Driver information:
Please read and email all your concerns or questions in reference to these changes or modifications to the following email address
http://www3.alexandriava.gov/contactus/mailto.php?id=610
These will go to Bob Garbacz, Bill Euille, City council and parking and traffic board.
Driver Comments:
Drivers submitted recommendations to the City but none of those recommendations were included in the new code. Why would drivers believe the City respects their comments when none of their comments have been included and so many of the code provisions that protected drivers in 2005 have been eliminated in 2010?
Driver Transfer:
There should be no change to the 2005 code regarding transfers. The City should not regulate driver/company contracts. The City should regulate the industry and contracts between drivers and companies should reflect industry regulations. Drivers should be able to transfer to any company annually. Drivers are independent contractors and should be allowed to write, sign, and then abide by contracts created between the driver and the company.
Taxi Companies:
The City should not allow back fill if drivers leave a company. This gives companies no incentive to compete for drivers, abide by their contracts, or to treat drivers fairly. Drivers lose all leverage in negotiating contracts when companies can ask the City for backfill drivers
The City should not require certificates be returned to the City if they are temporarily not in use
Penalties, Suspension and Appeal Rights:
Drivers should not lose their rights to appeal. This puts authority in the hands of the Hack office or the Traffic Board alone, and neither should hold that much authority.
Drivers should not have penalties increased unless there is a significant reason to do it. The proposed changes provided no reason for the change.
Drivers are still entitled to the same protection under the US Constitution governing free speech. The 2005 code regarding how a driver treats a passenger or city official is broad enough; the new changes appear to violate drivers rights to free speech and is too broad.
Credit Cards:
Who will compensate the driver when the passenger’s credit card is declined? If a credit card is used to pay for a product or service the card is charged before the customer is given the product or service. That does not happen with a taxi ride. This is a problem for drivers and not for companies. Drivers must absorb the lost income.
The City should not require drivers to accept credit cards when they do not require Dash or Metro Bus to accept credit cards.
The City does not accept credit cards (except Discover) unless the credit card user pays a fee for the service.
If drivers add a surcharge fee it will probably reduce or eliminate their tip. Why does the city require that drivers accept credit cards when they do not require any other business to accept credit cards?
Taxi Service. The code should be more inclusive of the many ways taxi service is provided in addition to dispatch calls. Stands, flags, hotels, metro stations, and the airport are all providing service to the City.
Why is it necessary to have a minimum number of calls when Arlington, and other local jurisdictions do not require a minimum?
Calls should not be limited to dispatch center calls, wireless devices, email or text; cell phone calls should be included. How are text messages to be received and counted? Text messages are received on a cellular device (a cell phone), yet the City does not propose to count cell phone calls. If cell calls are submitted to the dispatch center why can’t they be counted?
What exactly is considered a wireless device?
Generally, drivers should be careful to only speak to the code and not to their dissatisfaction with Yellow, White Top, or any other company. They can talk about the City making it more difficult for drivers to earn a living and to negotiate in good faith with companies.
This is an opportunity to comment on the proposed code. No one at Union should threaten law suits in the comments.
|
|
|
Alexandria Union Taxi board comments to the Alexandria Traffic and Parking Board
Dear Mr. Garbacz:
Thank you for the opportunity to offer questions and comments on the proposed changes to the City of Alexandria (City) taxi code. Please find Alexandria Union Cab (AUC) questions and comments below. We are eager to work with the City and hope the City will fairly review and consider all comments. We would also like an official response to our questions. All questions have been highlighted in bold italic font.
1. Sec. 9-12-1 Definitions: AUC thinks this section should include a more inclusive definition of taxi service to cover all methods of service requests including dispatch calls, written request through email or text messaging, wireless devices such as direct-connect devices, cell phones, flags, and all stands including the metro stations, hotels and the airport. The original text defining dispatch service was more inclusive. If dispatch service is changed to only define service that is dispatched from a central facility then AUC believes an additional definition should be added to capture all of the other ways taxi service is provided
.
2. Sec. 9-12-30: AUC supports a biennial industry review but also supports the original code regarding annual driver mobility. The City should be able to establish an administrative mechanism to facilitate annual driver transfers between companies without regard to the biennial industry review. Drivers struggled for many years to achieve mobility. As AUC reads this section, it is conceivable that drivers could be forced to wait as long as four years to transfer. AUC also questions why company size is limited by anything other than monopoly concerns. Limiting size also limits success by discouraging investment in technology, service innovations and staffing. A small company will remain small and a large company will remain large. Why is size so regulated?
3. Sec. 9-12-31: AUC has concerns about several parts of this section, specifically sub-sections that appear to favor one type of service and ties driver mobility to that type of service to the exclusion and/or devaluation of other types of service.
a. Sub-section (c)(1): As AUC reads this paragraph, it would appear the City is prepared to guarantee that a company never fall below their minimum number of certificates. AUC believes the City wants to insure companies with city contracts maintain adequate numbers of drivers to satisfy the City contract for its entirety. AUC believes the City has the right to mandate that their contracts be serviced but should not be able to achieve this mandate at the expense of driver mobility or guarantees of minimum floors. Drivers and companies must be allowed to negotiate with each other without the City manipulating this basic business function with protective regulations.
AUC believes companies must have a responsibility to guarantee their own ability to satisfy their contracts. Generally, when contractors are unable to meet their responsibility governments may cancel and/or re-bid the contracts. AUC believes the City should not regulate this industry to satisfy a regulated company’s ability to meet service contracts. Providing a government contract to a regulated company and then guaranteeing the company’s ability to meet the terms of that contract through other regulations implies an internal versus and external business relationship between that company and the government. If the company cannot keep an adequate number of drivers to meet obligations then the City could question the reason for this problem. AUC does not believe the City should use government regulations to guarantee the company’s ability to maintain its size and business goals.
b. Sub-section (d)(4) and (5) and Sub-section (i)(1): What exactly defines a demonstrated commitment to serving the elderly and disabled community members? Why is dispatch service the only means of defining compliance and authorization numbers? Whereas the City must regulate the industry it also must be careful not to use regulations to save a specific company. The proposed regulations governing transfers would make it too easy for a company to intentionally avoid fair business practice with its independent contractors (drivers) by relying on regulations rather than competitiveness to attract and retain contracts with drivers (see concerns for Sub-section (c)(1) above.)
4. Sec. 9-12-32: AUC has concerns about several sub-sections. (c) AUC questions the continued need to use a specific number of calls per driver per day to measure service. Arlington County, for example, does not use this measurement. Why does the City insist on using calls per driver per day measurement as the primary standard for service? (t) AUC does not believe the City should regulate what method of payment a company must use to transact business. This should be a company decision.
5. Sec. 9-12-33: AUC questions why the City added (c). This sub-section unfairly penalizes a company if an independent contractor decides to retire or leave the business. Why was section (c) added? What value does it bring?
6. Sec. 9-12-58 and 9-12-59: Why were civil penalties raised from a class two to a class five violation? Why were hack inspectors provided the authority to assess a civil penalty? Where are driver protections against the potential of overly zealous applications of this section? Why are drivers no longer allowed to appeal a penalty not accompanied by a suspension?
7. Sec. 9-12-60: AUC believes the additional language in sub-section (a)(13) is overly broad and may be a violation of free speech. Why did the City include this extra language?
8. Punitive rather than progressive code changes: In reading the proposed changes it appears the City is pursuing a more punitive approach to the taxi industry. This would be understandable if the industry was suffering from an inordinate number of complaints about service and company or driver behaviors. AUC is unaware of any increase in complaints. Can the City demonstrate the need for an increase in punitive code changes or additions, especially code changes that limit driver mobility, increase driver penalties, limit driver appeal opportunities, impede on driver first amendment rights, and finally, expand City involvement in taxi industry business functions to include contracts between drivers and companies and guaranteed company size?
Alexandria Union Cab stands ready to work with the City to establish a responsible and progressive taxi industry code that is fair to all involved. Please post our comments and questions along with your responses to this inquiry on your web site so all members of the Alexandria community may read your answers.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Best regards,
|
|