3 ms·

Right, but the text of this blog post claims in multiple places that they're supporting traditional cab drivers somehow. "Taxi drivers are going on strike, and

by ryanf 15y ago

Right, but the text of this blog post claims in multiple places that they're supporting traditional cab drivers somehow. "Taxi drivers are going on strike, and while they circle City Hall in hopes of getting a better deal..." "...making sure ordinary folks can get around the city while the taxi drivers strike to get a fair deal." "Furthermore, we want to put a word of support out there to the hard working taxi drivers in San Francisco..." As far as I can tell, the reality is that they're deliberately undercutting the strike and profiting by it. Which may or may not be justifiable (I don't know anything about the strike), but it's certainly not supportive.

jamesaguilar 15y ago
I think they mean "better deal" to be taken ironically by the readers, who likely have little sympathy for cab drivers. Unlike most public unions who are paid by taxes, the electorate is directly and visibly affected by taxi price hikes. So public support for them is naturally much lower than the unions the rich people pay for. Probably anyone reading this is laughing along. They are thinking that fifty cents per thousand feet driven is more than a fair fare (that is the current rate for SF cabs). Edit: it appears the strike is more about the credit card fees companies charge the cabbies, digital tracking of the cabs, tvs in the back seats which show adverts to passengers, and various other anti-consumer and anti-driver practices. In this case, I can see that public support might be a little higher. I don't like either cabbies or cab companies, but if I had to pick which I like least, it's obviously the companies. In this case, the fair deal bit might be meant unironically.
jws 15y ago
This strike is not intended to inconvenience the cab customers (voters!). They intend to prevent vehicular access to City Hall. A few percent of the cabs will be involved in shutting down the streets at City Hall and if Uber takes up enough slack so the customers aren't inconvenienced that could be helping the cab industry. They don't want pissed off voters. (Personally, it seems ill advised. The core seems to be the cab companies keeping a 5% transaction fee on credit card processing, which isn't far from the cost. Some cabbies also don't want GPS trackers on the company's cars or LCDs playing advertisements to their riders.)
anigbrowl 15y ago
They're supporting the drivers, not the medallion owners, who are the ones renting the cabs to drivers 6 days a week at an outrageous markup and preventing the city issuing any new medallions. The average taxi driver, who does not own a medallion, gets screwed by the current arrangement and would be far better off working for Uber IMO.
- anamax 15y ago
  > not the medallion owners, who are the ones renting the cabs to drivers 6 days a week at an outrageous markup and preventing the city issuing any new medallions. Umm, no. The medallion owners are NOT preventing the city from issuing new medallions. Yes, the medallion owners have consistently convinced the relevant authorities to not issue new medallions, but the responsibility for that choice rests with said authorities, not the current medallion owner. If you can't figure out who is responsibile, you can't fix things....
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    Anamax, you can't say the government exists in a vacuum when business is often buying the votes in the regulatory body. I do not like the way city hall is run either, but it's a two-way street.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > you can't say the government exists in a vacuum I'm not saying that govt exists in a vacuum. I'm saying who is responsible for what it does. > I do not like the way city hall is run either, but it's a two-way street. No, it's not. The way City Hall works in SF is entirely the responsibility of the voters of SF. As long as they insist on setting it up so it can be bought off, it will be, and that's their fault. No, it isn't the fault of the people buying. Not one little bit.
      - anigbrowl 15y ago
        Yes it is partly their fault, because they are the ones corrupting the political process at the electoral level. There are so many different factors that go into electing people at city hall, and the public is no more a monolithic entity than the government. Rather, it includes multiple groups some of whose interests are aligned on some issues and conflict on others. The electorate can't, and shouldn't, build the entire election around the taxi issue; that would be irrational. But it's not obvious what the most effective leverage point for change is; this is a basic lesson of public choice theory. The people buying influence (and today, holding the public interest hostage by blockading city hall) are also a part of the problem. You can't sensibly object to rent-seeking and then give the rent-seekers a free pass when they kick back some of their extracted rents in the form of political lobbying.

by ryanf 15y ago

jamesaguilar 15y ago

I think they mean "better deal" to be taken ironically by the readers, who likely have little sympathy for cab drivers. Unlike most public unions who are paid by taxes, the electorate is directly and visibly affected by taxi price hikes. So public support for them is naturally much lower than the unions the rich people pay for. Probably anyone reading this is laughing along. They are thinking that fifty cents per thousand feet driven is more than a fair fare (that is the current rate for SF cabs). Edit: it appears the strike is more about the credit card fees companies charge the cabbies, digital tracking of the cabs, tvs in the back seats which show adverts to passengers, and various other anti-consumer and anti-driver practices. In this case, I can see that public support might be a little higher. I don't like either cabbies or cab companies, but if I had to pick which I like least, it's obviously the companies. In this case, the fair deal bit might be meant unironically.

jws 15y ago

This strike is not intended to inconvenience the cab customers (voters!). They intend to prevent vehicular access to City Hall. A few percent of the cabs will be involved in shutting down the streets at City Hall and if Uber takes up enough slack so the customers aren't inconvenienced that could be helping the cab industry. They don't want pissed off voters. (Personally, it seems ill advised. The core seems to be the cab companies keeping a 5% transaction fee on credit card processing, which isn't far from the cost. Some cabbies also don't want GPS trackers on the company's cars or LCDs playing advertisements to their riders.)

anigbrowl 15y ago

They're supporting the drivers, not the medallion owners, who are the ones renting the cabs to drivers 6 days a week at an outrageous markup and preventing the city issuing any new medallions. The average taxi driver, who does not own a medallion, gets screwed by the current arrangement and would be far better off working for Uber IMO.

anamax 15y ago
> not the medallion owners, who are the ones renting the cabs to drivers 6 days a week at an outrageous markup and preventing the city issuing any new medallions. Umm, no. The medallion owners are NOT preventing the city from issuing new medallions. Yes, the medallion owners have consistently convinced the relevant authorities to not issue new medallions, but the responsibility for that choice rests with said authorities, not the current medallion owner. If you can't figure out who is responsibile, you can't fix things....
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  Anamax, you can't say the government exists in a vacuum when business is often buying the votes in the regulatory body. I do not like the way city hall is run either, but it's a two-way street.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > you can't say the government exists in a vacuum I'm not saying that govt exists in a vacuum. I'm saying who is responsible for what it does. > I do not like the way city hall is run either, but it's a two-way street. No, it's not. The way City Hall works in SF is entirely the responsibility of the voters of SF. As long as they insist on setting it up so it can be bought off, it will be, and that's their fault. No, it isn't the fault of the people buying. Not one little bit.
    - anigbrowl 15y ago
      Yes it is partly their fault, because they are the ones corrupting the political process at the electoral level. There are so many different factors that go into electing people at city hall, and the public is no more a monolithic entity than the government. Rather, it includes multiple groups some of whose interests are aligned on some issues and conflict on others. The electorate can't, and shouldn't, build the entire election around the taxi issue; that would be irrational. But it's not obvious what the most effective leverage point for change is; this is a basic lesson of public choice theory. The people buying influence (and today, holding the public interest hostage by blockading city hall) are also a part of the problem. You can't sensibly object to rent-seeking and then give the rent-seekers a free pass when they kick back some of their extracted rents in the form of political lobbying.