Fare Increase
Like many others in the trade, I am rather concerned at not just how our negotiators are arriving at any figures they present when asking for a fare
increase, but whether there is any point. We obviously need to be recompensed for any
increases we suffer throughout the year - and this year especially as we have been taken
to the cleaners so far as the price of Diesel is concerned (up 47p a gallon since the day
before the Budget). Surely we are entitled to have an increase that doesn’t just
"make up the loss" but one which also puts a bit more into our pockets too? But
neither do we want an increase that loses us work. This one most certainly will.
Each year we are reliant on the generosity of the DOT. We tell them what we
need and just as certainly, never get it. Bob Oddy was reported as saying that we asked
for the initial £1.40 hiring charge to be increased, but Glenda Jackson said no - so the
answer was no! Was it that unreasonable a request? Surely, a £2 hiring charge with a low
percentage increase on yardage charges at the lower rate, would have had a far better
response than the rather stupid increase presented to us.
We already know why we are losing long distance work; we are too expensive.
Whereas on shorter trips, most passengers realise that they are paying for a service and
so long as that service materialises, they are happy. Minicabs can’t hold a candle to
a business that allows people to put their hands out wherever they are and get a licensed
vehicle to stop and take them wherever they want to go at a fair and reasonable price.
When they phone Dial-a-Cab, they realise that a licensed taxi is going to be far better
than a minicab - be it licensed or not. But that is for town work.
Be honest, if you had to go to Gatwick and were quoted £65 and a local
minicab firm charged £25 and you knew who the company were, would you not be tempted?
I use a Call Sign account on occasion to send various items concerning the
mag to different places. If I sent them by bike, I
could cut the bill, but I wouldn’t feel safe (okay, I’d also
get lynched!). But I feel 100% safe knowing my delivery will arrive safely in a taxi.
So we have to cater to our market. We know passengers will use us in town and
trust us implicitly when it comes to delivering anything valuable - including their
children, so an increase in the front end would make little difference to the numbers but
would give us a reasonable increase - especially as we creep ever-closer to the busier
time of the ‘season’. So why on earth was the increase spread out evenly? As
Alan Nash points out on page 2, we have had an increase of 4% on the lower rate (1) and 5%
on the higher rate (2). Is that madness or what? Why do we want an even bigger increase on
the higher end? A more cynical person than I might even suspect a plot to
‘officially’ price us out of the long-distance work. As minicabs become private
hire, our longer trips have become even more expensive. Deliberate? You tell me.
The only way that we are going to keep the longer rides we have now and to
get any new trips of that kind, is going to be with fixed prices. Any comments would be
welcome…
POSTAL BALLOT
Winston Churchill is quoted as having said: "Too little democracy is no good, too much is even worse."
I am writing this before having seen the official results which will be
printed somewhere in this issue together with the percentages. All I have seen are the
scribbled results which then had to be collated into some sort of order. So if I am not
entirely accurate, please forgive me. It seems that the vote on Board members not needing
cabs failed to get through. I admit to having been in favour because in my position, I
have seen the long hours that Board members work and no one should have to go and drive a
cab after ten hours in the office (sometimes even longer). And, so long as we classify the
BoM as a single entity, part-time Board members have to be put into the same equation.
But one thing puzzles me. At the AGM with a hand count, the vote was very
close. Some say it scraped through while others say it fell. Yet in a postal ballot, the
same vote got through with a two to one majority in favour of the Board not needing to own
cabs. Is that not a success? Well no, actually. Under our system, 2 to 1 in favour
wasn’t good enough. The majority were overthrown by the minority. What type of
democracy is that? And more importantly, why was the vote so much in favour in a secret
poll than it was at the AGM hand count? Surely there is no intimidation at our AGM? Well
there certainly isn’t any of the physical variety, but there is certainly plenty of
the "…you’re not voting for that load of crap, are you?" to the
surrounding drivers by some with louder voices than others. I find nothing wrong in that
because I vote for whatever I feel is right. Not everyone seems capable of doing that, as
the postal vote results show.
And again, even worse than the diminishment of what should have been the
correct majority vote, was the fact that in a democratic society, so many chose not to
return their ballot forms with 200 of those returning well after the closing date and
therefore being invalid.
As I quoted Winnie at the beginning, "Too little democracy is no good,
too much is even worse…."
