I
magazine, Alan Fisher ( the Ed) stated that he would like to see just one driver trade group representing the drivers. Whilst I can understand his thinking that this would give the trade possibly a much stronger voice than it has, I must disagree with him. I think it would actually weaken the trade.
A|s a result of the recent election many bills have/will be pushed through Parliament in a process known as the “wash up” with huge amounts of horse trading going on whereby parties from all sides of the House have agreed to amendments to Bills that they would normally have opposed in order to get through other amendments in Bills that they strongly favoured. However, one Bill that has not undergone this horse trading is the Transport for London No2 Bill. The reason this Bill has not gone forward to be added to the Statue Book is that following a meeting we held with the Hayes and Harlington MP, the RMT sponsored John McDonald about what clause 19 would mean to the London Hackney trade, he organised a campaign inside the House to oppose the Bill. (Pictures of the RMT delegates at this meeting have appeared in several of the trade’s papers, but strangely not others). This clause (19) is the one giving Westminster Council the power to have a voluntary registration system for the pedicab/rickshaw trade. It would also have given these pestilent vehicles waiting/ ranking spaces in the west end. If this had come to pass how long before the full licensed, drivers and vehicles, insured, CRB checked (?) road taxpaying Private Hire industry demanded at the very least parity with this vermin?
So why is this relevant to my argument? Well at the moment we appear to have the so called “United Trade” comprising of LTDA, LCDC and also Unite altogether representing possible 40% of the trade until the RMT taxi branch was formed, the only voice of the working driver on the streets of London. Well that was their opinion of their position. I personally think differently, and I think February 5th 2009 and the huge demonstration proved it. There was a huge turnout of drivers and although I take my hat off to the work that went into organising such a fantastic turnout. However, it must be open to debate that the majority of drivers, who turned out, were not members of these organisations, but they did want an opportunity to express their frustrations with the “powers that be”, over many issues, not just the illegal minicab rank in Whitcombe Street. This demonstration gave them their chance to show TfL, PCO, Westminster C.C. and others how they felt.
I feel that the so called “United Trade,” has been neutered by the appointment of its highest
Board. When I was with the T&G Cab Trade Section (before the love in with the LTDA) we constantly opposed the appointment of a taxi trade member to this board, as we knew that when it actually came to dealing with taxi trade items, the board member from the trade, would not be able to take part due to a possible
36
some that not rocking the TfL Board’s boat is now the name of the game.
attacked the London No2 Bill with a slight exception that the LCDC have occasionally made some noises about the Bill but have for some reason or another generally not made much of it. The other two members seem to support this Bill although how much of this support is actually from the working drivers of the organisations and how much is from the leadership, is hard to tell.
outing for the RMT Taxi Branch, (a bit earlier than I would have liked as much organising needed to be done before the launch but the opportunity was too good to miss with the RMT Banner claiming many of the press photos.) Since then we have come under regular attack with many attacks on its
Secretary and for some strange reason Janine Booth the Chair of the RMT’s London Regional Council. Her crime appears to be that she attended a branch meeting and spoke for about 8-10 minutes before going home to relieve her husband of his child sitting duties so he could go to work. Admittedly she did not say much about taxi matters, other than support she would be giving to a couple of items we had brought up at a Regional Council meeting relating to taxi issues.
Now I don’t wish to get into a mudslinging contest as all this would do is generalise much
on the cab trade, and those who constantly seek to exploit it, but I will answer a couple of points that keep getting dragged up.
Yes the RMT do support a restriction on
tachographs but this is in vehicles over 3.5 tonnes. I know that this is also something Unite have campaigned for in the past. The reasoning behind this is not rocket science. Tiredness and stress are one of the major contributory factors to RTAs. As taxi drivers we spend far more time on the road driving than most of the general public, so we have an increased chance of been involved in an incident with a driver who has been at the wheel for hours at a go facing unrealistic timetables, these
help enforce these restrictions must help improve safety on the roads. WE DO NOT SEE ANY NEED FOR TACHOGRAPHS IN LONDON TAXIS OR ANY OTHER TAXIS FOR THAT MATTER. Just for the record, the Department for Transport have said that they have no intention of this either. However, if certain parties keep bringing this issue up it is just possible they might change their mind, my advice is shut up, let sleeping dogs sleep.
The other issue is that of the GMB who in London turn away taxi drivers (although they do recruit them outside of London, possibly a reason Unite who have always claimed to be
the biggest Union organising the trade nationally (doubtful now) see an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone). We have not joined with the GMB to promote anything. (We have no agreements with the GMB other than if a PH driver wants to join we turn them towards the GMB, and this is the policy nationally we do not say one thing in London and another everywhere else unlike Unite who do have large numbers of PH drivers across the country.)
Be it partitions in minicabs, out sourcing of the topographical tests, new PH drivers must take before getting a badge, (currently these are conducted by the companies seeking to take £70-£80 plus per week off these prospective drivers, not much of an incentive to fail them there. The stopping of the PCO telling PH companies when they are coming to inspect their books. I’m sure with the exception of the
oppose, nearly every hack driver in London would agree with the other policies. (Strange that we have not heard much about these from the “United Trade.”) The quote on the Bus Lane issue by the GMB minicab leader
us to the death on this issue. Of that make no mistake he is right.
Anyway back to the opening issue: One trade body representing drivers. If you have only one body then the leaders of that body gets complacent; they get too used to agreeing with the “powers that be”, and corrupted by nice dinners, plenty of standown pay, etc. As Leon
Trotsky said: “to continue the revolution you have to keep renewing your leaders.” What’s
really needed are two large driver organisations that have to compete for members against each other so they keep trying to give their members the best deals and representation.
On Monday 12th April I stepped down as Chair of The London RMT Taxi Branch due mainly to time consuming problems following the death of my father late last year. I wish all the best to the new committee that was elected, thanks to all those who for their own reasons also have decided to take a back seat for a while but especially thanks to all those who gave me the great privilege of being chair in the branch’s
Over the last year or so many DaC members have asked me questions about the RMT or raised trade issues with me and where possible I have tried to answer questions or take their concerns further, although I have now stepped down I hope DaC members will continue to ask me questions and raise issues and I will try to answer them if possible or point them towards another sources of information on the points they have raised.
Reproduced courtesy of Call Sign Magazine... Oh sorry and the RMT!
Copyright Eddie Lambert 2010
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40