Slashdot Mirror
San Francisco's Yellow Cab Files For Bankruptcy (cnn.com)
Applehu Akbar writes: Yellow Cab Cooperative, the largest taxi company in San Francisco, has filed Chapter 11. While competition from those newfangled ride-sharing services is a natural target for blame, a more proximate cause is Yellow Cab losing an $8 million accident liability suit by a passenger who is now paralyzed. Apparently the Yellow Cab drivers are...registered as independent contractors. So much for the medallion cab argument that they offer superior liability coverage.
We don't want to actually, you know, read the story anyways. We'd rather bitch about Uber or Taxis in general with no actual facts to back it up.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
Like this one?
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
To be fair, they did cover it.
Maybe they need bankruptcy insurance :-)
The lesson is that ANY cab-like co better be ready for an 8-mil zinger.
Table-ized A.I.
They're still independent contractors which means it is the contractors' responsibility to register whatever they need to register. I am an independent contractor for some companies, I collect sales tax and have to report/pay income taxes, social security etc, I am responsible for my insurance and the locality's business licenses.
I could easily go ahead and collect a number of pay checks without ever reporting them as business income, ask people to pay cash or whatever but I would be responsible if the tax man or insurance man cometh.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
was that their biggest creditor was because they couldn't weasel out of paying for a terrible wreak caused by one of their drivers. $8 mil of their $20 mil in debt is for that. I wonder if this is just the first step in folding the company and reforming it so they can skip out on paying the poor gal who got hit. This is why folks in the know hate Uber. It's all about externalizing your costs onto somebody else.Uber's doing the same damn thing but "with an App" so it's OK.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The problem is $1M doesn't pay for shit in these cases. It may pay for the lawyers and if you've got an idiot willing to settle for a few 100k. But medical bills in the US for big accidents and long term care easily go a few 100k per year for the rest of your life. In the US, 1M is enough if you kill someone in an accident but if you maim someone severely you should have an insurance willing to pay out ~$20M. But are you willing to pay the premiums on this, no, but the few hundred people that get into such accidents on a yearly basis are still fucked.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I suppose the one small mercy taken from this is the paralysis would numb the screwed parts.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
If they went bankrupt because of a lawsuit related to an injury then there is clearly more financial backing there as the plaintiff was able to go after their assets. Someone like Uber would have walked away from the case and thrown the driver under the bus (which they've already done at least once) and the person that got hurt would have never gotten a dime.
The very fact that the victim here was able to go after corporate assets shows they are more financially liable than Uber. The result being the article proves the exact opposite of what the summary tries to say it does.
Hey this case might be a preview.
This is a quote from another article. "William Gould, a professor emeritus of law at Stanford Law School, said the case demonstrates âoewhat a thin and sometimes artificial demarcation line there is between these two conceptsâ of employees and independent contractor. The determining factors are how much control the company has over the worker, and how much entrepreneurial opportunity the worker has, he said."
I'd have to say that Uber holds all the cards when the time comes to distribute the work. And that leads me to believe that it's just a matter of time before they are held liable for similar type accidents.
It's interesting to see that whoever issued the required permits allowing Yellow Cab to operate only required a million dollars in liability coverage. I wonder what kind of coverage those tour buses havr?
Interesting, please do go on.
Trolling is a art,
San Fran is full of faggots...
If only that were true -- at least San Francisco was interesting when it was a gay mecca and center of the gay pride movement and people of all races, sexual orientation and income could live there. Now it's just full of boring well paid, mostly male and white techies, which pushes out all of the old interesting businesses in favor of bars and restaurants that cater to these newcomers that serve things like $20 locally grown hand-raised artisanal organic martinis with an olive on the side flown in daily from Venus.
but uber drivers are not true IC's unlike say some useing a work market type board where the board just takes "fees like ebay with very little control over the work"
Branded drivers be it being an a taxi, fedex, cableco, uber, food delivery, etc. They control to varying levels the dispatch, fees, hiring, routes, etc.
Also with drivers on the road there are lot's of 3rd party victims that did not say yes to any EULA or disclaimer. And They should make so that there Branded drivers are covered for the full shift in full liability and can't hide under a subcontractor that they don't fully vet.
That is what being an independent contractor means for you.
The reason that Truck Companies, Taxi Companies, some Chicken Farmers are "independent contractors" is to push risk and cost out of the corporation and onto the I/C. And the profit stays with the corporation, it does not follow the risk or cost very well.
With Truck Companies, they dont have to carry the insurance, dont have to worry as much about fluctuations in the cost of diesel, Truck Maintenance, etc.
I recall a news article about how some Truckers were loosing money on loads because diesel costs went up fast,and the corporation the drivers were dealing with just didn't care, "the loads were sold, if you want to continue dealing with us, take it"
I also recall an article about one of the big Chicken sellers, they would have farms, the next group of gullible "we will make millions" people would buy the farm, because the "per chicken" payment was good. And maybe for a while, it would be. But then, they would lower the "per chicken" amount. Again and again, until those owners where soaked and gave up.
I understand that Home Depot will progressively lower the amount they are willing to pay their suppliers year over year, until the supplier goes under or gets smart and stops dealing with them.
emt 377 emt 4
TL/DR version: Super old news; done for debt shedding.
This was publicly announced 3 weeks ago, but it's been known for a month and a half (since 10 Dec 2015), when a letter was sent out to co-op members, and it was primarily done to shed debt, and because the coop (which is how it's organized) is not attracting new drivers; with a limited number of medallions, taxi coops compete to attract those with medallions. Yellow cab isn't doing as well in this as other companies and co-ops. Primarily they are losing medallioned drivers to Flywheel Taxi (formerly, DeSoto Cab) and Luxor Cab.
"The bankruptcy filing will allow the co-op to shed its mounting debts."
"Fewer drivers mean fewer profits for Yellow Cab, the co-op admitted in a letter to its members."
"The company told the San Francisco Examiner its ridership numbers are healthy. But in a letter to shareholders obtained by the Examiner, Yellow Cab Co-Op President Pamela Martinez wrote that they must do more with less to survive."
^^^^---- note: not losing business to ride sharing services ----^^^^
“In reality, we have the best color scheme there is in the world, we’ve got a lot of loyal customers, we still get a high volume of calls to our color scheme on a daily basis,” he [Jim Gillespie] said.
"Financially, he said the straw that broke the camel’s back were a number of lawsuits which ended up hurting the company’s bottom line."
"On background, multiple sources told the Examiner that cab companies are having a tough time hiring competent drivers and may be hiring drivers with spotty driving records. Gillespie denied this, but he did say the lawsuits were harmful to the co-op."
http://www.sfexaminer.com/yell...
I understand that Home Depot will progressively lower the amount they are willing to pay their suppliers year over year, until the supplier goes under or gets smart and stops dealing with them.
Walmart was explicitly known for doing this, and not only this, but telling their suppliers things like 'move to china so you can be cheaper!'
Quite the change for a company that used to boast 'made in america'.
I don't read AC A human right
It took a court to break the company's argument that since it's drivers were independent contractors, the company itself shouldn't be found liable.
Indeed, I think there's a misconception on what liability coverage is, and how liability insurance works.
You see, any liability insurance police is limited by a maximum payout - For example, a common one is $100k per person, $300k per incident coverage, my 'step up' from that which is $250k per person/$500k per incident. This is generally enough to cover most claims. But liability itself doesn't have a limit unless a statute(law) has been passed limiting it.
So the taxi driver gets into an accident and causes $8M of damage. Must of been nasty. But he's carrying the minimum insurance. $100k is paid to the harmed individual via the insurance. Obviously this is 'no where near enough'. So the harmed party would go after the rest of the cab driver's assets. Problem: Most people in the USA are effectively 'judgement proof' because their debts exceed their assets, and as a matter of law, their home, primary vehicle, and such are generally untouchable*. Most cab driver's aren't rich enough to have a spare yacht that can be sold. So lawyer and court fees would quickly drive the driver bankrupt. You can't get money from a stone.
So in this case they then go after the parent company - Yellow Cab. It does it's best to argue that it's not liable. Hell, it doesn't have insurance for this. Thus, when the verdict is handed down, they're 'forced' to file for bankruptcy, if one of the more minor versions of it.
When people mention 'liability coverage', they generally mean insurance, which this isn't. This is straight up liability.
*They can force the sale of extra vehicles, if not used for work. But for something like a primary residence, if the judge determines that selling the residence/vehicle and buying a more modest version won't actually yield a significant amount of money, they won't do so. Figure on losing 20-40% of the value of the property in question, and suddenly while there might be 'modest' gains to be had, kicking a taxi driver out of a $200k lousy home and forcing him into an apartment would actually COST money. You're not getting much selling a $10k car to the dealer only to buy an $8k car.
I don't read AC A human right
I find it pretty shocking that driver insurance in the US is limited liability cover.
In the UK there is no limit to the liability for personal injury claims; only 3rd property damage is limited to a minimum of £1M. Indeed this unlimited liability cost one insurance company £22Million when the driver left the road causing a major train crash leaving 10 people dead and 80+ injured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Many years ago, My dad worked for a company that had a customer that was about 95% of their business. They dropped that customer, because they were not making enough money on it.
Took them a few years to crawl back, but they managed and became a leader in their range, making a LOT more money. Afterwards it was the best decision they made, but it was by no means an easy one. Could have gone wrong and they would have been closed.
The lesson here: diversify.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
For what it's worth, I found this post by Chris Johnson interesting:
It's designed to make maximum use of crazy people and force the others to live up to that standard or be fired.
I'll define 'crazy Uber people' not as 'danger to customers', but 'people who are bringing more value in terms of vehicle, skill and desire to please, than they are getting back in pay and benefits'. So the crazy Uber person is the one who keeps buying a new Lexus or whatever, vacuums their car three times a day and busts their ass to outperform all the other Uber drivers, so they can continue to win out over anybody else seeking to be a driver.
The key factor is that they are giving more than they get back, in the belief that they're cornering some kind of market or buying in to something important.
If you make a business that relies on people like this, you can demolish anybody else because you've worked out how to get voluntary unpaid labor, like the Amazon exec who was said to use her own money to hire subcontractors to do more. As long as there are people who are willing to do that, the market breaks and Amazon/Uber get to do what Wal-Mart did in small towns, break the back of other market participants so they can't break even or continue.
Another way to be a crazy Uber person is to put more depreciation and wear and tear on your car than you can afford to repair (or replace). It's easy to be crazy in these ways. It's externalities which are easy to overlook. These Amazon/Uber business models are designed to leverage that kind of crazy as hard as possible, and kick out everybody who's not willing to lose (one way or another) on the deal. Psychology is useful in getting people to buy into this stuff.
As they say, a cult.
mfwright@batnet.com