"OUCH" is all I can remember!
George,
I'm sure that you can find hundreds of other ways to distribute the Chicago Dispatcher, but you cannot allow one voice against you. Have you ever asked yourself why?
Have you tried harder enough to cover more on issues, such as:
* Court hearing on Thomas Gniadek
* Court hearing on Otis Davis
* Court hearing on Keith Goins
* Weiss v. City of Chicago
Any compensations available to injured and killed drivers on duty? How long will it take?
Have you ever asked yourself why?
I see that George has dodged this important issue. George, it is time for you to speak up if you have anything to say. Why George?
Who are the "puppets" and who is pulling their strings?
Perhaps some people are mistaken that you are the puppet of the City and Reyes jerks you around any way she wants?
I don't believe the City is trying to "silence our voices" any more than you silence people who have posted not just opinions, but actual facts that you don't like mentioned.
And you claim the right to silence those voices by virtue of having paid money for this forum? Isn't that just a tad hypocritical?
Do you really believe that "city does not want cabdrivers to unionize"?
Why would one of the most powerful political machines in the world have concerns over a bunch of cab drivers?
Doesn't the City negotiate and enter into nearly billions of dollars worth of trade contracts every year or so?
Do you think the City is afraid of plumbers, electricians, boiler engineers, carpenters and carpeting installers and numerous other trades organizations?
Does the mayor try to prevent these organizations from acting on their members' behalf? Does the City try to bust up those unions?
Why does the City recognize these labor unions and not cab drivers?
What makes you think you or Foulks or your labor lawyer can succeed where everyone else has "failed."
What logic is there in your statement that the UTCC and others are out to prevent unionization?
Why do you insist that it only a traditional union that can represent us and you heap insult, disgrace and invective on those who want to try non-traditional organizations and "consumer activist" approaches to to helping drivers help themselves?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Clueless, you apparently don't realize this but there is no bigger issue for Chicago taxi drivers than the city trying to silence our voices.
This is a huge blow to all Chicago taxi drivers. The city does not want cabdrivers to unionize. The AFSC/UTCC is against it too. Have you ever asked yourself why?
What's next, the shutting down of this forum? Puppets of the AFSC have tried their best to sabotage this site. Have you ever asked yourself why?
Without free speech and a free press, how is it possible to focus on any issues?
There's a reason why the First Amendment is the first Amendment.
George Lutfallah
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Hopefully, George will forget about his rack, and focus more on issues.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Was the Dispatcher rack removed due to litter in the staging area? Is there a lawsuit pending over the unathorized publication ending up in jet aircraft engines causing huge repair bills? This is what a fellow driver spoke of this morning at Midway. Please say it isn't so George.
I don't see how removing your rack has anything to do with silencing our voices.
Is the Dispatcher the voice of the drivers?
I think the voice of the drivers is the UTCC Voice.
It is pretty clear that the Dispatcher is the voice of it's paying commercial advertisers and the City of Chicago.
Now, about that rack: Did you have permission to put that rack there?
Why are trying to hide behind prayer rugs to protect your paper?
Why didn't you get a rack and/or permission to put a one at O'Hare? Or how about a rack next to the entrance at 400 W. Superior?
This is huge blow! Indeed, this is a huge blow to George because he can't circulate his circular as effficiently or get the readership as before.
Loss of circulation could mean lower ad revenues.
Did the City announce that it was against unionization or did it let you know through private channels or through an intermediary?
Did the AFSC/UTCC announce that it/they were against unionization or did they let you know through private channels or through an intermediary?
Have you asked the City, the UTCC, the AFSC, the CIOCG, the AUPD, the TB, the CPTDA, or any other concerned party if it/they was/were against unionization?
Who are these puppets of the AFSC? How have they tried to sabotage this site?
This is starting to sound like a some kind of conspiracy.
Does the First Amendment to the Constitution include advertising circulars with promotional editorials content written to foster and promote the ad circular producer/distributor's point of view?
Does the protection of the "freedom of speech" even apply to an advertising circular?
Might one deem a person to be "against unionization" when that person recommends and promotes drivers try to form a local under the Teamsters Union - after they led is into a dead end?
I've heard a lot about free speech and free press, but I haven't seen either around here in many years.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Clueless, you apparently don't realize this but there is no bigger issue for Chicago taxi drivers than the city trying to silence our voices.
This is a huge blow to all Chicago taxi drivers. The city does not want cabdrivers to unionize. The AFSC/UTCC is against it too. Have you ever asked yourself why?
What's next, the shutting down of this forum? Puppets of the AFSC have tried their best to sabotage this site. Have you ever asked yourself why?
Without free speech and a free press, how is it possible to focus on any issues?
There's a reason why the First Amendment is the first Amendment.
George Lutfallah
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Hopefully, George will forget about his rack, and focus more on issues.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Was the Dispatcher rack removed due to litter in the staging area? Is there a lawsuit pending over the unathorized publication ending up in jet aircraft engines causing huge repair bills? This is what a fellow driver spoke of this morning at Midway. Please say it isn't so George.
You bet it does, Terry. As long as he isn't shouting "FIRE" in a packed theater or uttering smut, whatever that is, it's protected.
God bless America.
Donald Nathan
It looks like the City has decided that George's paper is potentially dangerous waste which can screw up jet plane engines.
Otherwise they would allow him to have boxes like the Trib and CST, or many of the other mainstream journals and circulars found throughout the Chicago at intersections, bus stops, airports, train stations and even cab stands.
George, why don't you "petition" the City to attach or place small "mini boxes" at selected cab stands? Payoffs do get results in this town ya know!
Of course it would help if you stopped picking fights with the cops over food prices! (Let Mikey handle the cops.)
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
does anyone care whether george lost his precious paper rack or is it just me? do we really need a whole article about this? don't we drivers have more important issues he can address?
The entrepreneurial spirit does need to be promoted.
I'm just a poor worker who lack of any benefits and security available to many other city workers, and I have no interest in trading a city license -- medallion.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It looks like the City has decided that George's paper is potentially dangerous waste which can screw up jet plane engines.
Otherwise they would allow him to have boxes like the Trib and CST, or many of the other mainstream journals and circulars found throughout the Chicago at intersections, bus stops, airports, train stations and even cab stands.
George, why don't you "petition" the City to attach or place small "mini boxes" at selected cab stands? Payoffs do get results in this town ya know!
Of course it would help if you stopped picking fights with the cops over food prices! (Let Mikey handle the cops.)
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
does anyone care whether george lost his precious paper rack or is it just me? do we really need a whole article about this? don't we drivers have more important issues he can address?
It's just one man's opinion, but I think the lot of you are correct.
George, the need for a free press is critical. The service you donate in providing your "Forum" for the airing of opinion is something that I treasure - and the need to have it available is one that we all give you thanks for continuing. No doubt the banter that goes back and forth gives a basis for the circulation of your "Dispatcher" which is largely supported by paid advertisements. But that free press for the sake of the taxi industry is SOOO blessed important to protect. Even when I disagree with you vehemently, which oftentimes I do, I guard with my every fiber your right to express your opinions and respect your opportunity to continue to do so.
I want you to prosper and continue to succeed.
There is nothing wrong with unionizing. Whether it is done in a traditional way or a non-traditional, community based way makes no difference as long as it achieves the common goals of the cabdriver community. There are needs that have to be met: a serious fare increase; driver safety and protection; a health insurance plan of some sort; a pension plan of some sort. None of these things are going to happen without some sort of organized effort. This can be done through a union of some formal structure or it can be done through some other means.
I don't care a hang about how any of these things are administered. I am pushing 64, and I expect to be long out of the picture before any of this comes to pass. Contrary to what some might suggest, I have no personal interest at heart. I'm not campaigning for being the administrator of some fund and not trying to set one up. I am a semi-retired trial lawyer with an office out in Elmhurst who has interest in the taxi industry - nothing more.
That's exactly why I back George's "One-Big-Union" through his lawyer friend Geoghegan OR anything the UTCC might put together with the funding of American Friends OR anything that Melissa Callahan might create OR anything else that anyone who is credible and not a criminal might design. These people all are the kind of folks we can trust and respect.
Put me down as their supporter - all of them. I'm happy to work with them. I'm happy to support them if asked. Although I have 40 years of industry experience, I'll stay out of the way if it's preferred. I still say you're all correct, and I'm ready to work with any of you.
Donald Nathan
Mr. Nathan,
I sense very little interest or hope for a "serious fare increase" at the moment.
I sense very little "outrage" at the recent attacks upon Chicago cabdrivers and the response from the authorities. At least, not much "outrage" which leads to much productive activity.
The cabdrivers who are now driving with a camera protecting them instead of a shield choose to do so. Those who still have only a shield aren't clamoring for the addition of a camera.
Nothing is stopping anyone from having a group health insurance plan other than a lack of interest from Chicago cabdrivers. Many insurers of different sorts have wandered in and out of this market.
Our children can get insurance. This is Illinois. You'll be able to ride the bus for free until you croak, soon enough, Mr. Nathan.
To also consider a "pension plan", most cabdrivers don't want to be forced to set aside money for retirement for many different reasons. Even though it might be in the best interests of some of them.
Neither of these "insurances" are going to be paid for by anyone other thsn cabdrivers themselves. I challenge anyone to explain how.
What needs to be organized is the politcal will and power of the current Chicago cabdrivers. Not the will of extreme-left church groups (AFSC). Not the will of their appointed puppets (UTCC).
Not even the singular opinions of George Lutfallah, Melissa Callahan, myself, or anybody else who has been relevant to these discussions about organizing.
What matters is what most current Chicago cabdrivers themselves care to do something about AS A LARGE GROUP, if anything at all.
You presume that these "things" are all good for current Chicago cabdrivers. You seem to ignore the important question of whether Chicago cabdrivers agree with you or not.
You rightfully recognize the importance of free speech.
What's the point of having it without using it to democratically decide what WE, current Chicago cabdrivers, not YOU, Mr. Nathan, Mr. Tang, Mr. Sampat, etc.) want to do.
No matter how it disturbs you, Mr. Nathan, a significant group of current Chicago cabdrivers support me. Most of them know all about my legal troubles with my dysfunctional step-family.
I am answerable to them regularly. Perhaps your campaign to constantly distort my criminal record might have the negative impact you obviously intend.
I don't think it will.
I also don't think you are having the positive impact you intend, if you are serious about "helping" those who want to organize Chicago cabdrivers.
We've heard this "I'll be here if you want me...until then, I'll stay out of the way" many times before from you, Mr. Nathan.
I advised you before to stay out of other people's conflicts and personal business. Those of us who might work together yet need to work out our own differences.
You're not all bad, Mr. Nathan. You are just far enough from perfect to be a perfect pain-in-the-ass.
Try using your superpowers to fight real evil, Old Spice. Maybe we'll summon you. Look for the "Rat-Signal".
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It's just one man's opinion, but I think the lot of you are correct.
George, the need for a free press is critical. The service you donate in providing your "Forum" for the airing of opinion is something that I treasure - and the need to have it available is one that we all give you thanks for continuing. No doubt the banter that goes back and forth gives a basis for the circulation of your "Dispatcher" which is largely supported by paid advertisements. But that free press for the sake of the taxi industry is SOOO blessed important to protect. Even when I disagree with you vehemently, which oftentimes I do, I guard with my every fiber your right to express your opinions and respect your opportunity to continue to do so.
I want you to prosper and continue to succeed.
There is nothing wrong with unionizing. Whether it is done in a traditional way or a non-traditional, community based way makes no difference as long as it achieves the common goals of the cabdriver community. There are needs that have to be met: a serious fare increase; driver safety and protection; a health insurance plan of some sort; a pension plan of some sort. None of these things are going to happen without some sort of organized effort. This can be done through a union of some formal structure or it can be done through some other means.
I don't care a hang about how any of these things are administered. I am pushing 64, and I expect to be long out of the picture before any of this comes to pass. Contrary to what some might suggest, I have no personal interest at heart. I'm not campaigning for being the administrator of some fund and not trying to set one up. I am a semi-retired trial lawyer with an office out in Elmhurst who has interest in the taxi industry - nothing more.
That's exactly why I back George's "One-Big-Union" through his lawyer friend Geoghegan OR anything the UTCC might put together with the funding of American Friends OR anything that Melissa Callahan might create OR anything else that anyone who is credible and not a criminal might design. These people all are the kind of folks we can trust and respect.
Put me down as their supporter - all of them. I'm happy to work with them. I'm happy to support them if asked. Although I have 40 years of industry experience, I'll stay out of the way if it's preferred. I still say you're all correct, and I'm ready to work with any of you.
Donald Nathan
You still haven't answered my questions.
----------------------------------------
You wrote "Neither of these "insurances" are going to be paid for by anyone other than cabdrivers themselves. I challenge anyone to explain how."
This has been brought up before and even posted on this site: Try airport stamp revenue. That would be enough for full health, hospital, eye & dental coverage for each full time driver.
-------------------------------------------------
Your "endorsement" is 26 guys who "voted" in your un-official, unverifiable, unbelievable "election" and those two guys who "marched" with you, or actually, got caught in the photo of you in the Dispatcher?
Some endorsement! Pitiful, just pitiful.
I suppose if one follows your logic, if you see a light in the sky you can safely conclude that it was aliens who had come to endorse you.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Nathan,
I sense very little interest or hope for a "serious fare increase" at the moment.
I sense very little "outrage" at the recent attacks upon Chicago cabdrivers and the response from the authorities. At least, not much "outrage" which leads to much productive activity.
The cabdrivers who are now driving with a camera protecting them instead of a shield choose to do so. Those who still have only a shield aren't clamoring for the addition of a camera.
Nothing is stopping anyone from having a group health insurance plan other than a lack of interest from Chicago cabdrivers. Many insurers of different sorts have wandered in and out of this market.
Our children can get insurance. This is Illinois. You'll be able to ride the bus for free until you croak, soon enough, Mr. Nathan.
To also consider a "pension plan", most cabdrivers don't want to be forced to set aside money for retirement for many different reasons. Even though it might be in the best interests of some of them.
Neither of these "insurances" are going to be paid for by anyone other thsn cabdrivers themselves. I challenge anyone to explain how.
What needs to be organized is the politcal will and power of the current Chicago cabdrivers. Not the will of extreme-left church groups (AFSC). Not the will of their appointed puppets (UTCC).
Not even the singular opinions of George Lutfallah, Melissa Callahan, myself, or anybody else who has been relevant to these discussions about organizing.
What matters is what most current Chicago cabdrivers themselves care to do something about AS A LARGE GROUP, if anything at all.
You presume that these "things" are all good for current Chicago cabdrivers. You seem to ignore the important question of whether Chicago cabdrivers agree with you or not.
You rightfully recognize the importance of free speech.
What's the point of having it without using it to democratically decide what WE, current Chicago cabdrivers, not YOU, Mr. Nathan, Mr. Tang, Mr. Sampat, etc.) want to do.
No matter how it disturbs you, Mr. Nathan, a significant group of current Chicago cabdrivers support me. Most of them know all about my legal troubles with my dysfunctional step-family.
I am answerable to them regularly. Perhaps your campaign to constantly distort my criminal record might have the negative impact you obviously intend.
I don't think it will.
I also don't think you are having the positive impact you intend, if you are serious about "helping" those who want to organize Chicago cabdrivers.
We've heard this "I'll be here if you want me...until then, I'll stay out of the way" many times before from you, Mr. Nathan.
I advised you before to stay out of other people's conflicts and personal business. Those of us who might work together yet need to work out our own differences.
You're not all bad, Mr. Nathan. You are just far enough from perfect to be a perfect pain-in-the-ass.
Try using your superpowers to fight real evil, Old Spice. Maybe we'll summon you. Look for the "Rat-Signal".
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It's just one man's opinion, but I think the lot of you are correct.
George, the need for a free press is critical. The service you donate in providing your "Forum" for the airing of opinion is something that I treasure - and the need to have it available is one that we all give you thanks for continuing. No doubt the banter that goes back and forth gives a basis for the circulation of your "Dispatcher" which is largely supported by paid advertisements. But that free press for the sake of the taxi industry is SOOO blessed important to protect. Even when I disagree with you vehemently, which oftentimes I do, I guard with my every fiber your right to express your opinions and respect your opportunity to continue to do so.
I want you to prosper and continue to succeed.
There is nothing wrong with unionizing. Whether it is done in a traditional way or a non-traditional, community based way makes no difference as long as it achieves the common goals of the cabdriver community. There are needs that have to be met: a serious fare increase; driver safety and protection; a health insurance plan of some sort; a pension plan of some sort. None of these things are going to happen without some sort of organized effort. This can be done through a union of some formal structure or it can be done through some other means.
I don't care a hang about how any of these things are administered. I am pushing 64, and I expect to be long out of the picture before any of this comes to pass. Contrary to what some might suggest, I have no personal interest at heart. I'm not campaigning for being the administrator of some fund and not trying to set one up. I am a semi-retired trial lawyer with an office out in Elmhurst who has interest in the taxi industry - nothing more.
That's exactly why I back George's "One-Big-Union" through his lawyer friend Geoghegan OR anything the UTCC might put together with the funding of American Friends OR anything that Melissa Callahan might create OR anything else that anyone who is credible and not a criminal might design. These people all are the kind of folks we can trust and respect.
Put me down as their supporter - all of them. I'm happy to work with them. I'm happy to support them if asked. Although I have 40 years of industry experience, I'll stay out of the way if it's preferred. I still say you're all correct, and I'm ready to work with any of you.
Donald Nathan
Airport stamp revenue is paid by the cabdriver.
Using it to pay for "health care, etc." is simply using the cabdrivers' money to pay for it.
Again, I challenge anyone to explain how any of these "insurances" will be paid for by anyone except the cabdrivers.
There's not much stopping anyone from implementing a group health care or "pension" plan other than a lack of interest from cabdrivers themselves.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
You still haven't answered my questions.
----------------------------------------
You wrote "Neither of these "insurances" are going to be paid for by anyone other than cabdrivers themselves. I challenge anyone to explain how."
This has been brought up before and even posted on this site: Try airport stamp revenue. That would be enough for full health, hospital, eye & dental coverage for each full time driver.
-------------------------------------------------
Your "endorsement" is 26 guys who "voted" in your un-official, unverifiable, unbelievable "election" and those two guys who "marched" with you, or actually, got caught in the photo of you in the Dispatcher?
Some endorsement! Pitiful, just pitiful.
I suppose if one follows your logic, if you see a light in the sky you can safely conclude that it was aliens who had come to endorse you.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Nathan,
I sense very little interest or hope for a "serious fare increase" at the moment.
I sense very little "outrage" at the recent attacks upon Chicago cabdrivers and the response from the authorities. At least, not much "outrage" which leads to much productive activity.
The cabdrivers who are now driving with a camera protecting them instead of a shield choose to do so. Those who still have only a shield aren't clamoring for the addition of a camera.
Nothing is stopping anyone from having a group health insurance plan other than a lack of interest from Chicago cabdrivers. Many insurers of different sorts have wandered in and out of this market.
Our children can get insurance. This is Illinois. You'll be able to ride the bus for free until you croak, soon enough, Mr. Nathan.
To also consider a "pension plan", most cabdrivers don't want to be forced to set aside money for retirement for many different reasons. Even though it might be in the best interests of some of them.
Neither of these "insurances" are going to be paid for by anyone other thsn cabdrivers themselves. I challenge anyone to explain how.
What needs to be organized is the politcal will and power of the current Chicago cabdrivers. Not the will of extreme-left church groups (AFSC). Not the will of their appointed puppets (UTCC).
Not even the singular opinions of George Lutfallah, Melissa Callahan, myself, or anybody else who has been relevant to these discussions about organizing.
What matters is what most current Chicago cabdrivers themselves care to do something about AS A LARGE GROUP, if anything at all.
You presume that these "things" are all good for current Chicago cabdrivers. You seem to ignore the important question of whether Chicago cabdrivers agree with you or not.
You rightfully recognize the importance of free speech.
What's the point of having it without using it to democratically decide what WE, current Chicago cabdrivers, not YOU, Mr. Nathan, Mr. Tang, Mr. Sampat, etc.) want to do.
No matter how it disturbs you, Mr. Nathan, a significant group of current Chicago cabdrivers support me. Most of them know all about my legal troubles with my dysfunctional step-family.
I am answerable to them regularly. Perhaps your campaign to constantly distort my criminal record might have the negative impact you obviously intend.
I don't think it will.
I also don't think you are having the positive impact you intend, if you are serious about "helping" those who want to organize Chicago cabdrivers.
We've heard this "I'll be here if you want me...until then, I'll stay out of the way" many times before from you, Mr. Nathan.
I advised you before to stay out of other people's conflicts and personal business. Those of us who might work together yet need to work out our own differences.
You're not all bad, Mr. Nathan. You are just far enough from perfect to be a perfect pain-in-the-ass.
Try using your superpowers to fight real evil, Old Spice. Maybe we'll summon you. Look for the "Rat-Signal".
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It's just one man's opinion, but I think the lot of you are correct.
George, the need for a free press is critical. The service you donate in providing your "Forum" for the airing of opinion is something that I treasure - and the need to have it available is one that we all give you thanks for continuing. No doubt the banter that goes back and forth gives a basis for the circulation of your "Dispatcher" which is largely supported by paid advertisements. But that free press for the sake of the taxi industry is SOOO blessed important to protect. Even when I disagree with you vehemently, which oftentimes I do, I guard with my every fiber your right to express your opinions and respect your opportunity to continue to do so.
I want you to prosper and continue to succeed.
There is nothing wrong with unionizing. Whether it is done in a traditional way or a non-traditional, community based way makes no difference as long as it achieves the common goals of the cabdriver community. There are needs that have to be met: a serious fare increase; driver safety and protection; a health insurance plan of some sort; a pension plan of some sort. None of these things are going to happen without some sort of organized effort. This can be done through a union of some formal structure or it can be done through some other means.
I don't care a hang about how any of these things are administered. I am pushing 64, and I expect to be long out of the picture before any of this comes to pass. Contrary to what some might suggest, I have no personal interest at heart. I'm not campaigning for being the administrator of some fund and not trying to set one up. I am a semi-retired trial lawyer with an office out in Elmhurst who has interest in the taxi industry - nothing more.
That's exactly why I back George's "One-Big-Union" through his lawyer friend Geoghegan OR anything the UTCC might put together with the funding of American Friends OR anything that Melissa Callahan might create OR anything else that anyone who is credible and not a criminal might design. These people all are the kind of folks we can trust and respect.
Put me down as their supporter - all of them. I'm happy to work with them. I'm happy to support them if asked. Although I have 40 years of industry experience, I'll stay out of the way if it's preferred. I still say you're all correct, and I'm ready to work with any of you.
Donald Nathan
Where do cabdrivers get the money from? A huge profit return from the $48/shift investment, or gamble with human life to meet the market demand?
You're mincing words and getting the idea screwed up.
To be precisely factual, airport stamp money is also COLLECTED BY DRIVERS from the airport customer.
MPEA STAMP money (NOW REFERRED TO AS THE "DEPARTURE TAX")goes to fat paychecks of the MPEA directors and tourist/convention related enterprise and probably into Daley's "superfund" for Olympic games - but not one cent to health care for drivers.
While it is true that cab drivers buy the stamps, the cost is covered by airport customers so it's a pass-through.
A lot of drivers deadhead to the airports so they recoup only half of the cost of a stamp, which means we are paying through our noses for nothing.
The point is, the use of the money. If the City & State had any sense of decency, they would allocate that money to the drivers who risk their lives and health first.
Let them find money for Navy Pier and McExpo City from the people that use those facilities, not from drivers who are being pushed to economic disaster.
Cabbies collect a tax and we don't even get a cut.
You still haven't answered my questions. I guess they are beneath you for your consideration.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Airport stamp revenue is paid by the cabdriver.
Using it to pay for "health care, etc." is simply using the cabdrivers' money to pay for it.
Again, I challenge anyone to explain how any of these "insurances" will be paid for by anyone except the cabdrivers.
There's not much stopping anyone from implementing a group health care or "pension" plan other than a lack of interest from cabdrivers themselves.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
You still haven't answered my questions.
----------------------------------------
You wrote "Neither of these "insurances" are going to be paid for by anyone other than cabdrivers themselves. I challenge anyone to explain how."
This has been brought up before and even posted on this site: Try airport stamp revenue. That would be enough for full health, hospital, eye & dental coverage for each full time driver.
-------------------------------------------------
Your "endorsement" is 26 guys who "voted" in your un-official, unverifiable, unbelievable "election" and those two guys who "marched" with you, or actually, got caught in the photo of you in the Dispatcher?
Some endorsement! Pitiful, just pitiful.
I suppose if one follows your logic, if you see a light in the sky you can safely conclude that it was aliens who had come to endorse you.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Nathan,
I sense very little interest or hope for a "serious fare increase" at the moment.
I sense very little "outrage" at the recent attacks upon Chicago cabdrivers and the response from the authorities. At least, not much "outrage" which leads to much productive activity.
The cabdrivers who are now driving with a camera protecting them instead of a shield choose to do so. Those who still have only a shield aren't clamoring for the addition of a camera.
Nothing is stopping anyone from having a group health insurance plan other than a lack of interest from Chicago cabdrivers. Many insurers of different sorts have wandered in and out of this market.
Our children can get insurance. This is Illinois. You'll be able to ride the bus for free until you croak, soon enough, Mr. Nathan.
To also consider a "pension plan", most cabdrivers don't want to be forced to set aside money for retirement for many different reasons. Even though it might be in the best interests of some of them.
Neither of these "insurances" are going to be paid for by anyone other thsn cabdrivers themselves. I challenge anyone to explain how.
What needs to be organized is the politcal will and power of the current Chicago cabdrivers. Not the will of extreme-left church groups (AFSC). Not the will of their appointed puppets (UTCC).
Not even the singular opinions of George Lutfallah, Melissa Callahan, myself, or anybody else who has been relevant to these discussions about organizing.
What matters is what most current Chicago cabdrivers themselves care to do something about AS A LARGE GROUP, if anything at all.
You presume that these "things" are all good for current Chicago cabdrivers. You seem to ignore the important question of whether Chicago cabdrivers agree with you or not.
You rightfully recognize the importance of free speech.
What's the point of having it without using it to democratically decide what WE, current Chicago cabdrivers, not YOU, Mr. Nathan, Mr. Tang, Mr. Sampat, etc.) want to do.
No matter how it disturbs you, Mr. Nathan, a significant group of current Chicago cabdrivers support me. Most of them know all about my legal troubles with my dysfunctional step-family.
I am answerable to them regularly. Perhaps your campaign to constantly distort my criminal record might have the negative impact you obviously intend.
I don't think it will.
I also don't think you are having the positive impact you intend, if you are serious about "helping" those who want to organize Chicago cabdrivers.
We've heard this "I'll be here if you want me...until then, I'll stay out of the way" many times before from you, Mr. Nathan.
I advised you before to stay out of other people's conflicts and personal business. Those of us who might work together yet need to work out our own differences.
You're not all bad, Mr. Nathan. You are just far enough from perfect to be a perfect pain-in-the-ass.
Try using your superpowers to fight real evil, Old Spice. Maybe we'll summon you. Look for the "Rat-Signal".
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It's just one man's opinion, but I think the lot of you are correct.
George, the need for a free press is critical. The service you donate in providing your "Forum" for the airing of opinion is something that I treasure - and the need to have it available is one that we all give you thanks for continuing. No doubt the banter that goes back and forth gives a basis for the circulation of your "Dispatcher" which is largely supported by paid advertisements. But that free press for the sake of the taxi industry is SOOO blessed important to protect. Even when I disagree with you vehemently, which oftentimes I do, I guard with my every fiber your right to express your opinions and respect your opportunity to continue to do so.
I want you to prosper and continue to succeed.
There is nothing wrong with unionizing. Whether it is done in a traditional way or a non-traditional, community based way makes no difference as long as it achieves the common goals of the cabdriver community. There are needs that have to be met: a serious fare increase; driver safety and protection; a health insurance plan of some sort; a pension plan of some sort. None of these things are going to happen without some sort of organized effort. This can be done through a union of some formal structure or it can be done through some other means.
I don't care a hang about how any of these things are administered. I am pushing 64, and I expect to be long out of the picture before any of this comes to pass. Contrary to what some might suggest, I have no personal interest at heart. I'm not campaigning for being the administrator of some fund and not trying to set one up. I am a semi-retired trial lawyer with an office out in Elmhurst who has interest in the taxi industry - nothing more.
That's exactly why I back George's "One-Big-Union" through his lawyer friend Geoghegan OR anything the UTCC might put together with the funding of American Friends OR anything that Melissa Callahan might create OR anything else that anyone who is credible and not a criminal might design. These people all are the kind of folks we can trust and respect.
Put me down as their supporter - all of them. I'm happy to work with them. I'm happy to support them if asked. Although I have 40 years of industry experience, I'll stay out of the way if it's preferred. I still say you're all correct, and I'm ready to work with any of you.
Donald Nathan
You are starting to sound like Reyes: "There's not much stopping anyone from implementing a group health care or "pension" plan other than a lack of interest from cabdrivers themselves."
So why don't we all have a great insurance plan?
I suppose if you understood the concept of victimization or had the ability to sympathize with victims of economic abuse, you might refrain from arguing that it is our own fault that we are underpaid and kept in economic limbo for the benefit of City politician's purposes.
I can understand why a would-be extortionist has problems seeing it from the victim's point of view.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Airport stamp revenue is paid by the cabdriver.
Using it to pay for "health care, etc." is simply using the cabdrivers' money to pay for it.
Again, I challenge anyone to explain how any of these "insurances" will be paid for by anyone except the cabdrivers.
There's not much stopping anyone from implementing a group health care or "pension" plan other than a lack of interest from cabdrivers themselves.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
You still haven't answered my questions.
----------------------------------------
You wrote "Neither of these "insurances" are going to be paid for by anyone other than cabdrivers themselves. I challenge anyone to explain how."
This has been brought up before and even posted on this site: Try airport stamp revenue. That would be enough for full health, hospital, eye & dental coverage for each full time driver.
-------------------------------------------------
Your "endorsement" is 26 guys who "voted" in your un-official, unverifiable, unbelievable "election" and those two guys who "marched" with you, or actually, got caught in the photo of you in the Dispatcher?
Some endorsement! Pitiful, just pitiful.
I suppose if one follows your logic, if you see a light in the sky you can safely conclude that it was aliens who had come to endorse you.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Nathan,
I sense very little interest or hope for a "serious fare increase" at the moment.
I sense very little "outrage" at the recent attacks upon Chicago cabdrivers and the response from the authorities. At least, not much "outrage" which leads to much productive activity.
The cabdrivers who are now driving with a camera protecting them instead of a shield choose to do so. Those who still have only a shield aren't clamoring for the addition of a camera.
Nothing is stopping anyone from having a group health insurance plan other than a lack of interest from Chicago cabdrivers. Many insurers of different sorts have wandered in and out of this market.
Our children can get insurance. This is Illinois. You'll be able to ride the bus for free until you croak, soon enough, Mr. Nathan.
To also consider a "pension plan", most cabdrivers don't want to be forced to set aside money for retirement for many different reasons. Even though it might be in the best interests of some of them.
Neither of these "insurances" are going to be paid for by anyone other thsn cabdrivers themselves. I challenge anyone to explain how.
What needs to be organized is the politcal will and power of the current Chicago cabdrivers. Not the will of extreme-left church groups (AFSC). Not the will of their appointed puppets (UTCC).
Not even the singular opinions of George Lutfallah, Melissa Callahan, myself, or anybody else who has been relevant to these discussions about organizing.
What matters is what most current Chicago cabdrivers themselves care to do something about AS A LARGE GROUP, if anything at all.
You presume that these "things" are all good for current Chicago cabdrivers. You seem to ignore the important question of whether Chicago cabdrivers agree with you or not.
You rightfully recognize the importance of free speech.
What's the point of having it without using it to democratically decide what WE, current Chicago cabdrivers, not YOU, Mr. Nathan, Mr. Tang, Mr. Sampat, etc.) want to do.
No matter how it disturbs you, Mr. Nathan, a significant group of current Chicago cabdrivers support me. Most of them know all about my legal troubles with my dysfunctional step-family.
I am answerable to them regularly. Perhaps your campaign to constantly distort my criminal record might have the negative impact you obviously intend.
I don't think it will.
I also don't think you are having the positive impact you intend, if you are serious about "helping" those who want to organize Chicago cabdrivers.
We've heard this "I'll be here if you want me...until then, I'll stay out of the way" many times before from you, Mr. Nathan.
I advised you before to stay out of other people's conflicts and personal business. Those of us who might work together yet need to work out our own differences.
You're not all bad, Mr. Nathan. You are just far enough from perfect to be a perfect pain-in-the-ass.
Try using your superpowers to fight real evil, Old Spice. Maybe we'll summon you. Look for the "Rat-Signal".
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It's just one man's opinion, but I think the lot of you are correct.
George, the need for a free press is critical. The service you donate in providing your "Forum" for the airing of opinion is something that I treasure - and the need to have it available is one that we all give you thanks for continuing. No doubt the banter that goes back and forth gives a basis for the circulation of your "Dispatcher" which is largely supported by paid advertisements. But that free press for the sake of the taxi industry is SOOO blessed important to protect. Even when I disagree with you vehemently, which oftentimes I do, I guard with my every fiber your right to express your opinions and respect your opportunity to continue to do so.
I want you to prosper and continue to succeed.
There is nothing wrong with unionizing. Whether it is done in a traditional way or a non-traditional, community based way makes no difference as long as it achieves the common goals of the cabdriver community. There are needs that have to be met: a serious fare increase; driver safety and protection; a health insurance plan of some sort; a pension plan of some sort. None of these things are going to happen without some sort of organized effort. This can be done through a union of some formal structure or it can be done through some other means.
I don't care a hang about how any of these things are administered. I am pushing 64, and I expect to be long out of the picture before any of this comes to pass. Contrary to what some might suggest, I have no personal interest at heart. I'm not campaigning for being the administrator of some fund and not trying to set one up. I am a semi-retired trial lawyer with an office out in Elmhurst who has interest in the taxi industry - nothing more.
That's exactly why I back George's "One-Big-Union" through his lawyer friend Geoghegan OR anything the UTCC might put together with the funding of American Friends OR anything that Melissa Callahan might create OR anything else that anyone who is credible and not a criminal might design. These people all are the kind of folks we can trust and respect.
Put me down as their supporter - all of them. I'm happy to work with them. I'm happy to support them if asked. Although I have 40 years of industry experience, I'll stay out of the way if it's preferred. I still say you're all correct, and I'm ready to work with any of you.
Donald Nathan
No doubt foulks is on the short list to be the next DCS Commissioner. The fact that he's a high school dropout means nothing. After all, the guy claims to have earned a G.E.D., whatever that is. And who needs a college education to be a City of Chicago Commissioner? Certainly you don't need a law degree.
The man has all the qualifications: service to the Democrqatic Party (he says so, so I'll accept it); he's certainly bright and articulate - he says so, and his acerbic digs set him out as a special sort of person; he's never been found guilty of a felony involving ACTIVE violence (murder, rape, mayhem), but rather he's just entered a guilty plea to having made the threat of murder if money weren't to be forked over; extortion like crimes are nothing to the typical Chicagoan - we all accept them. That doesn't take him out.
Jo, you better take foulks' suggestions seriously. He's likely to be pushing them under the Mayor's pen soon enough. Just keep in mind where it is that you live.
Donald Nathan
Sounds, like a kiss ass friend of Daleys. Will, get the job. Daley needs to go and retire
Mike, since the city workers who ran staging were let go to cut the city budget, part of the money from the airport stamp tax is alocated to pay for the standard parking employees. We pay them, not the city.
Are you sure, Ted?
How do you know?
Do you have documents to prove this?
What's your point, anyway?
-Mike Foulks
P.S. You have my utmost respect for all that you do, Mr. Budzynski. You are a good example for others to follow.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mike, since the city workers who ran staging were let go to cut the city budget, part of the money from the airport stamp tax is alocated to pay for the standard parking employees. We pay them, not the city.
Mike
The reason why I know this because a standard parking supervisor told me. When I started talking to a black female employee who worked for standard parking. I did remember her name was Diane. She was working at the time in the short trip booth and told me she is not allowed to talk to us customers. I told her she was crazy because we're not her customers. She radioed for a supervisor complaining that I'm bothering her. Her supervisor came and we talked. I told her what she said, telling me she's not allowed to talk to us customers. The supervisor said TECHNICALLY WE ARE BECAUSE THE $2.00 STAMPS WE PAY FOR, PART OF IT IS ALOCATED TO THEIR PAY. So that's how I know.
Mr. Budzynski,
I wouldn't accept everything that a Standard Parking supervisor told me as being necessarily true.
I would double check the "facts".
Wolf Weiss purports to know a lot of this kind of information.
Maybe he could post the relevant documents about the contract between the City and Standard Parking and the other relevant documents pertaining to the MPEA stamps.
Can anybody "Wolf Whistle"?
HERE, BOY!
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mike
The reason why I know this because a standard parking supervisor told me. When I started talking to a black female employee who worked for standard parking. I did remember her name was Diane. She was working at the time in the short trip booth and told me she is not allowed to talk to us customers. I told her she was crazy because we're not her customers. She radioed for a supervisor complaining that I'm bothering her. Her supervisor came and we talked. I told her what she said, telling me she's not allowed to talk to us customers. The supervisor said TECHNICALLY WE ARE BECAUSE THE $2.00 STAMPS WE PAY FOR, PART OF IT IS ALOCATED TO THEIR PAY. So that's how I know.
Mike,
The city contracts are public access. You can get a copy of the contract Standard Parking has with the city and it's free. You could even go online for it.
Mr. Budzynski,
Where can I go online to see the contract between Standard Parking and the City?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mike,
The city contracts are public access. You can get a copy of the contract Standard Parking has with the city and it's free. You could even go online for it.
You can call city hall or 311 and they'll probably tell you where to go on line.
Why, so you can try to extort $125,000 from Standard Parking too?
They just may get a contract on your subhuman dumb ass.
File a Freedom (free doom!) of Information Act Request and the City will tell you everything you need to know.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Budzynski,
Where can I go online to see the contract between Standard Parking and the City?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mike,
The city contracts are public access. You can get a copy of the contract Standard Parking has with the city and it's free. You could even go online for it.
Neil,
I pray for people like you with troubled minds. If you don't have anything civilized to say, then don't say anything. You'd be better off.
save your prayers for your fool dumb ass friend
Your personality tells me that you don't have any friends.
Those airports stamps are big rip-off. I don't work that airport no more.
anyone wonder why george titled this black steel in the hour of chaos? its a public enemy song about a prison break and killing police men with his black steel.
does george imagine he is some kind of prison breaker who wants to kill poliec?
