Taxi Driver Online

Morning Kev, Tony and Murray. See you this morning at 10.00 hours? I'll get the coffees as you will be needing all your dosh for the Council and ECPH. What's the current going rate when expenses are awarded against the losing side, 60% or so? That's the best part of £90k - £100k you have cost the company, outstanding boys, way to go. If your QC gets a chance to plea in mitigation, just get him to try insanity on your behalf. After reading Sheriff McColl's comprehensive and damming judgement on your futile case she might just rule insanity had to be the cause of you raising the action. How were you going to operate your PHC operation at the airport had you won the tender? Bunch of bams.

Espresso! Just like the coffee, that's how quick it was for Sheriff McColl to award an eye watering decision of full expenses to both the council and ECPH. Oh Kevin, Tony and Murray, who is going to pay for this round?

If the judgement is as damning as you say the members could sue the committee for their negligence in taking the case to court. I think it requires a vote of no confidence in the committee and a further proposal for legal action. Don't quote me on this but I am sure it goes something like that...

Then again, the members might be better served by just getting rid of the lot of them and leaving it at that?

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

I wonder how many of those members were insisting that the board acted as they did in pursuing this action, I suspect most.

In court you win some, you lose some.

_________________
IDFIMH

I doubt they even properly informed their members, let alone asked for their approval.

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

Surely it's down to the membership to insist they are kept up to date by the committee, and I also doubt this issue hasn't been debated daily on the ranks.

Personally, for what it's worth, I wouldn't be too hard on the committee. It has cost the company a sack full of cash, but they did it for their members IMO.

As I said with hindsight, and having read the judgement, it was a bad case to bring. But I'm also aware that lawyers generally tend to talk things up.

Who knows if that was the case here?

_________________
IDFIMH

I would have to disagree about doing it for their members, more like bruised egos and trying to score some payback. As for the lawyers they were out of their league right from the start.

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

.

Great sermon Les, just a pity that the whole posts ‘reeks’ of total and utter hypocrisy.

You mention that it’s a sad day, could easily have been avoided if common-sense had prevailed and less self-interest from a handful of individuals etc.

Great subtle dig at the central Committee with whom you maintain and advise that you want to work with.

So following on let’s look back at the proposed merger between Central & City a couple of years ago.

Working in collaboration with Central you and your cronies along with Central jointly funded a study and recommendation on a proposed merger of the two companies. The overwhelming recommendation from the report was that a merger made total sense, would have reduced costs (1 committee), increased financial strength etc. etc the list goes on.I n fact there were very little negatives if any at all.

So common-sense was to then prevail and one Super Company with approx. 800 taxis was to be formed to work/manage all the City/Central contracts, the airport would have been won and almost all future contracts would have been tied up and no more being held to ransom on ‘buying work’.

The owners and drivers of City and Central would have been quid’s in.

A done deal or so we thought as surely both Committees would not have spent a bucket load of members cash sanctioning the study, the recommendation of the study only to then reject the recommendations.

WRONG

As I recall it Central members voted approx. 98% in favour of the merger on the recommendation and say so of the Central Committee.

City voted against the merger by an overwhelming majority again on the say so and influence of the City Committee that you sit on despite the recommendations of the report.

So when you talk about:

- Soul searching
- Common sense
- Wasting members money
- Table thumping
- Finger wagging

The list goes on and on you should have a long hard look at yourself and the City Committee who feared for their position on the committee of a new super company and the loss of hier cozy earnings. No thought was given to wants and needs of the City drivers. And you mention SELF INTEREST in your post ?????

Just imagine if as expected the merger had went ahead.

The new super company would have had:

- The airport
- The NHS
- The Scottish Government
- Hotels galore

Again the list goes on and on and on and the power of the new company would have meant no need to discount (again its the memebrs that end up paying for this).

It would also have had the clout and finances to actively fend off the challenge from the App companies that are now hitting Edinburgh.

Maybe you should be asking the City members if they would have liked a landscape as mentioned above as opposed to the divide that City caused, against the interest of the drivers/owners on the streets but at least the City Committee remained intact by rejecting the merger and in the lifestyle that they have become accustomed to.

I have my axe to grind with most Committees in some shape or form but it is beyond laughable that you sit and accuse others of self-interest, soul searching, lack of common-sense etc when you and your cronies have put self-interest ahead of everything else that the trade wanted and needed in Edinburgh and especially the driver and owners of Central and City.

Instead of Central members rushing to look at the airport bid maybe City members should ask for more information on why City decided to ditch the merger at the last moment against the recommendation of the professionals who had carried out the study at consderable costs.

Still at least the City Committee are still in place and receiving their hourly rates………………..

Jon

It was the city cabs members that voted against the merger. Not the committee. An EGM was held, voted on and the members, not the committee, decided not to join.

And, IMO, one big "super company" isn't healthy for the taxi trade. You claim the "super company" would have most of the hotels for example, why?
If a super company was holding contracts at random saying "we're the only taxi company in town", the contracts from hotels, business, banks etc would look to PH and their huge discounts to service them

It was also the Central members that voted and the Committee's in both companies gave the members a clear steer as to how/what to vote for and if i'm not mistaken (though i stand to be corrected on this) the Committee(s) also had the use of the proxy votes to vote in their favour.

The study was done by a professional outfit at a substantial cost to both companies as presumably both companies wanted to see if it was deemed benficial from a commercial and business point of view.

The answer and recommendation was a resounding YES so why did City then deem it a non starter given that they had sanctioned and paid for the research in the 1st place on behalf of their membership ??????????????????????????

I do not recall them ever articulating why they wanted to go against the recommendation. The City Committe on behalf of their members chose to spend the money on the study and they then decided to ignore the findings and recommendations ?

Did someone mention 'self-interest ????

If City had any concerns at the outset they should have checked with their members prior to spending the members money on the research. Thats just simple business practice.

Both Committees had the ability to influence the vote based on the YES recommendation but it would presumably have led to one committee, one call centre etc.

Great from a cost point of view, efficiencies etc.

Re the 'Super company' given the coverage and amount of cabs on call there would have been a pretty compelling story and proposition to sell/tell the top hotel chains and large companies in Edinburgh re coverage, expertise, transport hub access etc etc.

Its not alwasy about price, if you have a fantastic service offering, smart people in charge and a competitive price (not always the cheapest) then you will always be in with a great chance of winning and retaining business.

A great opportunity lost in my book but at least there are still lots of people employed (2 committees, 2 call centres, 2 sets of premises etc etc ) and being paid for via the Owners radio dues each month not to mention the carnage of the airport, hotels changing hands for reduced prices etc.

I wonder how many people would employ this as a business model or be allowed to walk away from a fantastic opportunity for the owners/drivers in both companies and still be in a position of influence 2/3 years down the line.

We really are sleep walking in to oblivion and yet we still have Les having pops at Central and AN Othere about the state of the trade.

Its time for the owners and members to wake up and ask the difficult questions but I suspect there may be no real answers, lost in transaltion or a lot of white noise in response.

Having been a driver for decades within the radio circuits in Edinburgh and now on the street I would like to make one observation...............................
I am happier now then I ever was in a radio company and the same arguments happen year in and year out. Good luck to you all but I am sure similar posts will appear for years to come. Good luck to you all trying to move forward.

.

Les writes:

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

.