Call Sign December 1999

AN OPEN LETTER TO BRIAN RICE FROM DAVE FREEMAN (A19)
I felt that I had to write to you regarding the dilemma facing the Society re coverage at certain times of the day and evening. The only other time I have written to you or Call Sign was a few months ago when I suggested incentives to cover the work at these times. Now, as it is coming up to Christmas, you have introduced a type of bonus scheme which I personally think is a very good idea. That isn't my main reason for writing though. It was brought to my attention a short while ago that all cash pre-bookings were no longer to be taken. The reason given to me was that there was a threat of litigation through customers missing their train or plane if we failed to supply a cab. This I cannot understand, because if a message were left on the answering tape that categorically stated that we could not guarantee to supply a taxi even if it was a booking, surely this would cover the Society.
   Remember the old days Brian, we used to say that if we covered the cash work it would lead to more account work. Then, in the not too distant past, I picked up a Mrs Brown who lived in Chelsea Square: I asked her how she was and she said that she felt rather humbled. I asked her why and she explained that her friend who lived locally wanted to open a private account and was refused. I asked if she had a bad credit rating and was told that she had been very solvent. The excuse given by our Admin or Customer Services was that DaC only accepted company or corporate accounts. To say that I was gobsmacked was an understatement.
   Now, let's go back to the recent messages put on the screen stating that due to poor coverage, we were now sharing two of our major accounts with other cab companies. Let's try and figure out why. Firstly, we have taken on probably the biggest account in London without the benefit of having extra drivers. It was generally accepted that to take on another major account, we would require 2 - 300 extra drivers. This was a no-go. Why? Because we didn't have enough terminals to go in the cab. Two years on we were still experimenting with touch-screens with no old ones available for new drivers. I know that the BoM have to be careful with the Society's money having learned lessons from Com Cab and Mountview - and rightly so! But two years is an awfully long time and the BoM must accept some of the responsibility for any coverage below expectations by not having the new system up and running before the acceptance of more large corporate accounts.
   There are also many other factors to consider. Go back 5 or 6 years. At 7 am you'd pick up an account ride in SW6 going to the City. The running time would have been about 25 minutes. At 7,25, there wasn't much doing in the City so you'd head back west or towards Islington. Those journeys would be 20 minutes and 10 minutes respectively. Now take the journey today. Pick up at SW6 at 07.00 and the journey could take 40 minutes + and perhaps the same again when returning back west to pick up another job. The traffic is now 20 to 30% worse than 5 years ago, so the coverage becomes more difficult. And one important factor that you have overlooked is that a good percentage of our work from 06.30 onwards goes to E14. The return from E14 to SW3 / SW11 at 07.30 can take forever. Need I say more...
   Back-up zones: The Dispatcher may ask us to cover 3 jobs in SW11 and see some cabs booked in SW2 or SW4 with the pick-ups in PoW Drive. Yes, you have cabs in back-up zones but how long does it take to get from Clapham South Side to PoW Drive at 08.00 and how many times will the driver have to reset his meter even with an enhanced run-in and premium? You have to consider many aspects. A new cab costs 27K+. Fuel had doubled in 3 years and fares must be cost-effective.
   One of the main suppliers to M&S are laying off 4000 workers. Why? Because they put all their eggs in one basket. I say to the Board, please be very

careful if we have stopped taking on private accounts. Just suppose that we lost several of our major accounts in a years time because they then dictated what Admin charges DaC could charge and we could not agree. Our subs would probably go up by about 50% because we are not taking on any private accounts! It doesn't take a lot of working out that I, like many other drivers, would much rather have a few thousand private accounts spread all over London than have four or five in the City or on the Island. You, Brian and the BoM, must go out into the field (in rush hour times) in your cab to experience just what the situation is really like. London is now gridlocked from 06.00 onwards and it is getting worse.
   I say that we must go back to taking on private accounts or consider where these potential customers will go. As you stated before in your messages to us, there are other companies out there who will fall over backwards to sign up these accounts. And besides - although not really relevant - the people who have these private accounts are so much nicer! They are proper people who do not treat you with contempt or in a condescending manner. Let's not forget the people we were picking up when the Society started.
   And as a final thought re going public: If we ever voted to become a PLC and a company like Addison Lee started buying all our shares, would you work for a minicab company? In other words, is it really worth selling your b****cks for a lousy 2 or Ł3000?
   Although I have been critical in certain aspects, I do thank the BoM for the amount of work they have managed to secure and all in all I believe they do a good job.
   And one final word. I'd like to offer my personal thanks to Aubrey Siteman for all the work he has done over the years on our behalf. I believe that it was Aubrey that saved the Society when it was on it's knees. Aubrey, I wish you everything you wish yourself for the rest of your years on this planet (even though I'm a Chelsea supporter and you are a gooner). God bless you...
Dave Freeman (A19)

Brian Rice replies:
Dear Dave, nice to hear from you and thanks for the short note! The Society is in the best position it has ever been in and neither I nor the rest of the BoM will accept responsibility for poor coverage when the figures prove that we are covering on average four jobs per day per mobile - hardly mind blowing figures. Next year when the fleet is increased, some members will then complain that the fleet is too big and there is not enough work - so I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.
Utopia? Couldn't agree with you more. Take on three thousand extra small accounts at the expense of the juggernaut accounts, then if you lose a small one then it doesn't really matter. However, that is not the way the trade has developed with the financial institutions buying up other finance houses making larger and larger accounts and of course, becoming more demanding. The reason that we are not opening accounts at this time of the year is because it has been proven that they are opened in most cases just for the run up to Christmas. Why should we jeopardise our existing client base that has given us work throughout the year? Dave, you also suggest that I go out in the rush hours to see how gridlocked London is; are you suggesting that I have a go at clearing up the congestion?
Finally, you talk of going PLC and Addison Lee buying our shares. Where did that come from? They can only buy shares if our members sold them and as you state in your letter, you wouldn't like to work for them therefore they wouldn't have a workforce, so why would they buy the shares? Don't say it's for our account base because most companies are serviced by the unlicensed trade anyway.

But it's nice to hear from you Dave, you've done your bit now you can get back to the Golf course, oh, and keep your head down (at golf of course)...

POSTAL BALLOT
It was regrettable that the recent postal ballot passed with such a vote in favour of the ballot. It just goes to show how apathetic drivers on DAC and the cab-trade in general, have become. Here we have a multimillion-pound organisation, and the majority of its' members have voted for important business to be conducted by way of a postal ballot. Voting to reduce the numbers necessary to form a quorum at the AGM is in effect what they have done and by doing so, they have effectively given the Board the ability to introduce and amend rules in the knowledge that only their side of rule changes, propositions and amendments will be put forward. Or will the Board send out opposing material along with their recommendations? At least if meetings are attended, opposing views would be put forward thereby giving everyone the opportunity to hear arguments for and against the Boards recommendations before a vote takes place.
   Are drivers really that busy that they cannot attend an AGM once a year? Or is it a question of greed, not wanting to lose a days pay? In my view, if the drivers on DaC are not sufficiently concerned about the organisation to attend the AGM thus having the opportunity to hear the opinion of others and voice their own on important issues, then they should not be on DaC.
   I will be the first to admit that some of these meeting have been long and boring, however, this did not stop me from attending. It may now be pointless for anyone to attend the AGM and to oppose the views of the BoM, as they would be safe in the knowledge that the postal vote would most likely to be carried. Notwithstanding the retention of the Ł50 fine for non attendance, the votes of those members in attendance at AGMs would be insignificant.
   I have attended every AGM since I first joined DaC. I did so not because I was afraid of being fined, but because I wanted to know what was going on within the Society. Is attending one AGM per year really too much to ask?
Louie Christian (A48)

E14C COMPLAINTS
In reply to the ongoing subject of E14C (Nov Mailshot), the letter writer F.Estabrook (P95) refers to me in his correspondence to which I object. To start a sentence "I do not know the circumstances of the other complaint but..." and then go onto pass judgement, leaves himself in danger of casting aspersions onto my good character. The terms slander and libel spring to mind. After my complaint verdict, I tried to allow the whole matter to rest, other than a short note to inform Mailshot that I was guilty of booking in early by being in the right hand side of the road by the Canary Wharf Tower. This is the point that the panel was told was breaking the rules. A comment by the Editor showed that he had been speaking about my complaints meeting, even though it was behind closed doors. Keith Cain replied to one letter when he
wrote that he could not comment on any individual complaints case, quite rightly. I should also like to point out that if a person doesn't know the full facts, then it is better not to judge or to condemn. If any BM should like to remind us that we are not allowed to book in whilst on
the right hand side by the Tower, only on the space which makes us the 9th cab facing Morgan
Stanley, then we shall all realise the difficulties and confusion which will arise. I could go up
to Canary Wharf at practically any time of the day, find drivers on the guilty side of the road
and put dozens of drivers on complaint. I have not done so and have no intention of doing so.
If any problems arise on E14C, then sort them out without referring to me.
I hope my next letter will be on a more happier note, keep up the good work.
S.Donoghue (T53)