- A Bravenet.com Forum

General Forum

Author

Comment

Sep 3, 2008 - 8:33AM

Previous comments about the gas surcharge

I agree with some of Mr. Blair Henderson's comments, and I object to others.

First, I agree that suspicion should be placed upon the numerical values which have been often quoted and misapplied. In fact, Mr. Henderson himself is guilty of mixing apples and oranges when he uses his personal average fare amount to speculate as to what Mr. George Kasp makes.

I am quite familiar with both Mr. Kasp and Mr. Roosevelt Franklin. They are two very distinct cabdrivers, much more so than the color of their skin.

Mr. Kasp can be found very early in the morning making his usual rounds at the Metra train stations and servicing the Loop.

Mr. Franklin can be found later at Midway airport taking those fares to wherever they end up.

I don't need a scientific study to state with absolute certainty that Mr. Kasp has more fares per day than Mr. Franklin, and that Mr. Franklin's average fare is far higher than Mr. Kasp's. My expertise as a ten-year Chicago cabdriver and my familiarity with both of these gentleman and their work habits give me this insight.

The important difference is that this surcharge will benefit Mr. Kasp much more than Mr. Franklin. Another difference is that Mr. Kasp has been more involved in the petitioning and lobbying of government officials than Mr. Franklin.

I am also aware that Mr. Franklin's initial understanding of the details of the gas surcharge and when he was quoted is different than it is presently, which is to say that he is disappointed that he will not see much benefit if his current work habits remain the same.

The numbers quoted come from self-reporting by a handful of cabdrivers at Commissioner Reyes' request. This woefully inadequate "study" shouldn't be used by anyone for any reason, no matter what political conclusion one wishes to reach.

While it seems that Mr. Henderson is not "talking off the top of his head", he is guilty of being misinformed and spreading misinformation to a small degree as well.

Let me put aside the often confused issues of raising leases and the legal lease cap.

Mr. Henderson is mistaken when he claims that advertising revenue hasn't been shared with lease drivers and that its purpose was to use the revenue to purchase hybrid or wheelchair cabs.

While we often wonder if we are receiving all that we are entitled to, lease drivers need only to produce a copy of their lease to determine how much advertising revenue they were credited that day. It is usually a insignificant amount of a few dollars or less, depending upon the extent of the advertising.

In the interest of space, let me just say that I would prefer that 100% of advertising revenue would go to the owner because this notion of revenue-sharing benefiting lease drivers to any significant degree is political lie.

The idea that fare increases only help owners is simply a falsehood borne out of the frustration we face when leases do in fact go up or that the political process produces more rules or regulations as a result of our request for permission to charge more for our services.

Mr. Henderson's conlcusion that a "ten-year moratorium" be placed on fare increases is simply unwise and naive. It is not an opinion shared by most cabdrivers. Such a moratorium would also not produce the desired result- no lease increases or new rules from time to time.

This brings me to my final point. I am one of the few cabdrivers who cabdrivers themselves actually voted for to represent them to the politicians, media, or general public. There are far too many self-appointed "champions" of the Chicago cabdriver who are simply acting in their self-interest. It is too easy to pick and choose among the many conflicting quotes cabdrivers can give you and print or repeat the one you like or believe to be true.

The business of a Chicago cabdriver should be kept as simple as possible.

This innovation of a gas surcharge will only further deteriorate the poor public relations Chicago cabdrivers must constantly deal with. We want and a need a traditional fare increase. The complexity of an fluctuating "extra charge" for gas will contribute mostly to the political interests of those who wish to exploit cabdrivers by suppressing the fare as much as possible. It will contribute almost nothing to the bottom line and the pockets of cabdrivers at the end of our long shifts.

While it might seem counter-intuitive, I am afraid the real cost of this gas surcharge will be the greater difficulty we will face to get the inevitable approved: a traditional fare increase which has more to do with the rising general costs of business and living than simply the price of gasoline.

Having said all that, let me conclude by agreeing with Mr. Henderson when he suggests that newer vehicles should be required of fleet owners. They would go a long way in making passengers happy because they tend to be cleaner, more comfortable and more reliable.

Cabdrivers would prefer them for the same reasons and newer vehicles tend to have much better gas mileage than the used Crown Victorias imported from New York or bought from police agencies that are the standard now.

Whatever enviromental benefit hybrids might provide is only a bonus; honestly, the green that we cabdrivers care about is the dollar bill. There is nothing greedy or shameful about wanting to make more than minimum wage after 12 or more hours of the most challenging and dangerous forms of self-employment known to man. (The few ladies you see in our occupation are not only brave, they are as tough as nails.)

A bit of cabdriver wisdom applies to all of the above...

Don't be fooled by appearances.

-Mike Foulks, President, Chicago Cabdriver Organization (CCO)

Posted by: Mike Foulks | Apr 11, 2008 6:41:40 PM