Reply With QuoteUber's 'approach to the DBS check' is one of the issues given for the licence withdrawal.Originally Posted by Kingstepper
R
^
Agree with both of those. Employment protection is one of the things that thankfully marks us as different from the US model.
Uber's 'approach to the DBS check' is one of the issues given for the licence withdrawal.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
The old fashioned vested interests are in the past the Uber type business model where you get paid for working taking personal responsibility is both now and the future.
No, no it's not. The Uber method is pure Victorian. Profit over workers' rights every time. They have it engraved above their gold-plated front door, I hear.
So you have a vested family interest to block the competition that has helped reduce prices and give better value.
Why should anybody be paid for not working ?
Such socialist left wing nonsense is 20 years in the past.
Can you please evidence where the poster you have quoted says people should be payed for not working, I must have missed it.
Can you also confirm that Uber prices are alway less than mini cabs or Hackney carriages including the surge pricing seen in the wake of events such as the terror attack at London Bridge.
From my reading - he is merely against gig contracts, not the old 'dockers' situation.
I think some of their ways of doing business needs looking at. It doesn’t surprise me they are trying for a petition as they seem to use as Trojan horse model to move into new cities so public demand is important to them and they know they are popular with the general public.
We were in Oslo recently and took an Uber - the driver asked one of us to sit in the front so it didn’t look like a cab as he explained they weren’t licenced there yet. We decided not to get an Uber for the next journey but were surprised that a large company would flout regulations like that to establish a presence.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I am struggling to understand the difference between a self employed black cab driver Vs a Uber driver.
They are both owner operators.
They both have to be licenced (which I assume means they pay someone)
They are both technically self employed
They both have to pay for vehicle maintenance, fuel, insurance, road tax, etc
Neither get paid when they are not working
Neither get paid when they are on holiday
Neither get paid if they are sick.
The only obvious difference are a Hackney Cabbie (in London has to take a test) and can be flagged down by a punter in the street, where as an Uber driver has to be registered with Uber who will arrange his fares for him (for a fee).
What am I missing?
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Okay, at risk of causing a race centred scrap, isn't this a facet of the same issue that came out in the Brexit debate: the level of immigration and the impact on the existing workforce and remuneration. London Black cabs are predominantly white and British, Uber drivers are not. The unlimited supply of low cost labour under-cutting the existing workforce. Whether right or wrong, one group is going to feel aggrieved.
I have no position on this.
There has been a labour shortage in London and the southeast, so high levels of immigration have been positive, but I can see in specific sectors like driving or poorer areas of the country it has led to wage stagnation or decline.
A difficult topic.
Overall, I think competition is good, but as Carlton-Brown suggested we have to be wary of unacceptable business ethics and practices and predatory action to disrupt and then dominate a market.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited by BillyCasper; 24th September 2017 at 14:33.
This lot. As a brilliant home made anti Trump placard said......Where do I start?
The Knowledge is not a 'test'. It will take you at least 3 intense years of your life, unpaid. Most do it in 4 or 5. You cannot fail it, but you can go on forever until you pass.
Not all cabbies own their cabs, most rent for at least £250 a week.
Uber class their drivers as customers, not employees.
Insurance? Be nice if most of them had driving licences!
As for your last 3 points, would you be up for that? It hardly helps your case.
Hope that helps.
Its still a test isn't it, which drivers have to pass in order to get a hackney licence.
Cabbies might pay to £250 to rent a cab, however how is this different to a Uber driver renting or leasing a vehicle.
Insurance is NOT optional. If Uber driver (or Cabbies) are not insured they are acting illegally. Ditto a valid licence.
Uber are right to classify their drivers as customers, because the drivers are "customers" of Uber's App. The true employees of Uber are the folks who run their business and develop their apps. People here might use Ebay, PayPal or Amazon to conduct their business - these people are customers, they are NOT the employees of these companies.
Sorry but your arguments are not compelling.
Last edited by Andyg; 24th September 2017 at 21:00.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Just making it difficult to become a cabbie and protecting their own interests.
They’ve wasted 3 years of their life so new ones have to too. Absolutely no need for it in 2017.
This wasn't really my point, more that if cyclists know something is going to automatically stop for them they will be in and out all over the place.
Last edited by TBKBABAB; 25th September 2017 at 12:21.
My sons female friends have had a lot of grief using uber.
The worst have been two girls have had drivers drop them off return to their flats a few days later knocking on their doors and demanding they go out with them.
Another one was terrified after being propositioned very nastily as she was dropped off and then threatened if she reported the driver as he now knows where she lives.
And that's just from a small circle of female users, multiply that London wide and i suspect there's quite a problem out there.
A lot of uber drivers are entitled to benefits even while working due to the low wage.
So they and their "employer" Uber are being subsidised by the tax payer.
Can you post some photos when you become that 6'2" single woman?
Al :)
From my consumer perspective, Uber kills black cab in all aspects.
Everything is more convenient and cheaper and the market has chosen Uber over black cabs.
working conditions may suck but what's stopping drivers from simply not working for Uber?
It's the driver's choice to work with Uber. If I was a driver and Uber wasn't worth my while, i'd move on to something else. 40k registered drivers in London, they have chosen to work with Uber over a thousand other hail-a-cab services.
There is quite a lot of differences in how they operate Andy.
If an Uber driver turns down too much work while signed on to the system, they can be refused work, and you don't have to refuse to many jobs before Uber reduce your rating.
The rating system by customers is totally unfair. If an Uber driver turns up for a job and finds there are 5 passengers but he's only licensed to carry 4 and then refuses to carry them, he can be given a 1 rating. Same goes for refusing to carry a dog or allowing people to bring takeaway food into the car. If your rating drops too low (4.something out of 5) you won't get work.
As a self employed driver (which Uber are adamant that the drivers are) then it should be the drivers choice if they want to do the job or not without the risk of penalty.
Uber's % means that when all running costs are considered it's quite easy to be working for below the NMW quite often.
please don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of Uber or Mini Cabs in general, simply because of the filthy state of many of the cars used, because many of the drivers are clueless about where they are going and because I enjoy the romance of black cabs, however these are my personal views where as many of the reasons why Uber are bad, identified above, simply don't stack up.
Some might think that it's because many of their drivers are foreign.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Looks like Uber is softening its aggressive tone a bit:
"On behalf of everyone at Uber globally, I apologise for the mistakes we've made," Mr Khosrowshahi said.
In a letter addressed to Londoners, the new Uber boss said the firm "won't be perfect, but we will listen to you".
When asked about a possible meeting, a spokesman for TfL said: "We are always available and happy to meet at any time."
Earlier, the mayor of London said Uber had put "unfair pressure" on TfL, with an "army" of PR experts and lawyers.
The last EAT saw through this - because if they were really self-employed, they could decide the route (diverting from Uber's route can result in penalty), they could decide the price with the customer and also critically they could swap details with the customer and arrange future work directly (prohibited). Uber's claim that it's a platform that links self-employed drivers with customers is clearly nonsense.
I have to be clear I haven't yet read the whole artical about 1/2-2/3's through but this does seem a well balanced view on the Uber issue and background
https://www.londonreconnections.com/...-uber-not-app/
I finished reading the article I linked to earlier and while its not that long I thought some of you might be interested in some of the key points:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/...-uber-not-app/
Who has TFL refused a licence to?
“We are sure Londoners will be as astounded as we are by this decision,” the email continued, with a sense of disbelief. It then pointed readers towards an online petition against this attempt to “ban the app from the capital.”
Oddly, the email was sent by a company that TfL have taken no direct action against, and referred to an app that TfL have made no effort (and have no power) to ban.
It is because the consumer experience that is “Uber” is not actually the same as the companies that deliver it.
And “companies” is, ultimately, correct. Although most users of the system don’t realise it, over the course of requesting, completing and paying for their journey an Uber user in London actually interacts with two different companies – one Dutch, one British.
The first of those companies is Uber BV (UBV). Based in the Netherlands, this company is responsible for the actual Uber app. When a user wants to be picked up and picks a driver, they are interacting with UBV. It is UBV that request that driver be dispatched to the user’s location. It is also UBV who then collect any payment required.
At no point, however, does the user actually get into a car owned, managed or operated by UBV. That duty falls to the second, UK-based company – Uber London Ltd. (ULL). It is ULL who are responsible for all Uber vehicles – and their drivers – in London. Like Addison Lee or any of the other thousands of smaller operators that can be found on high streets throughout the capital, ULL are a minicab firm. They just happen to be one that no passenger has ever called directly – they respond exclusively to requests from UBV.
This setup may seem unwieldy, but it is deliberate. In part, it is what has allowed Uber to blur the boundary between being a ‘pre-booked’ service and ‘plying-for-hire’ (a difference we explored when we last looked at the London taxi trade back in 2015). It is also this setup that also allows Uber to pay what their critics say is less than their ‘fair share’ of tax – Uber pays no VAT and, last year, only paid £411,000 in Corporation Tax.
Uber London Ltd (ULL) are a minicab operator. This means they require a private hire operator’s licence. Licences last five years and ULL were last issued one in May 2012. They recently applied for its renewal.
ULL were granted a four-month extension to that licence earlier this year. This was because TfL, who are responsible for regulating taxi services in London, had a number of concerns that ULL might not meet the required standards of operational practice. These are rules that all private hire operators – from the smallest local cab firm to Addison Lee – are required to meet. Issuing a four-month extension rather than a five-year one was intended to provide the time necessary to investigate those issues further.The approach that Kalanick took in his Washington testimony, of espousing the public need as being the same as Uber’s need, has since become a standard part of Uber’s tactics for selling expansion into new markets. The ability – often correct – to claim that Uber offers a better service at a cheaper price is powerful selling point, one that Uber have never shied away from pushing.
It’s a simple argument. It is also one that Uber have used to drown out more complex objections from incumbent operators, regulators or politicians in areas into which they’ve expanded. It is also one of the reasons why Uber have continued to push the narrative that they are a technical disruptor when skirting (or sometimes ignoring) existing regulations – because being an innovative startup is ‘sexy’. Being a multinational that ignores the rules isn’t.passenger safety
One of the primary responsibilities of the taxi regulator in most locations is the consideration of passenger safety. This is very much the case in London – both for individual drivers and for operators.
The expectation of drivers is relatively obvious – that they do not break the law, nor commit a crime of any kind. The expectation of operators is a bit more complex – it is not just about ensuring that drivers are adequately checked before they are hired (and that those checks are processed by a mutually approved company), but also that their activity is effectively monitored while they are working. Just as importantly, the operator is responsible for making sure that any customer complaints are taken seriously and acted upon appropriately.
The nature of that action can vary. The report of a minor offence may warrant only the intervention of the operator themselves or escalation of the incident to TfL via the regular (but slow) reporting channels. It is expected, however, that serious crimes will be dealt with promptly, and reported directly to the police as well.
On 12 April 2017, the Metropolitan Police wrote to TfL expressing a major concern. In the letter, Inspector Neil Bellany claimed that ULL were not reporting serious crimes to the police. They cited three specific incidents by way of example.
The first of these related to a ‘road rage’ incident in which the driver had appeared to pull a gun, causing the passenger to flee the scene. Uber dismissed the driver, having determined that the weapon was a pepper spray, not a handgun, but failed to report the incident to the police. As a result, the police only became aware of the incident a month later when TfL, as operator, processed ULL’s incident reports.
At this point, the police attempted to investigate (pepper spray is an offensive weapon in the UK) but, the letter indicated, Uber refused to provide more information unless a formal request via the Data Protection Act was submitted.
The other two offences were even more serious, and here it is best simply to quote the letter itself:
The facts are that on the 30 January 2016 a female was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver. From what we can ascertain Uber have spoken to the driver who denied the offence. Uber have continued to employ the driver and have done nothing more. While Uber did not say they would contact the police the victim believed that they would inform the police on her behalf.
On the 10 May 2016 the same driver has committed a second more serious sexual assault against a different passenger Again Uber haven’t said to this victim they would contact the police, but she was, to use her words, ‘strongly under the impression’ that they would.
On the 13 May 2016 Uber have finally acted and dismissed the driver, notifying LTPH [London Taxi and Private Hire] Licensing who have passed the information to the MPS.
The second offence of the two was more serious in its nature. Had Uber notified police after the first offence it would be right to assume that the second would have been prevented. It is also worth noting that once Uber supplied police with the victim’s details both have welcomed us contacting them and have fully assisted with the prosecutions. Both cases were charged as sexual assaults and are at court next week for hearing.
Uber hold a position not to report crime on the basis that it may breach the rights of the passenger. When asked what the position would be in the hypothetical case of a driver who commits a serious sexual assault against a passenger they confirmed that they would dismiss the driver and report to TfL, but not inform the police.
The letter concluded by pointing out that these weren’t the only incidents the Metropolitan Police had become aware of. In total, Uber had failed to report six sexual assaults, two public order offences and one assault to the police. This had lead to delays of up to 7 months before they were investigated. Particularly damning, with the public order offences this meant that in both cases the prosecution time limit had passed before the police became aware of them.
As the letter concludes:
The significant concern I am raising is that Uber have been made aware of criminal activity and yet haven’t informed the police. Uber are however proactive in reporting lower level document frauds to both the MPS and LTPH. My concern is twofold, firstly it seems they are deciding what to report (less serious matters / less damaging to reputation over serious offences) and secondly by not reporting to police promptly they are allowing situations to develop that clearly affect the safety and security of the public.
The Metropolitan police letter is arguably one of the most important pieces of evidence as to why TfL’s decision not to renew ULL’s licence is almost certainly the correct one right now – or at least that there are certainly grounds to stop and think. Because one of the most common defences of Uber is that they provide an important service to women and others late at night. In places where minicabs won’t come out, or for people whose personal experience has left them uncomfortable using Black Cabs or other minicab services, Uber offer a safe, trackable alternative. They aren’t just offering a minicab service, but peace of mind.
That argument is entirely valid. Right now, however, TfL have essentially indicated that they don’t trust ULL to deliver that service. The perception of safety does not match the reality.
Again, it is not about the app.
Greyball
Concerns about vetting and reporting practices at ULL may make up the bulk of TfL’s reasons for rejection, but there is also more. There is Greyball.
Greyball is a tagging system within the Uber app. When a user who has been ‘greyballed’ fires up the map, rather than showing them the ‘real’ view of what is happening, the app shows them a custom Uber map instead. This system also allows nearby drivers to be alerted to the presence of a ‘greyballed’ user, or for those users to be hidden from drivers as well.
Greyball’s existence was revealed to the world in March 2017 as part of an investigation by the New York Times into Uber’s activities in Portland back in 2014. The paper claimed that Uber, knowing that they were breaking the regulations on taxi operation in the city, had accessed user data within the app and elsewhere to identify likely city officials and target them with false information. This ensured that those individuals were not picked up for rides, hampering attempts by the Portland authorities to police Uber’s activities.
Initially, Uber denied the accusations. They confirmed that Greyball existed, but insisted that it was only used for promotional purposes, testing and to protect drivers in countries where there was a risk of physical assault.
Uber are now under investigation by the US Department of Justice for their use of Greyball in the US.
Of all the transport operators in Europe, TfL are arguably the most technically literate. It is hard to see how the potential use of Greyball wouldn’t have raised eyebrows within the organisation, so it is not surprising to see it make the list of issues. A regulator is only as good as their ability to regulate and, as the Portland report shows, Uber have ‘form’ for blocking that ability when it suits them.
Sources suggest that TfL have requested significant assurances and guarantees that Greyball will not be used in this way in London. The fact that it makes the list of issues, however, suggests that this demand has currently not been met. It is possible this is one of the times when Uber’s setup – multiple companies under one brand – has caused a problem outside of ULL’s control. Uber Global may ultimately be the only organisation able to provide such software assurances. Until now, they may simply not have realised just how important it was that they give them.I'll leave everyone to draw their own conclusions from this articleUnderstanding the economics
There is still much more to explore on the subject of Uber. Not just Uber London’s particular issues with TfL, but the economics of how they operate and what their future plans might be.
That last part is important because the main element of Uber’s grand narrative – their continued ability to offer low fares – is not as guaranteed a prospect as Londoners (and indeed all users) have been led to believe.
For now, it is simply worth bearing something in mind: Uber’s fares do not cover the actual cost of a journey.
Just how large the deficit is varies by territory and – as the firm don’t disclose more financial information than necessary – it is difficult to know what the shortfall per trip is in London itself. In New York, however, where some 2016 numbers are available, it seems that every journey only covers 41% of the costs involved in making it.
Just why Uber do this is something we will explore another time, but for now it is important just to know it is happening. It means that, without significant changes to Uber’s operational model, the company will never make a profit (indeed it currently loses roughly $2bn a year). As one expert in transport economics writes:
Thus there is no basis for assuming Uber is on the same rapid, scale economy driven path to profitability that some digitally-based startups achieved. In fact, Uber would require one of the greatest profit improvements in history just to achieve breakeven.
This means that Uber’s cheap fares – rightly argued as one of the ways in which it provides a ‘social good’ for low-income users – are likely only temporary.
Indeed the only way this won’t be the case is if there is a significant technical change to the way Uber delivers its service. In this regard, Uber has often pulled on its reputation as a ‘startup’ and has pointed to the way Amazon and others have ‘hacked’ their growth – by finding economies of scale or using technological innovation to save money in workflows and supply chains.
Unfortunately, this simply isn’t how transport works. Up to 80% of the cost of each Uber journey is a fixed cost – the money paid to the driver, the cost of fuel and sundry costs related to the vehicle. It doesn’t matter how many drivers or vehicles uber have, the percentage of any fare that is required to meet those costs will largely remain the same. This is one of the reasons why we don’t see more “megacab” firms such as Addison Lee – generally speaking, they’re not worth the effort if you’re looking to make a buck. Amazon can save money by sticking more books in warehouses. Uber can’t do the same by sticking more people in the same number of cars.
Uber, of course, are aware of this. Indeed it’s why they have quickly become one of the biggest investors in self-driving vehicle technology (and are subject to a lawsuit from Google over the alleged theft of information related to that subject).
It is worth bearing in mind though that Uber’s stated concern for their ‘40,000 drivers’ in London should be taken with a considerable pinch of salt. Not only is the active figure likely closer to 25,000 (based on Uber’s own growth forecasts from last year), but they would also quite like to get rid of all those drivers anyway – or at the very least squeeze their income further in order to push that cost-per-journey figure closer to being in the black.
And also point out that London is far from the only place that Uber has licensing issues.
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/...-a7707436.html
Last edited by Captain Morgan; 26th September 2017 at 10:27.
Nice to know Tfl are lovely people and have everyone's journey and privacy at the forefront of their minds.
http://news.sky.com/story/tfl-may-ma...-wifi-11056118
Yes, damn them for preventing Uber exploiting their drivers and customers and doing what 99.99% of supermarkets and online retailers have been doing for years...
Seems to me that people don't care how Uber operate as long as they get cheap taxis...
There was a representative of Uber on TV yesterday spouting how "the majority of our drivers want to be independent" - Whether that's true or not (I'm sure Uber's business model falls to pieces if they become the employer with all the responsibilities that involves), it's not down to individuals to 'decide' how they want to be seen (As employees or independent), otherwise everyone would choose to be 'independent' and avoid paying as much tax!
M.
Last edited by snowman; 28th September 2017 at 08:40.
I see Austin, Texas threw Uber out for breaking laws with gay abandon. They're pretty happy with the systems that grew in to replace them.
What happened in the city that banned Uber - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41450980
Seems another "not employees of ours!" scheme is about to hit the barriers:
https://www.theguardian.com/business...on-airlines-ukThose who apply to join Ryanair are told to set up an Irish limited company and are made directors of it, under the guidance of accountants recommended by the airline. That company then supplies pilots to one of several agencies, including Brookfield Aviation and McGinley Aviation, who in turn supply them to Ryanair.
The system limits Ryanair’s obligations to the pilots, such as sick pay – among the factors that allows the Dublin-based carrier to keep its costs low. But the use of Irish limited companies to employ pilots based in the UK has led to pilots with limited experience of the tax obligations of a limited company falling foul of its fraud investigators.
One UK-based pilot said he has been under investigation since February 2015, and is being questioned by HMRC about an employment structure he had no choice but to use.
“When I started employment, I had to set up a limited company in Ireland with two other pilots who I knew from training and were employed by Ryanair at the same time. We had to go to Ireland, meet their accountant and set up a company.”
Another questionable incident with Uber, this time is a breach of IT security, data loss, ransom and cover up....
https://nypost.com/2017/11/21/uber-p...8117-719098922
One assumes they didn't report the data breach to the ICO so presumably yet another regulatory requirement they've decided to not comply with. Hopefully it will be another nail in the coffin of their London private hire licence.
In the Sotadic Zone, apparently.
They are operating in Austin again and the rival apps have on the whole gone bust
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...loyment-rightsJudges have dismissed Uber’s appeal against a landmark employment tribunal ruling that its drivers should be classed as workers with access to the minimum wage and paid holidays.
Master of the rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, along with Lord Justice Bean, backed an October 2016 employment tribunal ruling that could affect tens of thousands of workers in the gig economy. A third judge, Lord Justice Underhill, dissented, leading to 2-1 majority decision.
The judges found there was a “high degree of fiction” in the wording of the standard agreement between Uber and its drivers, which it argues are self-employed independent contractors with few employment rights.
The judgment handed down on Wednesday said: “For [Uber] to be stating to its statutory regulator that it is operating a private hire vehicle service in London and is a fit and proper person to do so, while at the same time arguing in this litigation that it is merely an affiliate of a Dutch-registered company which licenses tens of thousands of proprietors of small businesses to use its software, contributes to the air of contrivance and artificiality which pervade’s Uber’s case.”
they will get spanked in the Supreme court as well - no way they see this as self-employment, fails all the standard tests - they will find as well they are workers (not employees).
They were banned in Brighton, they took the council to court and won the right to work again this week.
I still use Uber for cheap European (and beyond) rides as they have better 'rolling stock' than local alternatives, however in London I almost exclusively now use MyTaxi app, much better experience and presentation as majority of my jumps are for business and I love to support cabbies who switched to electric black cabs in the process. Win win.
Fas est ab hoste doceri
I don’t want to get to involved in the rights and wrongs of Uber v Black cab but I do know that I personally like to have a choice, I use Uber a lot in and around Europe and it works, I know what the cost will be, I don’t have to follow the route on my mobile to check they aren’t taking me the “long” way round and the cars are usually (not always) newer and better kept.
Try a taxi in Lisbon or Istanbul then tell me your happy with taxi only system.
As for a Black Cab being better because they spent 3-5 years doing the knowledge, as I see it the knowledge was a way a passenger would be confident that the driver would take the shortest route and so get the best fare. Roll on however many years and now every taxi driver has a sat nav and the fare is quoted in the app before you book.
Don’t bother with cabs in London I walk, it’s faster but not necessarily healthier.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posting Permissions