0
0

[–] Yollasho ago  (edited ago)

“The only way we can get the state to realize that we’re a dying business is if everybody gets behind you. Boston shuts down, Somerville shuts down — now you’re getting attention.”

So even the taxi drivers know their real fate...

“...we’re a dying business..."

Since uberX Launched, the Price of a Boston Taxi Medallion Has Only Gone Up-June2014 Article

Taxi medallion costs $700,000 (Seven Hundred Thousand....WTF)

For $700k I'd expect someone to become a surgeon of the absolute highest degree and make bank for their foreseeable future no problem. Not get the right to operate a taxi. Oh wait, becoming a surgeon doesn't even cost that much...damn. Even in residency surgeons make $50k+ so they can pay back their $200k in debt.

One guy owns 21% of the medallions in Boston.

To make it worse, most of the taxi drivers are paying the owners of the medallions to actually drive a cab...

They pay someone else...to drive a taxi...

Seems to me they're failing to see the outdated corruption within their own industry and should be trying to dismantle the whole taxi business themselves.

Guess since so many of them got scammed, they can't come out and admit it.

This article shows how fucked the taxi industry is in general

0
2

[–] klongtoey 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Uber couldn't buy better PR if they tried.

0
2

[–] ialreadyhaveaccount 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Screw you and your shitty service! Go ahead and boycott you miserable fucks!

0
0

[–] basaltine ago 

As a retired restaurant owner, I know what it's like when others open new places around you...taking business that you think belongs to you. But this should just make you a better business man....work smarter....clean your place up....make better food...have better customer experience... better prices...more value. this is the way to keep your business, not screwing with the same people who you are trying to keep as customers. good luck to them, but they are going about this all wrong in my opinion

0
0

[–] Noblegnarble ago 

Taxi drivers have been fighting Uber all over for a while now (some also drive for Uber on the side). Some fight city hall, cut off Uber drivers, and let passengers know how bad it's been for business, but I've yet to see them collectively appeal to passengers based on merit. Passengers are telling you with their wallet that Uber creates a better experience: address that.

1
4

[–] 1533980? 1 point 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

I worked as an engineer for a union-staffed manufacturing company. The business was growing faster than the company could produce product, even with 3 shifts running 7 days a week.

In an effort to improve throughput, we implemented several new policies:

Documenting first and last piece inspection by the operator at every step of the process. The union filed multiple grievances, because they did not feel they should be held accountable for checking their work. (In the end, it resulted in a 75% decrease in scrap, and improved company-wide throughput by >30%) Prior to implementing this, the union was given 2 months to come up with their own plan to reduce scrap; they were never able to make any measurable improvement.

New equipment investments. The union filed multiple grievances, because the new equipment ran 2 operations in one setup, but only required one operator, and required new skill sets to operate. Again - the union was given 3 months to come up with a plan to increase throughput, but was unable to. The new equipment was able to reduce setup times by over 75% and shortened lead time on multiple product lines from months to weeks.

Outsourcing of past-due orders. We made the call to outsource any order that was more than 3 months past due in order to focus on scheduling of new product (in order to take advantage of the increased throughput and new equipment.) Again, the union filed multiple grievances, but were unable to offer an alternative - they were already working 24/7.

After 6 months, we were able to improve throughput by nearly 45%, reduce scrap and rework by nearly 80%, stop all outsourcing, eliminated weekend shifts, improved delivery times to >95% on-time deliveries, improved quality, lowered costs, and our product line went from a 60% market share to a 90% market share.

We provided a catered lunch and a bonus payment for the entire shop. Most of them refused to attend or accept the check, and they filed a grievance because the lunch was an hour long instead of their normal 30 minutes.

The lack of overtime pay drove them to cause an uproar at the next contract negotiation and completely block anything that the company proposed.

10 years later, and that portion of the company is staffed by <10 people (down from nearly 350) and nearly all of the product is now made overseas. Over 300 people are out of a job because they refused to accept change, to the point of refusing to work unless they were guaranteed overtime pay. They refused to run the new equipment, knowingly allowed bad product to get through to inventory, organized work slowdowns, and mired the company in daily grievances that tied up management to the point that we did not have enough time in the day to actually get anything done except sit in grievance meetings and document every conversation.

There was a time when taking a cab meant something. That time is changing, and the Boston cabbies seem to want legislation to force things to go back to the old ways despite the fact that it just makes people even less inclined to use their services.

tldr: Doing things a new way means the old way needs to evolve or eventually go extinct.

0
2

[–] SiWofos 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Efficiency increases seem inevitable, but what should society do with the workers replaced by automation? Ignore them and confine them to slums/trailer parks? Plow their pay ever lower until it competes with Chinese sweatshop labor?

More, better, cheaper stuff is good, but it seems to come at a price, and that is an issue no-one really seems to confront satisfactorily.

0
4

[–] 1536883? 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

In the case of manufacturing (the service industry is similar, but has enough differences that I'd rather not go into that):

I started running a manual lathe; the employer provided training. Manual machines gave way to computerized (CNC) machines. The big concern was that the CNC machines would replace machinists, but that simply was not the case - Having a machine that made parts automatically still required a person who knew how to identify problems with the setup, the tooling, part quality, consistency in raw material... all of the things that were required to run a manual machine. Without the need to manually dial in every single cut, the skilled operator had more time to focus on the process, and work to streamline it. Without someone at the machine to troubleshoot problems, the CNC equipment was not a step forward at all.

Yes, automation replaces manpower. There is no doubt about that. But no automation can be implemented without skilled manpower being involved in the concept, design, building, implementation, and maintenance of that automation.

But the skilled manpower must be good enough at their job to be valuable in the automation process. If an employee is not showing any desire to become an expert at their job (by means other than osmosis and familiarity) then they should be prepared to be on the unemployment line. A motivated workforce with the focus on improvement will only see automation as a way to free them up to focus on improving the process, product, quality, and so on.

But the mindset that says "I need to get paid $75K to push this green button every 15 minutes and I'll file a grievance if you ask me to check the finished part" will lead to that person being obsolete - as it should. The mindset that says "I've learned how to make this part the best way I can with the tools at my disposal and I even have some ideas that will improve it" will lead to that person being involved with the next step in the evolution of the process, because that person is the resident expert.

I recently managed a project to install 7 new CNC machines at a facility. This project replaced an existing cell that required 1 operator, 1 inspector, and 1 part washer per machine. The new cell requires 1 operator per machine, 3 total inspectors and a 3-person crew to run the new parts washer that services all 7 machines. Of the 8 people that used to work in that cell: 4 of them worked with engineering to design workholding and 3 of them are now doing design work on other projects. 2 of them developed the training program for the new cell and became the company's training department for all new projects, as well as new hire training. 2 of them were let go, in large part because they showed no interest in learning a new way of doing the same job they had been doing for 10+ years, yet demanded more pay.

In addition, we provided the automation - which required a staff of 12 people to design and build the cell. That staff includes engineers and machinists and programmers and inspectors... all of us with skills and experience to ensure the cell will work as efficiently as possible. We have about double that number of employees, and we install 8-10 cells every year. And at every install, we work with the current on-site experts - which tend to be the machinists who are currently making the product. Their input is the key to the entire project working well at all.

From high atop my soapbox, I see this: A lot of production is going overseas. And from deep in the trenches I've worked in for nearly 30 years, I see time and again that the largest reason is cost. And, sadly, I see time and again a workforce that says "We don't want to get better at our jobs, we don't care about the product, we have no desire to grow the business, we refuse your offer of paid college courses... but we demand higher pay" and they say that louder and louder until they are saying it to the fence surrounding the parking lot after that product was sent to another supplier.

Skilled workers should demand to be paid for their skills. And those skilled workers will be the ones that will drive the next steps in improved efficiency. And when a product or process is operating at continuously improved efficiencies, then there will be no way for another company to improve on it to the point they will be cheaper, regardless of the cost of labor.

Improving yourself, striving to be better, using every resource available to develop skills to make your job or your team or your company better - THAT should be the driving force behind every employee. But a mentality of complacency and a willingness to have no comprehension of what you actually DO for a living or how to do it better - that should be unacceptable to everyone.

Companies are in business to make a profit. There is no doubt about that. But if it is more profitable to pay the initial costs to set up a foreign company to develop a process and a workforce and supply lines and shipping and so on, then I really have to ask - why can't the current workforce find a way to do it faster / cheaper / better quality?

And if we all know that companies want the highest profit margins they can get - enough so that they will send the work overseas if it is cheaper, then why isn't that incentive to get every single employee off their asses and figure out how to make things better rather than bitch about how bad their job is yet do nothing to improve it?

0
0

[–] lostmydisk ago 

Given the cost of a medallion are the independent cab owners just SOL? Seems like an incredible uphill battle to both cover higher insurance costs and make repayments toward buying their medallion. I don't see how cabs exist in the future without some large sweeping government ruling that cripples uber, lyft, and others like them.

[–] [deleted] ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] CryHavoc ago  (edited ago)

Even of I accept everything above as gospel you know what would be great? Let the market decide if Uber and Lyft would survive.

If enough employees feel treated like crap the neither company will have enough drivers and they will fail. And if too many customers are uncomfortable with the lack of a medallion, or background checks, or driver training then they will not have enough business and they will fail.

But I much prefer if they fail either of those ways as opposed to a bunch of people who had a buggy whip monopoly and are pissed because someone figured out a way to compete with them.

And I also love the instinctive response of most who are sympathetic to the taxi drivers.

"This isn't fair, we need to put more regulations on them."

I always wonder why they never say "this isn't fair, let's remove some of the regulations from taxis."

0
0

[–] pepepepepe ago 

If you receive full-time employment benefits then you are entitled to work full-time. At that point you might as well be a traditional cab driver. You are expected to be there day in and day out. If you want to stop working for them you are expected to put in notice and allow them time to hire someone else.

Services like Uber automate the ability of two people to form a private transaction. It's different from punching a clock. Someone could work 80 hours one week and 5 the next. They're not expected or entitled to work, they enter and exit a market at will. Are you going to give them benefits during weeks they work full time and then revoke them weeks they don't? It just wouldn't make sense. Contracting is a trade-off. Some people are comfortable with punching a clock and like the benefits that come with it, others want flexibility and are fine having to bankroll their own supplies.

load more comments ▼ (6 remaining)