Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sat Jun 06, 2020 11:04 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 221 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:03 pm
Posts: 280
Well I shan't mention it again, it seems to be causing some disquiet. :-|


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Sirius wrote:
Well I shan't mention it again, it seems to be causing some disquiet. :-|


lol its not causing disquiet sirius, we just want to know how it effects self employed Taxi drivers? lol

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45465
Location: 1066 Country
Sirius wrote:
Well I shan't mention it again, it seems to be causing some disquiet. :-|

I suspect you meet the same type of driver that I do i.e. the ones who have found a secret directive that will either be the saviour or the death of the taxi/PH trade.

On the face of it it usually looks very good, or very bad, depending on your stance. But when you dig a little deeper you nearly always find it's a case of the bent banana. :oops:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:03 pm
Posts: 280
JD wrote:
Sirius wrote:
Well I shan't mention it again, it seems to be causing some disquiet. :-|


lol its not causing disquiet sirius, we just want to know how it effects self employed Taxi drivers? lol

Regards

JD



Well it does not seem to apply to us and I think it should, thats all there is to it.

It just seems a very narrow definition of the consultation issue, after all are we as workers not affected by the decisions others make for us.

I do not know how the rest of the Country fairs, but in Edinburgh there is nothing apparently, not a good indication of a "high performance" work place.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:03 pm
Posts: 280
Sussex it's just about information and consultation, what is wrong with that principle.

It would just give people the chance to find out what is being planned for them, and give them the chance for some input at the beginning rather than the end.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45465
Location: 1066 Country
Sirius wrote:
It would just give people the chance to find out what is being planned for them, and give them the chance for some input at the beginning rather than the end.

But that should be happening now, not need a new directive.

And if councils aren't taken any notice of existing consultation laws/directives, then I doubt they will take any notice of any new ones. :?

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:51 pm
Posts: 5795
Location: The Internet
Sirius wrote:
Sussex it's just about information and consultation, what is wrong with that principle.

It would just give people the chance to find out what is being planned for them, and give them the chance for some input at the beginning rather than the end.


As I said yesterday, there's nothing to indicate a lack of consultation.

So what precisely is the problem? :?:

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:03 pm
Posts: 280
TDO wrote:
Sirius wrote:
Sussex it's just about information and consultation, what is wrong with that principle.

It would just give people the chance to find out what is being planned for them, and give them the chance for some input at the beginning rather than the end.


As I said yesterday, there's nothing to indicate a lack of consultation.

So what precisely is the problem? :?:



Taken from the Jacobs thread on TDO


Jacob's consultation with interested parties is spurious and unrepresentative. They consulted with PH operators who, not surprisingly, stated they didn't want additional taxi licences issued.

But they failed to consult with non-licence owning taxi drivers who desire to operate their own taxis. Why? Were they given precise guidelines on who should be contacted? Was this at the behest of a Council "engineering" precisely what it wanted this report to say? Wasn't consultation restricted to the key interest groups currently exerting control of the trade in their own narrow interest? :? :?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:51 pm
Posts: 5795
Location: The Internet
Yes, that's an excellent point Sirius, but I thought that you and William were approaching the issue from the pro-restrictions perspective.

As I've always said, the trade isn't exactly conducive to free speech in many respects, and this is exacerbated by restricted numbers - for example, if a jockey in an unrestricted area was victimised for speaking up he could always put his own car on, but clearly that would be impossible in a restricted area if he couldn't raise the finance.

There are several different respects in which each local trade could be set to have a vested interest perspective, and in my experience drivers tend not to rock the boat for whatever reasons.

I agree that the trade has undemocratic aspects, but that's from the perspective of those at the bottom, not those a rung or two further up the ladder.

But as regards the context in which the point was raised further up the thread, I think there's been ample opportunity for consultation etc.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:03 pm
Posts: 280
Well it was not for or against restrictions, indeed it could be used to good effect whatever side of the fence you are on.

It seems fundamentally wrong to me that people who work in an industry are denied the chance to have their voices heard, as I have said workers not employees, it strikes me that the same issues could be relevant to a lot of other workers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45465
Location: 1066 Country
Sirius wrote:
It seems fundamentally wrong to me that people who work in an industry are denied the chance to have their voices heard, as I have said workers not employees, it strikes me that the same issues could be relevant to a lot of other workers.

But who's fault, in the main, is it that our voices are seldom heard? IMHO it's the trade's.

Take the consultation that the DfT recently published over the issues of 'best practise'. Out of the 250,000 people in this trade, I doubt the DfT will get more than 50 responses. :shock:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 221 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 33 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group