From the Chicago Dispatcher, July 9, 2008
Which Side Are You On?
A case for Thomas Geoghegan.
By: George Lutfallah
The last time I went to renew my chauffeur's license I was almost denied due to high blood pressure. Apparently if your blood pressure is too high, you can't drive a cab in Chicago.
I remember wondering what would happen if I depended on taxi driving to support myself or a family? Poof, I'm out of a job. Then what? What would I do for money?
The problem wasn't that I had high blood pressure. No, this wasn't the problem, just as the problem isn't that we haven't had a fare increase in more than three years. The problem is not fly tickets. The problem is not parking restrictions in the city and suburbs. The problem is not one call a day. The problem is not doormen selling fares to limos and extorting other cabdrivers. The problem is not continuing education or defensive driving. The problem is not a medallion getting popped at O'Hare. The problem isn't the treatment of cabdrivers by inspectors. The problem isn't that the states attorney's office disregards the law in direct defiance of Wiedersberg's Law when cabdrivers are attacked. The problem isn't the increased fines we pay at 400 W. Superior.
None of these are the problems. They are all merely symptoms of the problem. So what is the problem? It is that as cabdrivers we don't have the power to stop these symptoms from happening because we don't have collective bargaining and compulsory participation, as unions do. As long as we don't have that, we lack power in relation to the city. Addressing the symptoms doesn't fix the problem. Changing commissioners will not get us health insurance because the commissioner is not the problem. We need to address the real problem.
If I were denied my chauffeur's license, would the city support me? Would the city acknowledge that I am in a job serving the city of Chicago, which carries enough stress to create high blood pressure? Is a police officer sent packing if he has high blood pressure? Would a CTA bus driver be fired for having high blood pressure? Of course not. Yet cabdrivers can be effectively fired or otherwise lose their jobs for this and many other reasons because cabdrivers are considered independent contractors. No benefits. No medical insurance. No vacation pay. No retirement plan.
We haven't had these benefits because we are considered “independent contractors” by the city. Also there wasn't broad interest among taxi drivers to actively organize. However, after last year's strike, there has been a renewed interest in organizing by a number of taxi drivers. But we still have the problem of this “independent contractor” label, limiting our legal rights to organize.
Not long after the strike of 2007 I began reading books on organizing and unionizing. One book jumped out at me. It's called, “Which Side Are You On? Trying to be for labor when it's flat on its back.” It's a fascinating book by Harvard-educated labor attorney Thomas Geoghegan that deals a lot with the struggles of the working class trying to organize. I realized the author was from Chicago so I decided to look him up to explain to him the situation with taxi drivers here in Chicago. I mailed him some copies of the Chicago Dispatcher that dealt with organizational issues and the struggles we face.
This past January Mr. Geoghegan got back to me with an idea. He said the use of the definition of "independent contractor" for taxi drivers could constitute a violation of Section 5 of the Illinois Civil Rights Act because it represents criteria of administration with respect to the city's regulation of the taxi business - regulation that has an adverse and/or discriminatory racial impact.
Since that time Mr. Geoghegan and I have been exchanging e-mails and I've been to visit him a few times. If Chicago cabdrivers have ever had a chance to successfully organize, that time is now and Thomas Geoghegan is the right lawyer to help us do that.
Why? First of all, he's a labor attorney. Most of the lawyers we've encountered in this industry are personal injury attorneys. No offense to the personal injury lawyers but they aren't the right people for the job. That's because they think about personal injury issues and not about the right labor issues.
One personal injury attorney has said that he wants to establish fleet owners as employers of taxi drivers so that when his clients are injured, he can then sue the cab companies. He basically argued that this would help cabdrivers because they would then be considered “employees” and thus could unionize. However a strategy like this is one we should stay away from because the end result would not necessarily mean an improved quality of life for cabdrivers. It could actually mean the opposite. Who would pay for the increased claims he would get for his clients? The cab companies? Well where do you think the cab companies would have to get that money from? Of course, the drivers.
We don't need that. What we need is a labor attorney who gets paid based on how much our overall economics and quality of life improve - not based on how badly his clients get hurt in accidents. Think about this: a labor attorney gets paid by our increased successes while a personal injury attorney gets paid by our increased misery.
Thomas Geoghegan is the right lawyer for the job. He's labor. He's Harvard. He's Chicago. He's represented coal miners, steelworkers and Teamsters. He's also sued the Teamsters. He's also expressed an interest in helping Chicago taxi drivers organize. For the past few months that I've been speaking with him, he hasn't asked me for a dime, though he will need to get paid just like the rest of us do.
If successful, Mr. Geoghegan's strategy will be for the benefit of all Chicago taxi drivers who believe our quality of life can be improved by forming a democratic union controlled by Chicago cabdrivers and Chicago cabdrivers alone. All Chicago cabdrivers are welcome, regardless of ideology. Before we form political parties, we need to form a nation.
If you are interested in meeting with Mr. Geoghegan or if you would like to contribute to pursuing this strategy, please e-mail me.
george@chicagodispatcher.com.
I went to a second string law school: Loyola. It's a Chicago law school. It trains superb trial lawyers. I didn't go to a law school where the graduates come out with silk stockings. I drove a cab to get thorugh. I didn't have a rich daddy to pay my way.
You've suggested that there's some sort of choice to make - that cabdrivers need to choose between some Ivy League silk-stocking guy who practices labor law - a transactional specialist - and a guy who is in a courtroom every day. And, of course, you suggest the choice to make is the guy from Boston and not the guy from Chicago.
Maybe you're right. Fancy schmancy law schools turn out great scholars. But is it scholarship being sold?
The question, George, is whether Chicago cabdrivers are better served by Ivy League Boston Brahmins or whether they're better served by their own Chicago born and bred. It's really that simple. Let's look at your criticisms.
"One personal injury attorney has said that he wants to establish fleet owners as employers of taxi drivers so that when his clients are injured, he can then sue the cab companies."
THIS IS SILLY. I COULD NEVER SUE CAB COMPANIES FOR INJURED CABDRIVERS. UNDER WORKERS COMPENSATION, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THAT. YOU KNOW THAT - OR YOU SHOULD. YOU'RE MISLEADING CABDRIVERS BY SAYING OTHERWISE.
WHAT I WOULD DO IS TO TAKE DOWN THEIR STINKING INSURANCE COMPANIES AND PUT MONEY INTO THE POCKETS OF THE CABDRIVERS WHO ARE HURT. THE DRIVERS WOULD GO WITH REMEDIES RATHER THAN GET A FIST FULL OF AIR WITH AN IVY LEAGUE LABOR LAWYER.
He basically argued that this would help cabdrivers because they would then be considered “employees” and thus could unionize.
THIS IS SILLY TOO. I'M NOT ON A CAMPAIGN FOR A UNION. WHAT EVER GAVE YOU THAT NOTION? YOU'RE PULLING IT OUT OF YOUR EAR, GEORGE. I'M NOT A UNION ORGANIZER. I'M A PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER WHO BELIEVES THAT UNITED WE WIN AND DIVIDED WE BEG.
However a strategy like this is one we should stay away from because the end result would not necessarily mean an improved quality of life for cabdrivers.
ARE YOU TELLING DRIVERS THIS AS THE FORMER GENERAL MANAAGER OF WOLLEY CAB NOW? YOU ARE SAYING THIS WITH YOUR HARVARD, IVY LEAGUE, BOSTON LABOR SPECIALIST AT YOUR SIDE? MAYBE CABDRIVERS WOULD BE IMPRESSED IF HE WERE CHICAGO EDUCATED AND HAD A FLAVOR FOR CHICAGO'S WAY OF THINKING. BUT THIS GUY IS LIKELY A SUPER SCHOLAR - OTHER WORLDLY.
It could actually mean the opposite. Who would pay for the increased claims he would get for his clients? The cab companies?
NOT SO, GEORGE. IT WOULD BE THEIR STINKING LOUSY INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Well where do you think the cab companies would have to get that money from? Of course, the drivers.
THE MONEY WOULD COME FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY STOCKHOLDERS - A BUNCH OF CAPITALISTS WHO WOULD EXPLOIT THE CABDRIVERS ANY WAY THEY COULD.
We don't need that.
OH NO? WHAT DO WE NEED, GEORGE? A HARVARD, BOSTON, NON-CHICAGOAN? A MANAGEMENT STOOGE?
What we need is a labor attorney who gets paid based on how much our overall economics and quality of life improve - not based on how badly his clients get hurt in accidents. Think about this: a labor attorney gets paid by our increased successes while a personal injury attorney gets paid by our increased misery.
THE LABOR LAWYER GETS PAID BY MANAGEMENT $450 FOR EACH BILLABLE HOUR - 2400 HOURS A YEAR. TRY THAT ON FOR SIZE AGAINST YOUR METERS.
Thomas Geoghegan is the right lawyer for the job. He's labor.
YEAH - LABOR FROM THE MANAGEMENT SIDE.
He's Harvard. He's Chicago.
HARVARD AIN'T CHICAGO - IT'S BOSTON, GEORGE. ANY CHICAGO CABDRIVER KNOWS THAT. YOU CAN'T PULL THE WOLLEY OVER THEIR EYES.
He's represented coal miners, steelworkers and Teamsters. He's also sued the Teamsters. He's also expressed an interest in helping Chicago taxi drivers organize. For the past few months that I've been speaking with him, he hasn't asked me for a dime, though he will need to get paid just like the rest of us do.
I'LL BET HE WILL.
If successful, Mr. Geoghegan's strategy will be for the benefit of all Chicago taxi drivers who believe our quality of life can be improved by forming a democratic union controlled by Chicago cabdrivers and Chicago cabdrivers alone. All Chicago cabdrivers are welcome, regardless of ideology. Before we form political parties, we need to form a nation.
THIS ONE WILL BE THE LUTFALLAH UNION? WE'LL SEE HOW THIS ONE TAKES SHAPE.
If you are interested in meeting with Mr. Geoghegan or if you would like to contribute to pursuing this strategy, please e-mail me.
CAN INTERESTED NON-CABDRIVERS SIT IN THE BACK AND OBSERVE? I'LL KEEP MY BIG YAP SHUT FOR THE CHANCE TO LISTEN.
Mr. Geoghegan's stragety is brilliant. Donald you need to shut the hell up and get out of the way. We don't need more sloppy legal work from a hot head like you. If you really cared about us you would have acknowledged the brilliance of the strategy and offered to help. You don't care about us.
Your statement that your strategy would mean that the insurance companies would pay for the extra loot you get to stick in your pocket is stupid and insulting. When insurance companies pay more, they charge higher premiums. You know who pays that Donald. We do. You know it but you think we are stupid so you don't say it and hope we don't catch it.
What "Strategy" Sam? None was spelled out by Lutfallah. You're the only one who seems to say that a "strategy" was advanced. I didn't see one or hear one.
I'm happy to support a "strategy" if one is offered and I understand it and feel it's worth support. But none has. George Lutfallah seems to say that his Boston educated man wants to put together one big union of some sort for cabdrivers. What is this? Is it an "I.W.W." for the cabdrivers? It's sure unclear.
When I see a "strategy", I can figure quickly enough if it's brilliant. I figure, Sam, that you might just be George saying that Mr. Geoghegan's unknown strategy is brilliant.
The "strategy" is a bit like McCain's campaign. More of Bush from what I see - at least so far.
Tell us, Sam. What's Mr. Geoghegan's strategy that it's so brilliant? How do you understand it?
As I read it the stategy is to take on the city using a civil rights claim. You are being quite defensive. Is it because this is a superior strategy to yours or does it threaten your interests?
Dear Donald, what you are doing is just criticizing point by point Mr Lutfallah's article. In my day by day cab driver carrier I would just love to be you. A graduate student of some law school, who at least has the knowledge of knowing where to start defending himself. Too many times I had to suffer because others had power over me, and there was nothing more than a complain I could do. I lost time, I lost money and more than that, my dignity as a human being in many situations. In few words I tried to tell you why I do not need somebody who just does not agree with anything. What I need is somebody who will start something. This is the only way will have a chance of doing something. Do not stay on the side! Get involved! Come with ideas or more, come with facts! I would personally love to hear what your experience as driver/law student was. Did you use your advantages? Thank you!
