Can somebody please clarify..
Does the petition ask for a fare increase or not?
I just looked at it and it says, "c. In the alternative, that this Honorable Court restrain defendant CITY and the DCS from failing to consider further and additional taxicab rate of fare revisions in futuro."
It sounds like they aren't asking for a fare increase but that they are asking the judge to stop the city from not considering a fare increase. 
Am I understanding this correctly? If so that doesn't seem to pack much punch because if they win this court case all they would get is a requirement to make the city "think" about a fare increase.
What am I missing?
melissa lots o' great points. only thing is though is that u talk 'bout the surcharge hearing. from what i hear there were 'bout 50 drivers there total. that's not a big enough turn-out to make the city crap their pants. pants-crapping numbers are the kinds to bring before u can say that numbers don't matter. and yeah yeah yeah i wan't there so who am i to talk.
Melissa,
I would like you or somebody to e-mail or send me all of the legal documents filed so that I may make a completely informed personal judgement.
I am in favor of repealing the entire surcharge ordinance. I am in favor of a 25% fare increase instead.
How would we have any authority or power you are imagining if we are not first organized to seek it?
The decision of the Transporation Committee was pre-determined, in my opinion, but please don't see me as a cynic who thinks that the hearing was unimportant. Politics is a continual process. When you get more organized, each small step is followed by a bigger one.
When we get a fare increase, most likely, that Transportation Committee hearing will also be just as pre-determined. That doesn't mean we can't have an impact on how the vote will turn out...it's just that all of the "lobbying" or "politicking" occurs beforehand usually and especially in Chicago.
There's nothing for the UTCC (or anybody else) to "accept" in any formal or legal sense. While I think that having a true collective bargaining power with the City COULD have a positive impact on how much we make and our "working conditions", etc., it is in no way the only, likely, or even most economical way for us to influence the public and the politicians to secure an "acceptable" fare increase or other legislation.
In other words, the terminology of traditional unions is confusing a lot of people. Ordinances from the City aren't "offers" for us to vote upon. In my opinion, almost all of the outside organizers ultimately want this situation or a quasi-effect to exist because of their presumption that this is what we really need. I'm putting an asterisks *** here for a reason.
Some of them want to be the suits running the union, imagining great power and personal renumeration.
Some of the less-ethical "unionizers" can and have abused the traditonal union model to essentially rip-off the poor people they are purporting to represent. Type in "Teamster", "federal", and "monitor" into your search engine and begin a long descent down the rabbit-hole.
I don't consider you a "Debbie Downer" at all, but I must disagree with your claims that all of the organizing projects have been "ineffective". They have had effects, but perhaps not exactly the ones desired or to the degree that each of us may have wished for.
I am continually re-evaluating our individual and collective situations. Like it or not, I would assert that I am always trying to determine the facts and understand the motivation of everybody involved. I am trying to act in concert, independently, and re-act to everything that's going on.
My problem with Donald Nathan and the injunction lawsuit?
First, Donald Nathan didn't properly prepare a case that was supposed to be "monumental" at 400 W. Superior!!! He presented a witness who wasn't willing to take the oath...hence, useless. He is so out of touch with the cabdrivers involved in his "cases" that he never would imagine that he should have anticipated that remote possibility and avoid it by preparing the witness properly. Legal 101.
I don't want to dash anyone's realistic hopes for the outcome of this lawsuit; it's the unrealistic and mythical hopes that I am concerned about.
Mayor Daley isn't concerned about lawyers; remember Meigs Field midnight bulldozer party?
This lawsuit is being popularized as a "lawsuit to get a fare increase". Wolf Weiss has used the term "heros". A lot of misguided "pre-credit" is being liberally applied by selfish or deluded actors.
I am aware of the complexities of the various aspects of the surcharge ordinance and brevity prevents me from addressing each here right now.
I wasn't only referring to this lawsuit as "approaching frivolity"; there's another where the purpose has been stated to be more for publicity and much less about an acceptable use of the legal system to pursue a case which has a fair likelihood of success.
My honest defense would be that I am referring to that case and the questionable fund-raising conduct involved there much more than the injunction case you had in mind.
I think I can best answer you question by stating that I believe that the current powers of the Commissioner could and should be restricted by the Court. However, that power must reside somewhere, and if not in the executive, it falls back to the legislators.
The judicial system is almost certainly not going to regularly decide how much of a fare increase we are entitled to. It might determine a minimum, but is that what we are going to "accept", the minimum standard?
I know you can "trust" George Kasp...verify with him what I told him about the lawsuit when he called me to ask if I was a party to it. I think he will assure you that YOU shouldn't be disappointed by the immediate, honest answer I gave him.
I support it, but I'm not involved, nobody asked me to be involved and I doubt they want me involved.
I have almost no respect left for Donald Nathan's character; he isn't the only lawyer in the world who could help Chicago cabdrivers. He has made a few inappropriate statements which I think could be referred to the ARDC for a resolution unfavorable to him. I have disengaged from him and I wouldn't report him to the ARDC while the Shen case is pending, if ever. He is a scumbag AND a lawyer.
Yes, I AM the kettle and I AM calling him black; the difference is, the ARDC doesn't regulate my public conduct.
I also don't think he's as selflessly helping us as he would like us to believe. He is a mysterious meddler who doesn't like to answer questions put to him, whether by George Lutfallah, myself, or anyone else who might be a "mope" or a "brownshirt".
All Donald Nathan and the "Insignificant So-Far" plaintiffs have done is "gotten attention". I wish them luck and I think they will need it.
Of course, under one scenario, the City could capitulate and just agree to repeal the surcharge ordinance...and also not grant us a fare increase.
Just because the City COULD be in violation of a legal principle doesn't compel the court to continue hearing the case if Mr. Nathan's services are suddenly no longer available and no one replaces him.
I've seen how quickly Mr. Nathan tires. We all would be better off organizing an effort to HIRE lawyers WE control if a legal route were our only option.
Fortunately, the legal route isn't our only option, never has been, and likely will never be.
I agree with you, Melissa, politics can make for strange bedfellows.
However, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) as represented by Mike McConnell and Prateek Sampat have done more to hurt Chicago cabdrivers who are trying to "organize" than intentionally help.
I am willing to acknowledge the truth about any situation. My personal disagreements with their personal politics are, indeed, not as important.
Haven't you, too, become exasperated by the not-so-temporary inanity (yes, no 's') of Yi Tang?
I have very little use for useless non-cabdrivers. I can't say it any more politely than that.
I can better tolerate and more easily respect differences with Peter Enger and Wolf Weiss because they are fellow Chicago cabdrivers. I can't explain it any more simply than that.
The only worry about my personal reputation is when is deviates from reality. People can say whatever they want about me as long as it's true or at least a SEMBLANCE of an HONEST opinion.
Humility ain't one of my strengths; how's that for humble?
When we finally get a decent fare increase I'm definitely taking all the "credit" and mailing it away to Zimbabwe.
I have no doubt it won't make a shred of difference to them either.
We can all go out and celebrate then. I'll even do shots with Prateek Sampat until he pukes up all that propaganda he's swallowed and been regurgitating over the years.
Until then, let's keep our eyes on the prize, shall we?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mike -
Just a couple of thoughts I would like to share with you in regards to your last posting to Ahmed R.
You wrote: "Lawsuits can only achieve a minimum effect for us cabdrivers most of the time. The courts may determine that the city has not met minimum standards of responsbility and could order them to do so."
You are correct, a lawsuit is not a remedy for all of the taxi industry's problems. If the petition for injunction is successful, it would remove some very unfair new regulations. In my opinion, that would be a monumental achievement.
Mike wrote: "The ultimate point of membership-based organization is to also impact the legislative political process. Numbers equal power. If our groups get large enough and co-operate, we can achieve conditions which are not only "tolerable" or "fair", but actually BENEFICIAL or PREFERRED or EXCELLENT for Chicago cabdrivers."
Organizing is definitely important, but ask yourself, what good is it to be organized if you have no authority or power? You said that numbers equal power and I agree to a point. For example, you and I both attended the surcharge hearing a couple months ago and you saw that the UTCC achieved a good number of drivers to attend, there were also many other individual drivers as well. Think about what kind of an effect the numbers had and how well that worked out.
1. The UTCC presented their case to the Transportation Committee, set their conditions on which they would accept the gas surcharge and even with a good number of driver behind them, the surcharge along with the new rules and regs were still put into effect. The power of numbers was nonexistent.
2. Over 1,000 letters in protest of the new rules and regulations were submitted to the Commissioner, that was ineffective.
3. A good number of drivers have met with alderman on the Transportation Committee, that was ineffective.
We have no authority. I don't mean to seem like a debbie downer but, at some point everyone that is involved activism for taxi drivers needs to take a step back and look at this situation so that efforts that have proved to be ineffective are not continually repeated and our time is not wasted. Donald Nathan and plaintiffs are appealing to a higher authority, being the court system, on our behalf. What is the problem? Everything that we drivers have done has made much of a difference. Maybe being slapped with a lawsuit will give Mayor Daley, Alderman Allen and Commissioner Reyes a nice wake up call. Maybe they'll finally realize that they are not above the law and hopefully they will learn the meaning of justice.
Mike wrote: "I hope this sheds a little light on my skepticism of this current lawsuit "winning" a substantial fare increase anytime soon."
No need to be skeptical. I have not seen any postings by the plaintiffs of the injunction claim that the outcome will be a fare increase, maybe you should take another look at the petition.
Mike wrote: "Filing lawsuits which approach frivolity is not the only way for us to "get attention" at City Hall or elsewhere."
I'm very surprised that you're suggesting that this lawsuit is frivolous. Do you know what frivolous means? not important, not having basis. Are you saying that the unfair new rules and surcharge (attached with more ways the city can take our hard earned money) is not something important to fight? That we have no basis to try and stop this? If so, it is pretty disappointing that you feel that way.
Mike wrote: "We must do more than just "get attention".
I believe that is precisely what Donald Nathan and the plaintiffs are doing.
Mike, if this lawsuit is successful it will not be your victory and I think that's what is really the problem for you. Humble yourself. This is something good for everyone and it does not matter who has taken the action. If you want to be a part of activism in the taxi industry you need to understand that you are not going to like everyone involved in the politics on a personal level. It's not necessary that you hold hands with your enemies and/or competitors and skip down the sidewalk but, you do need to be able to work together with others as well as acknowledge when they have done something positive.
