|
The scandal of how Edinburgh’s taxi cap enslaves drivers
In the 19th century Britain was booming, at the forefront of World commerce. It also had an appalling record of worker exploitation. Mill Owners prospered while the workers who generated that prosperity endured harsh working conditions, low pay and languished in atrocious housing. Even these poor conditions were at the whim of the Mill Owners, the workhouse the lot of those who dissented.
Through the sterling work of philanthropic owners like Robert Owen in New Lanark and Sir Titus Salt at Saltaire in West Yorkshire, conditions were improved for their workers, and they prospered.
Since then, through the struggle of workers to improve their lot, Britain has enshrined in its Laws many statutes to bring protection to ensure decency in working conditions – the right to representation, a minimum wage and wide-ranging employment rights. All designed to ensure fairness for workers when confronted by uncaring employers. Recent additions from European Law have expanded those rights.
Despite all of these advances, there remains a stoic last bastion of the exploitative Mill Owning mentality. We’ve just witnessed an example of it in Edinburgh’s taxi trade. An example which exists entirely because the City of Edinburgh Council’s (CEC) policy to restrict the number of taxi licences operating allows those favoured to currently own a licence, at their whim, to summarily render unemployed anyone who dissents, anyone who resents owners’ pursuit of their vested interest at the expense of drivers.
Gordon Macdonald applied for a taxi operator’s licence. This was rejected by CEC and is currently subject to appeal. Such appeal has been referred back to the CEC for reconsideration by Sheriff MacPartlin. It is scheduled to be reheard at the October meeting of the Regulatory Committee.
On Tuesday, 18th September Gordon went to begin his shift. On keying his driver ID into the City Cabs job despatch radio system he was advised that he had been suspended. He hadn’t received notification of his suspension, neither had his owner. Having worked with City Cabs for over three years, with the same taxi owner, and never having been referred to the committee for any disciplinary or other matter in that time, Gordon had no knowledge of any reason why he should be suspended.
Contacting City Cabs’ office, Gordon was curtly told by the official that complaints had been made against him, but he would not divulge what they were. On that and subsequent calls, Gordon was advised that a meeting was scheduled to be heard and that he would be notified of the result of it. Gordon was denied any opportunity to hear the complaints made against him or to make representations to counter them.
Unable to work the job despatch system, Gordon is rendered unemployed.
There was no explanation of why. We know it was simply because Gordon applied for a taxi operator’s licence and, once his name was published in the Evening news, this precipitate action was taken against him to influence him to withdraw from the application process – a consummate act of vengeance and an attempt to pervert his lawful rights.
There was no thought by City Cabs for his lost income. There was no thought for the ramifications of City Cabs’ draconian action for Gordon’s three dependant children, or his other financial commitments.
If this injustice happened to you, wouldn’t you cry foul?
It’s worth pointing out the scandal that this bastion of Mill Owning employment mentality is privileged to service a major part of the contract for taxi services by City of Edinburgh Council’s Social Work Department.
Is it desirable that such an important contract should be allowed to be operated by a Company which has such a blatant disregard for even the basic decencies of employment rights enjoyed by all other sectors of our society?
And, if such attitudes are prevalent here, how can we be sure that City Cabs is a fit and proper Company to properly serve those who depend on Social Services to ensure that their needs are properly met?
In order to meet its obligations, doesn’t City of Edinburgh Council have a duty to ensure that proper practices are adopted in relation to employment and sub-contracting in those companies to which it awards contracts?
The restriction of taxi licences removes alternatives for drivers in Edinburgh. It ensures that owners’ hold a disproportionate degree of power. It encourages the worst employment practices.
Gordon’s case begs the question of whether Edinburgh has really moved forward since the 19th Century, at least in our taxi trade? It is a scourge on our society.
It’s in your power to redress the balance and restore justice.
Sent to the Regulatory Committee, Corporate Services officials and selected news agencies.[/b]
|
Login
Register
FAQ
