Uber drivers to sue Sadiq Khan for racial discrimination

[SpookyFrank]

personally i think they should either scrap the entire charge or apply it to everyone, i don't really get the idea thats its wrong to charge an Uber driver or cabbie the fee to use the roads all day but its ok to charge it to someone who just needs to get to and from work.

'Need' is a strong word here. They have public transport in London.

 

[sparkybird]

What about if the CC fee just got added onto your Uber charge? (And then paid to TFL by your driver?)

 

[Thora]

A policy will dictate that all PHV that are wheelchair unfriendly will pay the congestion charge. This will affect BAME drivers disproportionately as they are most likely to drive wheelchair unfriendly vehicles. From what's written above, the sub group (BAME drivers) would need to have wheelchair unfriendly vehicles as a protected characteristic for the Equality Act to apply.

No?

Isn't it more that if something penalises a group (with a protected characteristic) who are there due to a structural inequality, it is indirect discrimination.

So if you give better holiday allowance for full time workers for example, then this indirectly discriminates against women who are more likely to work part time due to structural inequality (the burden of child/elder care).
It doesn't have to be a direct discriminatory policy of "better holiday for men" or "full time jobs only for men".

 

[SpookyFrank]

What about if the CC fee just got added onto your Uber charge? (And then paid to TFL by your driver?)

The charge is daily, not per trip, so this doesn't add up.

 

[Spymaster]

What about if the CC fee just got added onto your Uber charge? (And then paid to TFL by your driver?)

Wouldn't work, would it? It's a daily charge so who would pay it? The first customer?

 

[maomao]

The charge is daily, not per trip, so this doesn't add up.

Well you wouldn't charge the whole amount per trip. In reality this is partly what's going to happen. The smaller operators are putting up fares to account for it. If the whole rise goes to the driver and covers the cost then that would be fair enough but it's an industry with aggressive competition on pricing and if the big operators don't do the same it won't work.

 

[redsquirrel]

personally i think they should either scrap the entire charge or apply it to everyone, i don't really get the idea thats its wrong to charge an Uber driver or cabbie the fee to use the roads all day but its ok to charge it to someone who just needs to get to and from work.

Because cabs are (or at least should be) part of the public transport network, whereas private cars aren't.

 

[Spymaster]

Well you wouldn't charge the whole amount per trip. In reality this is partly what's going to happen. The smaller operators are putting up fares to account for it. If the whole rise goes to the driver and covers the cost then that would be fair enough but it's an industry with aggressive competition on pricing and if the big operators don't do the same it won't work.

Can PHV firms set their own tariffs?

 

[maomao]

Can PHV firms set their own tariffs?

Yes and you need to be an operator to take bookings so effectively they're the only ones who can. Rates aren't set centrally like black cabs. Competition on price is entirely unregulated.

 

[agricola]

If they're problematic as a union or union-like group it's because they exclude, and actively organise against, a large chunk of the people in their industry. You can't expect solidarity while showing none yourself.

I think its a bit more than that - the effort required to learn the knowledge is considerable, as are the burdens placed upon black cab drivers once they get the badge (only certain vehicles, must accept custom in most circumstances, regulated fares, regular spot checks etc).

Allowing a firm to offer what they were doing but without an awful lot of the restrictions / checks, and worse the firm being encouraged to do so by the same government that was responsible for enforcing the regulations (and which wasnt going to drop them for anyone else), was wrong - they were right to kick up a fuss about it. That Uber expanded afterwards was the result of the usual press campaign, a large degree of cover from senior political figures and ultimately a large number of people who thought they lived in a different city to the one they would have to breathe and raise their kids in.

 

[maomao]

According to TFL 289 new PHV licenses were issued last week resulting in a net decrease of 112 total licenses. At that rate if they just stopped issuing new licenses they could be losing 400 vehicles on the road a week rather than putting current drivers costs up which in many cases will force drivers to spend more hours on the road to recover their loss. Totally arse about face shit policy.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I think its a bit more than that - the effort required to learn the knowledge is considerable, as are the burdens placed upon black cab drivers once they get the badge (only certain vehicles, must accept custom in most circumstances, regulated fares, regular spot checks etc).

Allowing a firm to offer what they were doing but without an awful lot of the restrictions / checks, and worse the firm being encouraged to do so by the same government that was responsible for enforcing the regulations (and which wasnt going to drop them for anyone else), was wrong - they were right to kick up a fuss about it. That Uber expanded afterwards was the result of the usual press campaign, a large degree of cover from senior political figures and ultimately a large number of people who thought they lived in a different city to the one they would have to breathe and raise their kids in.

The black cabbies aren't after a level playing though are they? They seem more than happy driving vehicles so polluting that nobody else in London would be allowed to drive them.

I'm no fan of Uber but they do provide a service my disabled friends can afford, and which meets their needs. Black cabs do not. Somewhere between the two models lies a sane solution, but it will never be found while the workers on both sides are at each others throats.

 

[maomao]

I'm no fan of Uber but they do provide a service my disabled friends can afford, and which meets their needs. Black cabs do not.

That's not fair. Scamming the taxicard system has been an important source of revenue for black cab drivers since all their customers fucked off to Uber.

 

[SpookyFrank]

That's not fair. Scamming the taxicard system has been an important source of revenue for black cab drivers since all their customers fucked off to Uber.

I don't see why, if the issue is that black cabs are wheelchair friendly, black cabbies can't be charged the CC and then claim extra money back for taxicard passengers.

 

[maomao]

I don't see why, if the issue is that black cabs are wheelchair friendly, black cabbies can't be charged the CC and then claim extra money back for taxicard passengers.

I was referring to the fact that black cab drivers routinely overcharge disabled passengers using the taxicard system. Nothing to do with congestion charge.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

All for very generous subsidy for disabled people who need cabs. But they're not the majority of users of either uber or black cabs. A system that reduces the overall number of cabs while targetting those who need them is needed. Something like the black cabs is appropriate for central London, imo - a standardised cab/fare system with hail and ride that is separate from the wider general cab system. So black cabs do need to maintain some privileges to provide that service. But with privilege comes responsibility. Not perfect, but some kind of 'community service' system, in which all black cabbies must provide a certain number of subsidised journeys per month to people in need, perhaps?

 

[SpookyFrank]

I was referring to the fact that black cab drivers routinely overcharge disabled passengers using the taxicard system. Nothing to do with congestion charge.

No I get that, my point was that it cannot be beyond the wit of man to apply the congestion charge to cabs without penalising those passengers who have no choice but to use them. Exempting black cabs altogether makes the notion of a 'congestion charge' into a bad joke IMO.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Well yes. But the argument is that if you discriminate against a type of vehicle that is overwhelmingly used by a certain type of person, you are indirectly discriminating against the (type of) person.

It’s discrimination if it can’t be justified. This action can be justified because it’s to reduce congestion and pollution.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No I get that, my point was that it cannot be beyond the wit of man to apply the congestion charge to cabbies without penalising those passengers who have no choice but to use them. Exempting black cabs altogether makes the notion of a 'congestion charge' into a bad joke IMO.

Not really. They're supposed to be a part of the integrated public transport system. They need to work better rather than disappear entirely imo.

 

[Spymaster]

It’s discrimination if it can’t be justified. This action can be justified because it’s to reduce congestion and pollution.

If it can't be justified it's direct discrimination. The IWGB are arguing that this is indirect discrimination. Have a look at Butcher's link in post #40.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If it can't be justified it's direct discrimination. The IWGB are arguing that this is indirect discrimination. Have a look at Butcher's link in post #40.

Then it's a question of weighing competing interests, as that article says in its first paragraph:

Indirect discrimination, by contrast, may always have a legitimate basis that outweighs its damaging effect. Industrial safety, for instance, or administrative competence may require an ascertainable level of literacy whatever its differential impact. Civil engineering will require certified training regardless of the fact that proportionately few women have this qualification.

So requiring wheelchair access to avoid the congestion charge can be presented as a means to ensuring that only those cabs that can provide a comprehensive service are allowed this privilege, and this consideration may be taken to outweigh any consideration of a differential impact on BAME people (which I'd dispute anyway, but that's another argument) due to more uber drivers being BAME than black cabbies.

I can't see this action succeeding. It seems piss-weak to me.

 

[Spymaster]

Then it's a question of weighing competing interests, as that article says in its first paragraph:



So requiring wheelchair access to avoid the congestion charge can be presented as a means to ensuring that only those cabs that can provide a comprehensive service are allowed this privilege, and this consideration may be taken to outweigh any consideration of a differential impact on BAME people (which I'd dispute anyway, but that's another argument) due to more uber drivers being BAME than black cabbies.

I can't see this action succeeding. It seems piss-weak to me.

I'm in two minds about it. I also hope that the action fails because I don't think race laws should be (ab?)used like this. On the other hand I don't see why the dirtiest cars that operate in the CZ more than any others on the road, should be exempt from the charge.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm in two minds about it. I also hope that the action fails because I don't think race laws should be (ab?)used like this. On the other hand I don't see why the dirtiest cars that operate in the CZ more than any others on the road, should be exempt from the charge.

I agree on both counts. The action should fail cos if it doesn't, that means the law is really fucked up, imo. But I don't really give a shit about the issue itself - the policy doesn't seem right.

 

[Guineveretoo]

If it can't be justified it's direct discrimination. The IWGB are arguing that this is indirect discrimination. Have a look at Butcher's link in post #40.

That's not right. Indirect discrimination means something which discriminates, but not directly. So, it is a condition which is imposed on a group, which also discriminates on one of the protected characteristics. That is what makes it indirect. So, for example, a condition which is designed to stop cars from causing congestion and pollution is being said, in this case, to discriminate against people with a protected characteristic because it has a disproportionate effect on those who are BAME. But it can be justified, in law, if the person imposing the condition can demonstrate that it was a reasonable condition to impose.

Direct discrimination - when someone is treated differently or unfairly because of a protected characteristic - can NEVER be justified in law.

This is how I have made my money for the last few decades, and I was involved in fighting for the Equality Act, both while it was being drafted/debated, and after the Fucking Tory Coalition tried to block it.

 

[Guineveretoo]

It is going to fail, but it is giving lots of publicity to the cause, potentially, and to the IWGB, so I guess they have decided it is worth it. It probably hasn't cost them much so far, anyway.

 

[Spymaster]

That's not right. Indirect discrimination means something which discriminates, but not directly. So, it is a condition which is imposed on a group, which also discriminates on one of the protected characteristics. That is what makes it indirect. So, for example, a condition which is designed to stop cars from causing congestion and pollution is being said, in this case, to discriminate against people with a protected characteristic because it has a disproportionate effect on those who are BAME. But it can be justified, in law, if the person imposing the condition can demonstrate that it was a reasonable condition to impose.

Gotcha. Cheers.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

my involvement in taxi / phv licensing has been outside london, but my understanding is the basic legal framework is similar

licensing authorities may limit the number of hackney carriage vehicles (although they do not have to, and can be required to prove there is no significant 'unmet demand' if they do and are challenged.)

they do not have the legal powers to limit the number of private hire vehicles, or the number of either type of driver.

both boris johnson and sadiq khan have said this publicly.

licensing authorities can't just decide to do stuff they have no legal powers to, and would get a fairly rapid judicial review if they did.

 

[SpookyFrank]

But it can be justified, in law, if the person imposing the condition can demonstrate that it was a reasonable condition to impose.

I would be surprised if air pollution didn't disproportionately affect BME people, as they're more likely to live in inner cities.

 

[Guineveretoo]

I would be surprised if air pollution didn't disproportionately affect BME people, as they're more likely to live in inner cities.

Which would be another reason why this legal case would lose.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

I would be surprised if air pollution didn't disproportionately affect BME people, as they're more likely to live in inner cities.

sadiq khan has just said something along those lines on the local news on telly