From: JNugent on
Dave Plowman wrote:

> Brimstone <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> They only go to the garage at the end of the day - so how is that
>>> different from a cab?

>> Errr, no. Bus drivers get a meal break and some route termination points
>> have facilities.
>
> As can a cab driver - but any time he likes or feels like it - rather
> different from a bus driver. I really don't see what the argument is. A
> bus driver has to follow a defined route and a timetable so can only stop
> for a loo break where there is one on his route and is suitable for him to
> stop at. A cab can simply drive to the nearest one. Even if he has a fare.

LOL!

You *have* to be joking!

Extending the length of a journey (for a passenger paying a metered fare) is
a specific offence under the London Cab Acts. And quite right too. Why do you
think passengers take taxis in the first place?

Do you actually know anything about the subject or is your knowledge limited
to the fact that you don't like it when a cab-driver picks up or drops off a
fare and gets in your way?
From: Brimstone on
"JNugent" <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote in message
news:871ddkFukqU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> Brimstone wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" <JN(a)npptg.com> wrote:
>>> Dave Plowman wrote:
>
>>>> A black cab doesn't follow a route or a timetable. And the drivers are
>>>> all - or mostly - self employed so what they do in terms of
>>>> breaks is up to them.
>
>>> They are all self-employed.
>>> There is no employment-and-wages model that would work.
>
>> What's wrong with "x" hours per day at "n" pounds per hour? It's not as
>> if they're going far from base and can't get home.
>
> It's do with incentive.

It's easy enough to monitor their performance and pay commission on fares
etc.

> Think about it.

Quite obviously too few people have.

I suspect the reason that cab drivers are self employed is more to do with
buck passing by the employer.


From: JNugent on
Brimstone wrote:

> "JNugent" <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <JN(a)npptg.com> wrote:
>>>> Dave Plowman wrote:

>>>>> A black cab doesn't follow a route or a timetable. And the drivers
>>>>> are all - or mostly - self employed so what they do in terms of
>>>>> breaks is up to them.

>>>> They are all self-employed.
>>>> There is no employment-and-wages model that would work.

>>> What's wrong with "x" hours per day at "n" pounds per hour? It's not
>>> as if they're going far from base and can't get home.

>> It's do with incentive.

> It's easy enough to monitor their performance and pay commission on
> fares etc.

Is it?

>> Think about it.

> Quite obviously too few people have.

On the contrary. The situation is well-researched, not least by the DoT and
the Home office, as well as by (some) local authorites.

> I suspect the reason that cab drivers are self employed is more to do
> with buck passing by the employer.

It is definitely not that.

Until April 1974, a taxi-driver who drove someone else's cab was legally
deemed to be employed by the owner of the cab. In practice, this didn't mean
much, since the owner was responsible only for ensuring the payment of the
driver's (flat rate) National Insurance contribution each week by the act of
purchasing a NI stamp and affixing it to the NI card of the driver and for
ensuring adequate insurance in case of injury (via the vehicle's policy).

Income tax accounting was the sole responsibility of the driver. In those
days, National Insurance was set at a flat rate apart from "graduated
contributions", which did not apply here because they were collected as an
adjunct to PAYE income tax (for which the employer was not responsible in
law). The system was known as the baillee/bailor relationship.

An owner-driver, of course, was self-employed in law for all purposes. Until
his vehicle was off the road, that is, when - if he drove someone else's for
a few shifts, he was legally an employee. You really couldn't make it up,
could you?

With effect from April 1974, the bailee/bailor system was rationalised (read
"abolished") and taxi-drivers - irrespective of their connection to the
ownership of the vehicle - were self-employed for all purposes and for all
statutory relationships. The main change was that they had to stamp their own
cards. Needless to say, there were many tales of drivers then neglecting to
pay national insurance for years on end, until the combined might of the IR
and DHSS (collecting contributions) caught up with the change, or tried to.
Some LAs manfully tried to intervene to ensure propriety, but of course, were
working without real power in this area.

The main point is that the owner simply *may not* employ a taxi-driver on the
"old" terms, even if he wants to (though it is hard to see why he would want
to). If he literally employed the driver in a manner akin to the employment
of a bus- or van-driver, getting the driver to work hard and maximise takings
(which would be essential in a situation where wages were paid) would be
impossible. The driver would have no incentive to put himself about and hunt
for work, even if hours requirements were somehow imposed.

In short, it would never work. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't
exist. The current arrangements incentivise the driver to seek maximum
patronage and maximise takings.
From: Dave Plowman on
In article <871dmeF13dU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote:
> > They only go to the garage at the end of the day - so how is that
> > different from a cab?

> Very few cabs have garages at all, except when they need service or
> repair. The driver usually takes the vehicle home or to the home of
> another driver on the opposite shift.

At one time the carriage office required them to be garaged when not in
use. However, I assume the driver has a loo at his home - same as there
would be one at a bus garage? Or have you completely lost the plot?

> The authorised standing place at either end of the route is a clue. One
> of those is usually at a bus station or in a spot where the facilities
> exist nearby.

Since a cab driver has no route, what is the relevance?

> I'm not saying that bus-drivers can't encounter a problem. Only that it
> is already recognised and covered (to some extent) within the
> organisation of the working day. The problem for a cab-driver in
> London, though (which is where the concern is raised) is particularly
> acute.

Absolute rubbish. Most people manage to time their loo breaks round work.
Except on rare occasions. Cab drivers tend to stick to a particular area
so should know where the loos are. And if they get caught short and have
to stop in a restricted area to use a public loo, why should they be
treated differently from any other - like say a van driver?

> > And some routes take a very long time to cover. A cab driver can stop
> > any time he wants - unlike a bus driver.

> Being able to stop and being allowed to stop without penalty are two
> different things.

A bus driver can get fined too for stopping in an unauthorised place.

> > A licensed black cab driver could
> > also be expected to know the location of loos etc.

> Indeed. That isn't the problem. The problem is stopping on a double
> yellow or red line.

It's a total non event. Just typical of some black cab drivers thinking
they deserve special treatment.

--
*If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate *

Dave Plowman dave(a)davesound.co.uk London SW 12

From: Dave Plowman on
In article <871dsfF263U1(a)mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote:
> > Stop either a few yards earlier or later. It's called having
> > consideration for other road users. Something you wouldn't know about.

> So you *do* want the passenger dropped off in a spot other than where he
> wants to go, for your enhanced convenience.

> I see.

For the convenience of others. You really have lost the plot.

> >> Let him off the fare if he takes a little too long in paying for your
> >> liking?

> > Were you born a prat or did you have to work on it?

> Don't be silly. It was you who was calling for inconvenience for others
> (the passengers) in order to bolster your own convenience. And it was
> you who was complaining that a passenger took longer than you would
> have liked to count out the fare, therebu holding you up.

> Where you born that selfish or did you acquire it later in life?

Given the cab didn't stop outside a house or shop etc door, the passenger
would still have to walk to his final destination. But of course your
views on being able to park or drive anywhere you wish are well known.
Are you in fact a cab driver?

--
*Preserve wildlife - Go pickle a squirrel*

Dave Plowman dave(a)davesound.co.uk London SW 12