Reply With QuoteTo be fair, the Uber app incorporates Waze as far as I recall. It is a fantastic sat-nav.
Thanks for your comments. For the avoidance of doubt, you were an Uber driver in Cardiff, not London, correct?Originally Posted by jaytip
It seems to me that the utility of Uber has been shown by your experiences: It didn't work for you in Cardiff and so you left to go to a different business. No one is coerced into working for Uber if they aren't making enough for their needs or expectations, and yet thousands do work for it. This tends to suggest that it does provide what a lot of people need (at least here in London).
Personally I suspect London is much busier than Cardiff and thus offers a (much?) better proposition to drivers, although surge periods do not seem excessively common in London to me.
Interesting. I'd certainly have expected a business based upon a moving vehicle to be generally more costly than B&M.
Last edited by markrlondon; 22nd September 2017 at 17:56.
To be fair, the Uber app incorporates Waze as far as I recall. It is a fantastic sat-nav.
Just had a quick trip with Uber in central London (3 min wait before pick up), and a bit of a chat with the driver who said that he just dropped someone off close to where I was when my request came through which he accepted. He is not a happy bunny about license malarkey however he is rather optimistic that he will be ok working locally and do airport runs (apparently he based just outside M25). He likes Uber as it consistently offers jobs, but apparently the pay is 'sh*t' as he put it..
I like Uber in Europe where it offers an excellent VFM, not so much in London where I can get either m/cab or flag a black can for not much more, plus I've had a couple of uncomfortable rides with either rude or/and argumentative drivers which put me almost off using it.. If it is a short hop (up to 25/30 quid) I always flag a black cab.
Fas est ab hoste doceri
To be fair, this is just as much a risk as with other minicab firms or black cabs. I no longer use black cabs in London due to, in my experience, consistently unfriendly attitudes from black cab drivers. Perhaps I was going to the 'wrong' destinations to make them polite and friendly.
And yet presumably he continues to work for Uber because it pays well enough overall compared to available alternatives!
Other people have valid opinions.
Is this directed at me?
Massive shame to lose these guys. Outside of the city, try and find a black cab, or travel by tube with the terrorists.
The bribes didn't work after all. Good news for me, don't live in London anymore or use taxis and my little bro's a recently qualified black cab driver (for which he dedicated almost 3 years of his life for) I just hope the courts show some balls for the people who need a bit of protection from the sharks, ie: the pizza/food delivery/couriers/warehouse drones etc get a break now. All this 'only get paid when you work' shite is all very well if your'e a comfortably off consumer but try doing it yourself.
Taxiiii!
I quite like the fact that Uber and other minicabs protect me from having to use over-priced black cab "sharks", to redirect your emotive terminology.
Back in reality, plenty of people do do it for themselves and keep on doing it because it seems to suit them. As I said, I've asked the Uber drivers I've used and they all seem to like the fact that it works very flexibly and has a ready supply of work (in London, at least).
If I had a suitable car now I'd definitely be doing it. As long as it covered my costs then why not use it to generate revenue from otherwise spare time.
Yes, it reads as though you are roughshod riding again.
I've got no problem with Uber as long as they confirm to the law - I agree with the ET from end of last year that Uber drivers are workers (which isn't the same thing as an employee) - as long as they fulfil their legal obligations and stop trying to skirt them, I'd be largely happy.
Petition to save Uber in London here: https://www.change.org/p/save-your-u...n-saveyouruber
I encourage everyone to sign to protect market competition and innovation.
Thanks for the clarification.
I deny your accusation in full. I am doing nothing of the sort.
Furthermore you write "again", and I deny that I have ever "roughshod [rode]" at any time previously. (This assumes that by "roughshod riding" you mean that I am in your opinion somehow preventing other people from stating their opinions).
I think it demonstrably clear that (a) no one has been prevented from stating their opinion and (b) nothing I write here could possibly prevent someone from stating their opinion if they want to.
Additionally of course, all opinions, mine included, are open to debate and challenge. It is a fundamental mistake to think that debate and challenge prevent opinions being shared; debate and challenge are part and parcel of sharing opinion.
Last edited by markrlondon; 22nd September 2017 at 19:41.
If Uber does stick around, you decide to take it up as a part time job and I get in your car, would you promise not to talk?
Jeez, it would be a long ride.
In my opinion you are........again.
Well, I've not prevented you from freely stating your opinion, have I. :-)
Last edited by markrlondon; 22nd September 2017 at 20:00.
......and I encourage everyone not to. If there's a contrary petition out there to ensure the nail is firmly banged in, sign that. Hopefully this whole 'business model' will be put back in it's 19th century box where it belongs.
All very interesting but clearly no love or sympathy for the Uber Drivers who have taken out loans to buy their car only to find out that they can no longer trade.
We live in crazy times.
- - - Updated - - -
Sorry Bongo, why exactly don't you like it?
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Like it or not, fractional employment models are the future. They seem to be ideal for all concerned (in appropriate contexts, such as this one).
The only issues to my mind are the exact legal nature of such employment. Although they are currently often categorised as self-employed, this is clearly untrue by the usual tests. For example, the worker cannot substitute another worker to fulfil the contract and cannot choose their place of work. For these reasons it seems absurd to me to refer to such roles are genuinely self-employed.
But they are also not conventional full time or part time employed positions, either, and it would be absurd to pretend that they were any such thing. It would be uneconomical and unrealistic to try to make them fit this conventional mould.
In conventional/traditional terms, I think gig-style, fractional jobs most closely match employed but piecework-style jobs. Note, there's nothing wrong with this: It's not a 19th Century thing; it's a flexible, modern, way of working that makes perfect sense for things like this. It seems that, as ever, legislation needs to catch up and find an equitable and economically viable legal model that retains the ultimate flexibility of such fractional models (which is their economic strength and utility) whilst not pretending that they are either genuinely self-employed roles or are conventional employed positions, neither of which are true of fractional roles in any substantive sense.
Last edited by markrlondon; 22nd September 2017 at 20:20.
Indeed. This does very much look like an attack on thousands of small business people.
With 'The Knowledge' then.
We already have this status - it's called "worker" - it just needs a government that will enforces existing law.
Likely the same reasons the court don't.
Let me expand. If you are employed by a business to do a job or provide a service, and in return, provide profit for your employer, my inner Wolfie Corbyn tells me you should be treated with respect and be valued, and afforded the courtesy of, for example, sick pay/paid holiday, and not just used as a functionary.
How's that?
I'm not as familiar with employment law as you but I thought that "workers" were effectively divided into employed and self-employed roles. My point is that gig-economy/fractional style jobs are a new way of working that doesn't really map well to either conventional employment or self-employment.
My view, therefore, is that legislation needs to evolve to recognise a new category of working, one that is clearly to my mind not self-employment by the usual standards. Although I would categorise it as a form of employment, it nevertheless also needs to be recognised that employees in this new model have expenses that go beyond what they could normally claim against tax in the PAYE system since their employer does not supply the items in question. Due to the fractional, on-demand, nature of work, ideas of holiday pay entitlement, etc. also need to be revised, compared to more conventional employment.
We could also be talking at cross purposes. What statutory rights of "workers" are not currently being upheld? The statutory rights applicable would, of course, depend on whether the roles in question are employed or self-employed roles, and my view is that neither legal model seems to fit the new model of what I call fractional working well.
(a) No court has, as yet, been involved.
(b) The nature of the contracts between Uber and their drivers were NOT cited by TFL as a reason for not renewing the licence. See here for their (somewhat vague) reasons.
(c) As you can see from my message above, I don't think that Uber drivers and the like can genuinely be called self-employed but, that said, they are currently treated as self-employed. As such, it is perfectly right and proper that they are not due sick pay, holiday pay, or the like. No self-employed person has a right to these things from their customers. As in my message above, however, my view is that gig-style/fractional jobs like this represent new ways of working (they are neither genuinely self-employed nor normally employed) which need new rules to go along with them. Due to the highly flexible nature of fractional roles like this (where, that is, flexibility is genuinely present on both sides, as it is with Uber[1]), it doesn't make economic or moral sense for 'employers' to have the same responsibilities as in a normal full time/part time role (but also not as few responsibilities as a person's customers have in a genuinely self-employed role).
Footnote:-
1: It is clear that flexibility is not really there on both sides in all gig-style jobs. In some cases, especially ones involving zero hours contracts, the flexibility is expected to be all on the employee's side. This is grossly unfair and, in such cases, I think that such roles should be treated as conventional employed positions.
To qualify instead for a genuinely new style of employment (which is neither self-employed or conventionally employed) I think the flexibility really does need to be on both sides equally (and Uber does seem to qualify on these terms). As such, a new legal model that combines the flexibility of self-employment with some, but not too many, of the protections of normal full time/part time employment is needed, in my view.
Last edited by markrlondon; 22nd September 2017 at 20:45.
And your preferred solution is to put those workers, those you seem to care about, out of work?
I'm simplifying but there are three in UK law - Employer, Worker and Self-employed. The press use 'worker' as a generic term but it in employment terms have a specific meaning - the EAT I linked before is worth reading because they go into quite a bit of detail why uber drivers are workers (and what a worker is).
That's interesting, thanks. Reading.
** Update **
See http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...=1#post4502083 for my response.
Last edited by markrlondon; 22nd September 2017 at 22:17.
The decision seems to be that Uber were not meeting the licensing/regulations.
R
•Its approach to reporting serious criminal offences..
•Its approach to how medical certificates are obtained..
•Its approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DDBS) checks are obtained..
•Its approach to explaining the use of Greyball in London, software that could be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to theapp and prevent officials from undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties..
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
I hope not; I have a zero hours contract which suits my needs admirably.
Yup. Madness to take employment away. It suits many and those it doesn't can make a choice.
I have quickly scanned over the judgment document and first of all it clearly concurs with my view that Uber drivers cannot be genuinely described as self-employed. The judgment lists a large number of reasons why the nature of Uber's supervisory oversight and control of its drivers means that self-employment is not appropriate (despite Uber's claims to the contrary).
I must also accept the judgment's view that Uber drivers are "workers" within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Working Time Regulations 1998 (see paras 70 and 71). However, I think it important to note that the categories of working person who is a "worker" within the scope of these acts and regulations (as quoted in para 70) are essentially anyone who is employed in a normal job role or should be seen to be employed in a normal job role. That is in effect anyone doing any kind of work for someone else and who is not genuinely self-employed. My point here is that the the term "workers" is in effect identical to what I referred to as "employed" above, so we are back to "employed" or "self-employed".
Thus, within the law as it currently stands, there can be no doubt (according to my understanding, informed by the judgment, especially paras 70 to 102) that Uber drivers are "workers" and are thus employed by Uber (or should be taken to be employed by Uber) and must receive the statutory rights applicable to "workers" or employed persons. It is interesting that the definition of Uber drivers as workers in the judgment is limited to when drivers have the app enabled.
Despite this, I still feel that the law as it stands, as I understand it (particularly in respect of statutory rights vs. ability to reclaim business costs) does not properly recognise what still seems to me to be a hybrid employment status. This gig-style/fractional status is definitely not genuine self-employment but it has elements of self-employment; nor is it really conventional full time/part time employment but it has elements of it. Thus it seems to me to be useful for the law to change to accommodate this relatively new, highly flexible, sort of halfway house, one where people are working for a company as employees (as the judgment finds) but nevertheless have great personal freedom about when to do this and have business costs that would normally be covered by an employer in normal full time/part time employment.
Thus such employees need greater statutory protection than if they were genuinely self-employed (since they are not really self-employed) but not quite as much as if they were conventional full time/part time employees (since they still have greater control over when they do their jobs compared to more conventional employees). As for their legitimately reclaimable business costs against tax (something which conventional employees don't tend to have and that the PAYE system largely does not allow), this needs to be recognised in their employment status so that they can claim them against tax despite being employees of their employer.
Having said all of the above, I should re-iterate that although it's very interesting, it's not germane to TFL's decision not to renew Uber's operating licence. The nature of Uber's contracts with its drivers was not cited by TFL as one of the reasons for not renewing the licence.
Last edited by markrlondon; 23rd September 2017 at 11:44.
Well yes, self-evidently so according to TFL's opinion, otherwise TFL would not have chosen to deny renewal of Uber's PHV licence.
For the avoidance of doubt, all of my comments have plainly and obviously been made in this context. It is, of course, the context of this thread.
As I said before, one is surely prompted to ask: Who regulates TFL and are they a fit and proper organisation to be regulating others?
It seems that TFL's opinion is to be tested in court. We will see what happens.
No doubt TFL will produce evidence to support their position and that will be in accordance with the reasons they've given.
If it is an 'attack' then it will against Uber and their failings, not on their drivers.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
I am surprised see no one has mentioned Tesla Network.
Whenever Tesla perfect autonomous vehicles then anyone who owns one can join Tesla Network, which offers offers the ability for Tesla owners to make their unattended vehicles available to execute trips for friends, family and other members of the Tesla Network so long as it's not for hire or reward.
As Elon Musk said "It's not Tesla vs Uber but the people vs Uber".
What will The Knowledge count for then?
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
So it seems that the fact that Uber can continue to operate until the legal process is exhausted seems to have been skipped over, this might take a year it might take two, until then no driver is out of work.
It also seems to me that the fact that Uber has not created tens of thousands of drivers overnight and that many would be pre existing mini cab drivers or even ex-London taxi drivers, so they should have the option of returning to their previous employment, if not employer.
I understand that the Uber model is that they undercut existing markets, until they are the main player and the they can price the market as they wish, driver renumeration does not match the pricing changes. This is why drivers might not be able to join their ex-firms as they may no longer exist.
I have used Uber in areas that using a London taxi is difficult and I’ve had no local knowledge of mini cabs, so it served a purpose, though when in town I use a taxi every time out of personal preference.
IMHO taxis are a part of the London landscape and it will be (a bit) of a lesser place when they are gone.
Last edited by Captain Morgan; 22nd September 2017 at 22:50.
What about mini cab drivers, agency workers, sub-contractors, all of whom may work for 3rd parties, who might make a profit.
As for your inner Woflie fair enough, however everyone has a choice and an Uber Driver can leave at any time to pursue alternative employment. It's not slavery after all. It will however require them to turn up for work (at the specified hours), possibility takeholidays when told, have to deal with the internal politics ad HR, etc, etc.
Personally I think choice is a good thing. Clearly it not in yours.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
I do not think Uber was designed to undercut other drivers, it just enabled the service to be brought into 21st century.
Previously a customer had two options, hail a hackney cab or use a mini cab (which meant either queuing at their office or ringing them for when they had a cab available, in either could meaning waiting for hours).
The Uber model was to provide a platform which customers and cabs can be connected. A brokering service. Most importantly it found the nearest cab to the customer, thus saving everyone time, energy and money because it was more efficient and hence cheaper.
Its such a same that people continue to live in 1980's.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
I live in London and use the following:
- For anything less than 1.5 miles, walk (unless it is raining or time is too short)
- Black cabs for short journeys in central London when walking is not convenient
- Tube for longer journeys where I want to get there quickly without getting stuck in traffic
- Addison Lee (mini cab) from work - mostly airport pick up and drops where I need something very reliable / am carrying luggage
- Uber for casual/ personal journeys where cost/ convenience are key
Have had good and bad experiences with all 5. Surely there's a place for each?
Guy Adams, Daily Mail (of all places!) today p12 & 13. Sums it up.
As alluded to by someone, and as I said earlier, yes agency, zero hours and anyone else being exploited by the wonder of 1980's market forces should have Wolfie's Law protecting their dignity.
Defending this lot, and others of their ilk will always have you on the back foot. It's really a simple case of right & wrong for Bongo.
Do bear in mind that:
(a) The issue you refer to here has nothing whatsoever to do with the Uber/TFL issue at hand (although, as in my comments above, I agree that Uber drivers are not self-employed by any genuine measure).
(b) Uber drivers are not on zero hours contracts (since they are, rightly or wrongly, treated as self-employed).
(c) Uber's driver contracts have nothing whatsoever to do with TFL's non-renewal decision. TFL did not cite driver contracts as a reason for non-renewal.
I would rather have 40,000 people who are proactively working to earn their living and provide a genuine value add service to people, rather than those same 40,000 loving off benefits and roaming the streets doing nothing.
Uber provides a top service IME as a Londoner. Try finding a black cab outside of zone 2, or one that won’t charge £100 to get to Heathrow when Uber will do the same for £35.
I prefer the new Uber Mercedes E-class to a polluting TX4 Hackney Carriage that is uncomfortable and polluting at best.
I prefer upfront pricing based on Google Maps/Waze traffic-aware GPS tracked routes, rather than a discretionary and unknown route dictated by some geezer who professes psychic knowledge on traffic ahead of him.
I like being able to order a cab for my family and track their whereabouts in real-time GPS.
I like having a driver on-demand at my convenience based on where I want to wait, not them.
I like invisible payment with automatic invoices sent correctly to my account for expense tracking, with weekly and monthly summary reports.
I like that an Uber driver will fully accepts the route I want to go, rather than a black cab saying ‘no, I’m not going there’ after 15mins waiting in the rain.
NONE of this is provided by Black Cabs. The Knowledge is absolute horseshit compared to the technology available. TfL can go do one, and I hope Black cabs are completely replaced by Uber.
The same amount of resource will be required, it just won't be Uber doing it, could well be a good opportunity for someone or some company to fill this void with a similar product, a bit of infrastructure and planning could make someone a lot of money from this, i wonder who will fill it if Uber do lose their appeal!
I know of a company that introduced a policy that staff must use Uber for taxis.
Cutting costs at the risk of exposing staff to unchecked mini cab drivers... Will be fine until they're sued by a member of staff exposed to sexual harrasment (or worse) and it will happen...
M
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
Let’s take a very similar business model to Uber that is thriving. Booking.com. Does anyone ask if Booking.com provide sick leave or holiday pay to staff who work at the 10,000’s of hotels/B&Bs on Booking.com? Booking.com take between 15-20% of the room rental from every booking so not far off Uber’s 25%. No one seems to complain about Booking.com? Yet they are simply joining customers with hotel owners in the same way Uber joins drivers with passengers.
Any taxi firm that uses electronic dispatch (Autocab, Icabby etc) will send the first available car in that area. We use the system in the firm I work for and if a customer has to wait 15 mins or more they complain !!
Uber drivers are subject to an enhanced DBS check - the same as black cabs, can't see how these will safer. At least an Uber driver can be traced.
I think it's both important and difficult to detach the progress of technology with the company. Uber is a toxic company with an attitude that has radiated from the top down. A casual read of their Wikipedia entry should be good enough to give you a flavour:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber_(company)#Criticism
I certainly would not want to give them my money. When you add this to there being evidence they have been running at a loss since inception then it immediately suggests that they have a strategy of loss-leading to to do away with the opposition until some future date when they can dictate their own terms. They only need to have a few politicians in their pocket and some expensive lawyers and they will be come an even bigger carbuncle on the thing that is transport in London if left unchallenged - things, in my view, were already heading in that direction.
I understand the bit about competition and I'm not a natural ally of black cabs but I really object to demand pricing. It's taken many years in most countries to regulate taxis to the extent that you have a reasonable expectation that you are not going to be fiddled, that the metre hasn't been @rsed around with and that you have a rough idea what you're going to pay. As I see it the demand pricing that Uber has introduced stands to reverse all of that and we're back to a free for all. I don't believe that represents progress.
In the Sotadic Zone, apparently.
I think Uber are a cheapskate business model who have little to recommend them, I agree with the withdrawal of their licence.
Another communist.
This place sometimes reminds me of a 1980s Conservative Party conference fringe event. Think of a salivating Hague The Younger, kipper tie & wide lapels & beetle crushers, pre baseball cap, addressing the faithfull blue rinsed ladies & their Everett inspired stocking wearing Mr Angry hubbies.
Uber and outfits like them are being found out, the last election demonstrated a desire for more fairness in society. If there is such a thing of course.
As for the 40,000 (nice round figure) uber 'customers', not employees btw, being thrown on the street, maybe they could return to the bone fide Minicab outfits that were squeezed out by uber?
Posting Permissions
