TfL denied Uber operator license, ride hailing service wins on appeal (Sept 2020)

[sealion]

I have to say Uber have shown their bullying nature with this reactive nonsense about 'jobs' at risk

There will be no jobs if uber stick around and manage to see out their plan to eradicate any competition, just driverless cars.

 

[Dogsauce]

Addison Lee wrongly classed drivers as self-employed, tribunal rules

Addison Lee drivers (who are almost exactly like Uber drivers, Uber did not invent minicabs) have been found not to be self-employed. Following on from cases against Uber and City Sprint this is pretty big news in the transport industry.

Addison Lee were big Tory donors weren't they? Supported Boris, presumably thinking it would help them get away with shit like this. That and the driving in bus lanes thing from a few years ago. Cunts.

 

[agricola]

The worrying thing would have been if TfL continued the policy of Mayor Johnson in turning a blind eye, for whatever reasons.

Assuming you believe in equality under the law.

They have continued the policy of turning a blind eye, though - and its worse now because (when they drew up that notice withdrawing the licence) TFL had one (and now have two) legal decisions confirming that the business model Uber and AL have been using is illegal.

 

[Gramsci]

Addison Lee were big Tory donors weren't they? Supported Boris, presumably thinking it would help them get away with shit like this. That and the driving in bus lanes thing from a few years ago. Cunts.

The boss of AL did start slagging off Black Cab drivers a few years ago. Including telling his drivers that if they went into the bus lanes he would bsck them up when they were fined. His attitude being that Black Cab drivers were the dinosaurs of the cab industry with all there "restrictive" practices that should be done away with to allow proper free competition.

He shut up. His drivers weren't keen.

Then Uber came along and the free competitive market wasn't so great any more. AL suffered.

 

[The Fornicator]

They have continued the policy of turning a blind eye

How so? This is exactly the occasion to confront Uber.

 

[Gramsci]

The limitation of TFL regulation is that it is not about employment practices.

It's why Cab drivers in public go on about Uber not being safe etc. It's the only way realistically to undermine Uber.

I would like to see regulation extended to make sure the people working in the industry had proper conditions of work.

In the gig economy favour I know people who work for Uber Eats and Stuart. Who have worked in the more traditional courier business. With these new ones you can literally log on and off when you want. Work the shifts you want. A lot of the more traditional courier companies want u there doing a full week. Plus being flexible in busy periods like up to Christmas. Ie coming in early and finishing late. Otherwise you are out.

Chatting to someone I know in one of the more traditional ones. In summer told his company he was taking two weeks off. ( Summer is always slack). Was told if he did that not to bother coming back as it was not convenient for them. They would get someone who wouldn't take time off.

It doesn't always work in courier company favour. The biggest moan from courier companies is not having " reliable" people. Despite them not taking on people as employees.

 

[killer b]

There will be no jobs if uber stick around and manage to see out their plan to eradicate any competition, just driverless cars.

that's going to happen whether Uber stick around or not tbf.

 

[agricola]

How so? This is exactly the occasion to confront Uber.

Of course it is, but if TFL are going to genuinely confront them then why leave unmentioned the fact that they have been employing tens of thousands of people illegally and deriving a commercial advantage as a result?

 

[Santino]

Of course it is, but if TFL are going to genuinely confront them then why leave unmentioned the fact that they have been employing tens of thousands of people illegally and deriving a commercial advantage as a result?

Because they need their case to be legally watertight. They don't have the authority to rule on Uber's business model.

 

[paolo]

if TFL are going to genuinely confront them

?? They’ve refused the license. Is that not confronting them?

 

[The Fornicator]

Of course it is, but if TFL are going to genuinely confront them then why leave unmentioned the fact that they have been employing tens of thousands of people illegally and deriving a commercial advantage as a result?

Because it has nothing to do with the terms of the licence to operate: the council inspects a restaurant but it's not concerned with employment classification.

Fwiw, it's not as if Uber was the only company playing that game, it's been going on for decades i.e. predating TfL itself.

I'm unclear what this has to do with your point of TfL continuing to turn a blind eye under Mayor Khan (when it clearly hasn't).

 

[sealion]

that's going to happen whether Uber stick around or not tbf.

That's a fact sadly but the noise coming from uber to gain public support is all about job potential losses. They could have come up with a better lie than that.
Uber makes key acquisition – job losses predicted

 

[agricola]

Because it has nothing to do with the terms of the licence to operate: the council inspects a restaurant but it's not concerned with employment classification.

Fwiw, it's not as if Uber was the only company playing that game, it's been going on for decades i.e. predating TfL itself.

I'm unclear what this has to do with your point of TfL continuing to turn a blind eye under Mayor Khan (when it clearly hasn't).

er - councils are concerned with who restaurants employ and can (and do) refuse licences when they employ people illegally.

The point I was making was that of all the faults that Uber have displayed since they arrived in London, TFL appear to have selected the four that it would be easiest for Uber to resolve as reasons why Uber's licence should be withdrawn. It is as if they want a token surrender and then everyone can go back to how things were.

 

[agricola]

Because they need their case to be legally watertight. They don't have the authority to rule on Uber's business model.

It wouldn't be the business model they would be ruling on, it would be whether they had implemented the decision in that Court case last October.

 

[The Fornicator]

I'm unclear, are you still saying TfL is legally concerned with the working relationship as between Uber and its drivers?

 

[Raheem]

The point I was making was that of all the faults that Uber have displayed since they arrived in London, TFL appear to have selected the four that it would be easiest for Uber to resolve as reasons why Uber's licence should be withdrawn. It is as if they want a token surrender and then everyone can go back to how things were.

More likely they are the four that clearly fall within TFL's remit. They can't take Uber's licence away on the grounds that they have exercised their right to appeal.

OTOH, probably Uber will make an offer to resolve the issues that led to the decision and will then get their licence renewed. But that's systematic, not a conspiracy.

 

[agricola]

I'm unclear, are you still saying TfL is legally concerned with the working relationship as between Uber and its drivers?

No, I am saying that TFL should be legally concerned if Uber have been found to be breaking the law with respect to how it employs its drivers.

 

[maomao]

No, I am saying that TFL should be legally concerned if Uber have been found to be breaking the law with respect to how it employs its drivers.

There is absolutely nothing unique about how Uber employs its drivers. In fact if anything working for Uber is closer to genuine self employment than working for Addison Lee or any of the others. If TFL brought that into its judgement then it would have to apply to everyone.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Plus the fact that if the drivers are employed or self-employed has not actually been settled yet, Uber's Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing starts tomorrow.

TBH the ruling that they drivers are employed surprised me, because as maomao says it's standard across the industry, certainly the cab drivers I know are all self-employed.

This is the advice from HMRC:

Someone is probably self-employed and shouldn’t be paid through PAYE if most of the following are true:

• they’re in business for themselves, are responsible for the success or failure of their business and can make a loss or a profit
• they can decide what work they do and when, where or how to do it
• they can hire someone else to do the work
• they’re responsible for fixing any unsatisfactory work in their own time
• their employer agrees a fixed price for their work - it doesn’t depend on how long the job takes to finish
• they use their own money to buy business assets, cover running costs, and provide tools and equipment for their work
• they can work for more than one client

Employment status: Self-employed and contractor - GOV.UK

Most of which apply to the drivers I know, and I assume to Uber drivers too, so the appeal is going to be interesting.

 

[maomao]

Plus the fact that if the drivers are employed or self-employed has not actually been settled yet, Uber's Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing starts tomorrow.

TBH the ruling that they drivers are employed surprised me, because as maomao says it's standard across the industry, certainly the cab drivers I know are all self-employed.

This is the advice from HMRC:



Most of which apply to the drivers I know, and I assume to Uber drivers too, so the appeal is going to be interesting.

Most of that doesn't apply to most Uber drivers. But it does apply to most minicab drivers (IME/O) and to a significant minority of Uber drivers.

 

[redsquirrel]

Because they need their case to be legally watertight. They don't have the authority to rule on Uber's business model.

Which is part of the problem.

 

[The Fornicator]

Which isn't a problem because you haven't explained why it is.

 

[agricola]

There is absolutely nothing unique about how Uber employs its drivers. In fact if anything working for Uber is closer to genuine self employment than working for Addison Lee or any of the others. If TFL brought that into its judgement then it would have to apply to everyone.

That is the thing though, it should apply to everyone.

 

[agricola]

Plus the fact that if the drivers are employed or self-employed has not actually been settled yet, Uber's Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing starts tomorrow.

TBH the ruling that they drivers are employed surprised me, because as maomao says it's standard across the industry, certainly the cab drivers I know are all self-employed

If you mean black cabs, then they are genuinely self-employed - they pass all the tests in the HMRC link. Uber (and AL) drivers are not (and do not) - as those employment tribunals found (and it certainly will be interesting to see how they argue that appeal given that they've gone round the media all week saying how "their" drivers are all going to lose their jobs).

 

[Teaboy]

Chatted to a couple of Uber drivers over the weekend. Neither seemed bothered in the slightest, they reckoned they could get work elsewhere.

 

[maomao]

That is the thing though, it should apply to everyone.

I'm in two minds about this being in the industry. I absolutely agree that worker status should be given as a minimum but there are drivers who treat it as a business, far more than there used to be, and I think they should be allowed to register as self-employed if they think it's to their advantage.

 

[maomao]

If you mean black cabs, then they are genuinely self-employed - they pass all the tests in the HMRC link. Uber (and AL) drivers are not (and do not) - as those employment tribunals found (and it certainly will be interesting to see how they argue that appeal given that they've gone round the media all week saying how "their" drivers are all going to lose their jobs).

I know Uber drivers who own their own cars, punt themselves around various companies to get quality work and use Uber to fill in when they're quiet. This isn't possible at AL.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Something that has consistently been said is that Uber is undercutting other private hire companies, and I have to say that this is not the case in my experience. This may be simply because I was late to the party - I guess perhaps they undercut when the started? - but they are certainly no cheaper than local private hire companies where I am, and often considerably more, since they hike their prices at busy times.

I don't use Uber because they are cheaper. I use them because they are reliable, I know the car registration number and when it is coming, and the cars are modern and clean. None of those things apply to the private hire companies round here!

 

[cupid_stunt]

If you mean black cabs, then they are genuinely self-employed - they pass all the tests in the HMRC link. Uber (and AL) drivers are not (and do not) - as those employment tribunals found (and it certainly will be interesting to see how they argue that appeal given that they've gone round the media all week saying how "their" drivers are all going to lose their jobs).

No, they are mini-cab drivers, who own their own vehicles, work the hours they wish, take jobs directly, but also pay a weekly charge or percentage of fares to a local cab operator for most of their work locally, and also drive for another operator that only does airport & seaport runs.

I thought uber drivers used their own cars, chose their own hours, and also (or can do) drive for themselves and/or other cab operators, in which case that sounds like self-employed to me.

I don't know much about AL, but I believe they have to rent cars from them, and from what maomao says above, can't work for other operators, which doesn't sound much like self-employment to me.

 

[maomao]

I thought uber drivers used their own cars, chose their own hours, and also (or can do) drive for themselves and/or other cab operators, in which case that sounds like self-employed to me.

They have a fleet dept who will help you rent a car and get your paperwork together to work for them. They don't advertise the fact that you can work for other people and I've been told they hassle you to work for them regularly. That's not self-employed unless you know the rules and sort your own car and shit out.