten and we need to work to get more of what we deserve.
bander
Taxicab drivers - professionals - are not beggars and most of us have two "homes" - an apartment or house and the taxi we drive almost every day.
I do not solicit alms and do not expect to have something "given" to me.
Even though my name is Wolf, I am not a dog.
I do expect to be paid a fair fee for my services.
Give the surcharge to the beggars and dogs in the streets.
Give taxicab drivers an appropriate meter increase so they don't have to live like beggars.
Bark. Grrrr!
It's about two kinds of respect, Mr. bander.
If I perform a service for you and you don't pay my true worth, then I will not respect myself and you will not respect me.
Wolf,
You're missing the point. It's not your points I'm contesting; it's your flawed methodology and false premises that bother me.
I give you credit for trying though. We need more drivers who are willing to stick their necks out there. More importantly, these drivers need to learn to WORK TOGETHER without being manipulated by scam artists and ambulance chasers.
Then you'll see a force to be reckoned with. 'Scuse me...bargained with.
George
We will let the Court decide.
Flawed methodology and false premises?
When did you get law degree?
Care to elucidate for our edification?
And confound obfuscation!
This is from a long-time taxi professional who wishes to remain anonymous:
“What really burns me up is that this guy [George Lutfallah] thinks he's the forum that we have to go through to file a complaint.”
“You didn't protest on HIS site! You didn't protest to HIS newspaper!”
“Could it be that besides the fact that he is not and never will be the proper forum for legal complaints, he is also known to censure the things submitted to him.”
“George just prints what he wants to, not what really is. Mr. George Lutfallah isn't god to my knowledge.”
“Unless he can walk on water in front of me and cure dozens of lepers he should learn to report what is happening from a neutral point of view.”
“This is how credibility is built. The last time I checked George and his publication didn't have any influence at the Daley center or anywhere else.”
“Telling George first isn't a required prerequisite for filing a lawsuit in Cook County.”
------ end anonymous contributor's text ------
My comment: George's Court is not the place to discuss the merits, drawbacks or possible possible consequences of a case pending before the Cook County Court.
-wjw-
"Who did you guys consult with before filing this petition? Or did you just decide to act unilaterally and decide on your own what's best for the rest of us?"
George -
First of all, there is no "us." You are not a cabdriver. Having possession of a chauffeurs license means absolutely nothing unless you drive a cab, which you are not doing and have not done in a long time.
Secondly, I don't know how in the world you of all people can criticize or question Wolf, Nathan, Tang or anyone about not consulting with others before taking action on behalf of cabdrivers. Did you conveniently forget that you put together a proposed amendment regarding higher lease rates without consulting anyone? I didn't.
Melissa
"It's good but another best way to let the passenger know about the surcharge is tell him or her IT'S THE LAW OF CITY OF CHICAGO AND READ THE FUEL SURCHARGE INFO ON BACK OF THE CAB."
The main purpose of the hotline is to let drivers know whether they should have the sign up to collect the surcharge or not. You can let the passengers know by pointing to the sign but what if you aren't supposed to be charging and you have the sign up? You'll end up at 400 W. Superior.
George
The fine is $500.
I got my sign up, but I tell my customers to keep the buck, they may need it to burn for heating fuel.
surcharge is confusing as I predicted before it became law. Two guys in cab and I hit 2$ on extra button as 1$ for additional passenger and 1$ for fuel surcharge and I showed him the surcharge sheet in back of cab to read and 1$ extra for extra passenger is written in rate sheet but they cared less and argued.
So surcharge is not working and confusing and we need meter increase.
