Bob Kiley obituary
 

The capital’s first ever Transport Commissioner has died at his home in New
England aged 80.

American Bob Kiley was recruited by former Mayor Ken Livingstone and spent
six years as Britain’s highest paid civil servant, earning £2 million.

The former CIA agent headed Transport for London during the introduction of
the congestion charge and fought the part-privatisation of the Tube.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...kiley-obituary

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3316626.html

Bob Kiley obituary
 

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 09:44:36 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
The capital’s first ever Transport Commissioner has died at his home in New
England aged 80.

American Bob Kiley was recruited by former Mayor Ken Livingstone and spent
six years as Britain’s highest paid civil servant, earning £2 million.

The former CIA agent headed Transport for London during the introduction of
the congestion charge and fought the part-privatisation of the Tube.

Overpaid and didn't achieve very much. Apart from that, where the hell did
that 15 years go??

--
Spud

Strange that the Standard attributes the congestion charge to
Bob Kiley. It was Livingstone's idea and he made it a major part
of the first Mayoralty election, long before Bob Kiley was appointed.

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

tim...;157466 Wrote:
"David Cantrell" wrote in message
k...-
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 09:48:46AM +0100, tim... wrote:
-
They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual-

Businesses are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled
customers and employees.

They are not required to make unreasonable adjustments.-

What adjustment do you have to make to carry a dog in your car FFS.

A rug on the back seat - job done

But (many of them) still refuse to do so

In London, minicab drivers are not allowed to refuse guide
dogs. They are allowed to refuse other dogs.

Rumour has it that some Asian drivers refuse even guide dogs.
If this is true, those drivers should lose their licence, although
that would involve the customer making a complaint, TfL
identifying the driver with the co-operation of the cab firm,
and TfL taking a tough line.

As the hire car operator has to maintain records, identifying the driver
shouldn't be hard. If the records aren't good enough the operator should
lose their licence.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Well, I agree but everything is contingent upon TfL taking
a firm stand and making the effort.

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

tim...;157466 Wrote:
"David Cantrell" wrote in message
k...-
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 09:48:46AM +0100, tim... wrote:
-
They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual-

Businesses are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled
customers and employees.

They are not required to make unreasonable adjustments.-

What adjustment do you have to make to carry a dog in your car FFS.

A rug on the back seat - job done

But (many of them) still refuse to do so

In London, minicab drivers are not allowed to refuse guide
dogs. They are allowed to refuse other dogs.

Rumour has it that some Asian drivers refuse even guide dogs.
If this is true, those drivers should lose their licence, although
that would involve the customer making a complaint, TfL
identifying the driver with the co-operation of the cab firm,
and TfL taking a tough line.

As the hire car operator has to maintain records, identifying the driver
shouldn't be hard. If the records aren't good enough the operator should
lose their licence.

Which is exactly my point that, if TfL want to specifically target Uber for
non-compliance of some rule or other, that they can use to "break" them,
this is the one that they should start with - a rule that already exists
that, anecdotal evidence suggests, significant number of their drivers
ignore (instead of coming up with pointless nonsense about where the company
is registered).

tim

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:16:19 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

tim...;157466 Wrote:
"David Cantrell" wrote in message
k...-
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 09:48:46AM +0100, tim... wrote:
-
They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual-

Businesses are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled
customers and employees.

They are not required to make unreasonable adjustments.-

What adjustment do you have to make to carry a dog in your car FFS.

A rug on the back seat - job done

But (many of them) still refuse to do so

In London, minicab drivers are not allowed to refuse guide
dogs. They are allowed to refuse other dogs.

Rumour has it that some Asian drivers refuse even guide dogs.
If this is true, those drivers should lose their licence, although
that would involve the customer making a complaint, TfL
identifying the driver with the co-operation of the cab firm,
and TfL taking a tough line.

As the hire car operator has to maintain records, identifying the driver
shouldn't be hard. If the records aren't good enough the operator should
lose their licence.

Which is exactly my point that, if TfL want to specifically target Uber for
non-compliance of some rule or other, that they can use to "break" them,
this is the one that they should start with - a rule that already exists
that, anecdotal evidence suggests, significant number of their drivers
ignore (instead of coming up with pointless nonsense about where the company
is registered).

If there is one rule that Uber certainly complies with, it's having
detailed, exact records of every journey, including the customer, the
driver, the details of the car, the fare paid, the customer's credit
card details, the timings, the route, and the levels of satisfaction
on both sides. No other mini cab firm is likely to have such detailed,
accurate records, and nor will any black cab operator.

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:16:19 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


wrote in message
om...
In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

tim...;157466 Wrote:
"David Cantrell" wrote in message
k...-
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 09:48:46AM +0100, tim... wrote:
-
They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual-

Businesses are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled
customers and employees.

They are not required to make unreasonable adjustments.-

What adjustment do you have to make to carry a dog in your car FFS.

A rug on the back seat - job done

But (many of them) still refuse to do so

In London, minicab drivers are not allowed to refuse guide
dogs. They are allowed to refuse other dogs.

Rumour has it that some Asian drivers refuse even guide dogs.
If this is true, those drivers should lose their licence, although
that would involve the customer making a complaint, TfL
identifying the driver with the co-operation of the cab firm,
and TfL taking a tough line.

As the hire car operator has to maintain records, identifying the driver
shouldn't be hard. If the records aren't good enough the operator should
lose their licence.

Which is exactly my point that, if TfL want to specifically target Uber
for
non-compliance of some rule or other, that they can use to "break" them,
this is the one that they should start with - a rule that already exists
that, anecdotal evidence suggests, significant number of their drivers
ignore (instead of coming up with pointless nonsense about where the
company
is registered).

If there is one rule that Uber certainly complies with, it's having
detailed, exact records of every journey, including the customer, the
driver, the details of the car, the fare paid, the customer's credit
card details, the timings, the route, and the levels of satisfaction
on both sides. No other mini cab firm is likely to have such detailed,
accurate records, and nor will any black cab operator.

so they'll be able to fess up all of the drivers who refused a fare because
they wouldn't carry a guide dog then, wont they?

And then, when they do, you can say "and you, as their "operator" are guilty
of not making sure that your drivers comply with the rules" so we are taking
away *your* license to operate as well as those of all the guilty drivers.

tim

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:48:59 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:16:19 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


wrote in message
news:f6Cdna62i4IkczHKnZ2dnUU78dfNnZ2d@giganews. com...
In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

tim...;157466 Wrote:
"David Cantrell" wrote in message
k...-
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 09:48:46AM +0100, tim... wrote:
-
They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual-

Businesses are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled
customers and employees.

They are not required to make unreasonable adjustments.-

What adjustment do you have to make to carry a dog in your car FFS.

A rug on the back seat - job done

But (many of them) still refuse to do so

In London, minicab drivers are not allowed to refuse guide
dogs. They are allowed to refuse other dogs.

Rumour has it that some Asian drivers refuse even guide dogs.
If this is true, those drivers should lose their licence, although
that would involve the customer making a complaint, TfL
identifying the driver with the co-operation of the cab firm,
and TfL taking a tough line.

As the hire car operator has to maintain records, identifying the driver
shouldn't be hard. If the records aren't good enough the operator should
lose their licence.

Which is exactly my point that, if TfL want to specifically target Uber
for
non-compliance of some rule or other, that they can use to "break" them,
this is the one that they should start with - a rule that already exists
that, anecdotal evidence suggests, significant number of their drivers
ignore (instead of coming up with pointless nonsense about where the
company
is registered).

If there is one rule that Uber certainly complies with, it's having
detailed, exact records of every journey, including the customer, the
driver, the details of the car, the fare paid, the customer's credit
card details, the timings, the route, and the levels of satisfaction
on both sides. No other mini cab firm is likely to have such detailed,
accurate records, and nor will any black cab operator.

so they'll be able to fess up all of the drivers who refused a fare because
they wouldn't carry a guide dog then, wont they?

Without doubt, but the number is probably close to zero. How would a
blind person even order or recognise an Uber cab?


And then, when they do, you can say "and you, as their "operator" are guilty
of not making sure that your drivers comply with the rules" so we are taking
away *your* license to operate as well as those of all the guilty drivers.

I suspect it's not so simple.

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:48:59 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:16:19 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


wrote in message
news:f6Cdna62i4IkczHKnZ2dnUU78dfNnZ2d@giganews .com...
In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

tim...;157466 Wrote:
"David Cantrell" wrote in message
k...-
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 09:48:46AM +0100, tim... wrote:
-
They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual-

Businesses are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled
customers and employees.

They are not required to make unreasonable adjustments.-

What adjustment do you have to make to carry a dog in your car FFS.

A rug on the back seat - job done

But (many of them) still refuse to do so

In London, minicab drivers are not allowed to refuse guide
dogs. They are allowed to refuse other dogs.

Rumour has it that some Asian drivers refuse even guide dogs.
If this is true, those drivers should lose their licence, although
that would involve the customer making a complaint, TfL
identifying the driver with the co-operation of the cab firm,
and TfL taking a tough line.

As the hire car operator has to maintain records, identifying the
driver
shouldn't be hard. If the records aren't good enough the operator
should
lose their licence.

Which is exactly my point that, if TfL want to specifically target Uber
for
non-compliance of some rule or other, that they can use to "break" them,
this is the one that they should start with - a rule that already exists
that, anecdotal evidence suggests, significant number of their drivers
ignore (instead of coming up with pointless nonsense about where the
company
is registered).

If there is one rule that Uber certainly complies with, it's having
detailed, exact records of every journey, including the customer, the
driver, the details of the car, the fare paid, the customer's credit
card details, the timings, the route, and the levels of satisfaction
on both sides. No other mini cab firm is likely to have such detailed,
accurate records, and nor will any black cab operator.

so they'll be able to fess up all of the drivers who refused a fare
because
they wouldn't carry a guide dog then, wont they?

Without doubt, but the number is probably close to zero. How would a
blind person even order or recognise an Uber cab?

Um

How do blind people go to the shops?

Visit their friends?

Get to the doctor/hospital?

And then, when they do, you can say "and you, as their "operator" are
guilty
of not making sure that your drivers comply with the rules" so we are
taking
away *your* license to operate as well as those of all the guilty drivers.

I suspect it's not so simple.

It can be made that simple

tim

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:48:59 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:16:19 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

tim...;157466 Wrote:
"David Cantrell" wrote in message
k...-
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 09:48:46AM +0100, tim... wrote:
-
They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual-

Businesses are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled
customers and employees.

They are not required to make unreasonable adjustments.-

What adjustment do you have to make to carry a dog in your car FFS.

A rug on the back seat - job done

But (many of them) still refuse to do so

In London, minicab drivers are not allowed to refuse guide
dogs. They are allowed to refuse other dogs.

Rumour has it that some Asian drivers refuse even guide dogs.
If this is true, those drivers should lose their licence, although
that would involve the customer making a complaint, TfL
identifying the driver with the co-operation of the cab firm,
and TfL taking a tough line.

As the hire car operator has to maintain records, identifying the
driver
shouldn't be hard. If the records aren't good enough the operator
should
lose their licence.

Which is exactly my point that, if TfL want to specifically target Uber
for
non-compliance of some rule or other, that they can use to "break" them,
this is the one that they should start with - a rule that already exists
that, anecdotal evidence suggests, significant number of their drivers
ignore (instead of coming up with pointless nonsense about where the
company
is registered).

If there is one rule that Uber certainly complies with, it's having
detailed, exact records of every journey, including the customer, the
driver, the details of the car, the fare paid, the customer's credit
card details, the timings, the route, and the levels of satisfaction
on both sides. No other mini cab firm is likely to have such detailed,
accurate records, and nor will any black cab operator.

so they'll be able to fess up all of the drivers who refused a fare
because
they wouldn't carry a guide dog then, wont they?

Without doubt, but the number is probably close to zero. How would a
blind person even order or recognise an Uber cab?

Um

How do blind people go to the shops?

Visit their friends?

Get to the doctor/hospital?

Not using Uber, I'd guess. Are you aware of how you order and recognize an
Uber car? How would a blind person do it?


And then, when they do, you can say "and you, as their "operator" are
guilty
of not making sure that your drivers comply with the rules" so we are
taking
away *your* license to operate as well as those of all the guilty drivers.

I suspect it's not so simple.

It can be made that simple

How? They're not Uber employees.

From:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3228431.html

An Uber spokesman apologised and said Mohamoud no longer works for the
firm. “Whilst the drivers on the Uber platform are self-employed we remind
them of their legal obligation to take service animals before they can
start driving,� he said.

“Any Uber partner-driver who doesn’t accept service animals not only risks
having their Uber partnership revoked, but also risks having their private
hire licence taken away.�

So, here we have a case in point. Will TfL take a tough line?
Will TfL take away this driver's licence?

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 19:22:05 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...bed-by-uber-dr
vers-because-of-her-guide-dog-a3228431.html

An Uber spokesman apologised and said Mohamoud no longer works for the
^^^^^^^^

Well there's a complete ****ing surprise.

--
Spud

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:



Without doubt, but the number is probably close to zero. How would a
blind person even order or recognise an Uber cab?

Um

How do blind people go to the shops?

Visit their friends?

Get to the doctor/hospital?

Not using Uber, I'd guess. Are you aware of how you order and recognize an
Uber car? How would a blind person do it?

Is it not possible to order an Uber car using the "reading" software that
blind people use to read computer pages?

And when Uber drivers arrive for a pick up at someone's house, surely they
announce themselves in the same was as any mini cab would?

Or do they just sit outside and "hope"?

And then, when they do, you can say "and you, as their "operator" are
guilty
of not making sure that your drivers comply with the rules" so we are
taking
away *your* license to operate as well as those of all the guilty
drivers.

I suspect it's not so simple.

It can be made that simple

How? They're not Uber employees.

I don't think that's a valid excuse.

There is a contact between Uber and the drivers, they don't just turn up and
drive on a whim.

Uber must therefore be responsible for making sure that their drivers comply
with regulations and have a disciplinary procedure (i.e. they terminate
their contract) if they don't.

I accept that this, "punishment after the event" system means that there
will always be one or two rogue workers, but systematic non compliance with
regulations suggests a controller who doesn't give a damn.

And anecdotal evidences suggest that Uber don't give a damn, unless pushed,
and pushed and pushed and threatened with having their execs imprisoned and
then actually having their execs imprisoned, before they decide to comply.
This isn't a company that takes its responsibilities seriously.

tim

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

In message , at 09:58:33 on Tue, 16 Aug
2016, tim... remarked:
And when Uber drivers arrive for a pick up at someone's house, surely
they announce themselves in the same was as any mini cab would?

Or do they just sit outside and "hope"?

My experience of (pre-Uber) minicab drivers is they just sit outside in
the road tooting the horn until someone emerges from the house. Yet
another completely illegal procedure, of course.

The only ones who actually come to the door are airline courtesy "limos"
for business class flights (and I've not had one of those for years).
--
Roland Perry

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:58:33 on Tue, 16 Aug 2016,
tim... remarked:
And when Uber drivers arrive for a pick up at someone's house, surely they
announce themselves in the same was as any mini cab would?

Or do they just sit outside and "hope"?

My experience of (pre-Uber) minicab drivers is they just sit outside in
the road tooting the horn until someone emerges from the house. Yet
another completely illegal procedure, of course.

I was aware of that

Recliner was talking as if they didn't even do that

tim

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

tim... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:58:33 on Tue, 16 Aug 2016,
tim... remarked:
And when Uber drivers arrive for a pick up at someone's house, surely they
announce themselves in the same was as any mini cab would?

Or do they just sit outside and "hope"?

My experience of (pre-Uber) minicab drivers is they just sit outside in
the road tooting the horn until someone emerges from the house. Yet
another completely illegal procedure, of course.

I was aware of that

Recliner was talking as if they didn't even do that

Uber is more likely to be used by people who are out and about. Once a
driver has been assigned, Uber sends the client a description of the car,
and it's up to the customer to identify it and get in.

Someone getting a mini cab from home is more likely to phone their local
firm, which will be cheaper and more likely to have a car available
locally. They will also accept pre-bookings, which Uber does not.

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:



Without doubt, but the number is probably close to zero. How would a
blind person even order or recognise an Uber cab?

Um

How do blind people go to the shops?

Visit their friends?

Get to the doctor/hospital?

Not using Uber, I'd guess. Are you aware of how you order and recognize an
Uber car? How would a blind person do it?

Is it not possible to order an Uber car using the "reading" software that
blind people use to read computer pages?

It's a sophiticated smartphone app with graphics, not a text page. You'd
need to have reasonably good eyesight, as well as a smartphone, to use it.


And when Uber drivers arrive for a pick up at someone's house, surely they
announce themselves in the same was as any mini cab would?

Or do they just sit outside and "hope"?

Uber sends the customer a description of the car and where it is, and it's
up to them to spot it and get in. But as I explained in the other post,
Uber isn't the ideal choice for home pickups; there are better, cheaper
alternatives. Uber is for people who are out and about and want to be
picked up from wherever they are and be taken to an arbitrary address.

That's hardly typical of the movements of people who need a guide dog. They
are more likely to have regular journeys, using a trusted local firm, which
they pre-book.


And then, when they do, you can say "and you, as their "operator" are
guilty
of not making sure that your drivers comply with the rules" so we are
taking
away *your* license to operate as well as those of all the guilty
drivers.

I suspect it's not so simple.

It can be made that simple

How? They're not Uber employees.

I don't think that's a valid excuse.

There is a contact between Uber and the drivers, they don't just turn up and
drive on a whim.

Uber must therefore be responsible for making sure that their drivers comply
with regulations and have a disciplinary procedure (i.e. they terminate
their contract) if they don't.

No more than any other cab firm.


I accept that this, "punishment after the event" system means that there
will always be one or two rogue workers, but systematic non compliance with
regulations suggests a controller who doesn't give a damn.

Is there systematic non-compliance with regulations? Or is that more
anecdotal 'evidence' from Uber's competitors?


And anecdotal evidences suggest that Uber don't give a damn, unless pushed,
and pushed and pushed and threatened with having their execs imprisoned and
then actually having their execs imprisoned, before they decide to comply.

Are there any Uber executives based in the UK? And good luck trying to pin
any criminal conviction on them.

Who provided that anecdotal evidence? Was it from an official source, or
the black cab trade, which is losing out to Uber?

This isn't a company that takes its responsibilities seriously.

It's probably better than most cab firms. The reason that black cabs hate
Uber is that it's so popular with customers, not that it provides poor
customer service.

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 09:58:33 on Tue, 16 Aug
2016, tim... remarked:
And when Uber drivers arrive for a pick up at someone's house, surely
they announce themselves in the same was as any mini cab would?

Or do they just sit outside and "hope"?

My experience of (pre-Uber) minicab drivers is they just sit outside
in the road tooting the horn until someone emerges from the house.
Yet another completely illegal procedure, of course.

The only ones who actually come to the door are airline courtesy
"limos" for business class flights (and I've not had one of those for
years).

Certainly not true in Cambridge. Our experience over more than ten years is
that hire car drivers invariably come to the door in Cambridge. London's
hire car market is obviously a complete shambles.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 01:57:56PM +0100, Recliner wrote:

How would a blind person even order

Same way that they'd use any other smartphone app.

or recognise an Uber cab?

Same way that they'd recognise a minicab where they'd ordered it by
phone.

You forget that it's not just completely blind people who can have guide
dogs; that modern phones have accessibility Stuff; that blind people
have sighted friends and family; and so on.

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

One person can change the world, but most of the time they shouldn't
-- Marge Simpson

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 01:57:56PM +0100, Recliner wrote:

How would a blind person even order

Same way that they'd use any other smartphone app.

Which is probably not at all? I really doubt that many users of guide dogs
also have smartphones.


or recognise an Uber cab?

Same way that they'd recognise a minicab where they'd ordered it by
phone.

You forget that it's not just completely blind people who can have guide
dogs; that modern phones have accessibility Stuff; that blind people
have sighted friends and family; and so on.

Indeed, the problems probably arise when a blind person with guide dog is
accompanying a sighted person.

It's not a shambles in the normal sense of that word. It's just
that it's dominated by people for whom quality of service is
an alien concept.

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:




And anecdotal evidences suggest that Uber don't give a damn, unless
pushed,
and pushed and pushed and threatened with having their execs imprisoned
and
then actually having their execs imprisoned, before they decide to
comply.

Are there any Uber executives based in the UK? And good luck trying to
pin
any criminal conviction on them.

Uber are a US company operating world wide

I see no reason why events in other countries should not be used as
representative of the whole operation (and I'm talking civilised countries,
not tin-pot dictatorships)

Who provided that anecdotal evidence? Was it from an official source, or
the black cab trade, which is losing out to Uber?

This isn't a company that takes its responsibilities seriously.

It's probably better than most cab firms. The reason that black cabs hate
Uber is that it's so popular with customers, not that it provides poor
customer service.

I didn't say that it provided poor customer service

The complaint is that it achieves cheaper fares, in part, by ignoring its
obligations to comply with regulations,

Just like Ryanair used to

tim

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:58:33 on Tue, 16 Aug
2016,
tim... remarked:
And when Uber drivers arrive for a pick up at someone's house, surely
they
announce themselves in the same was as any mini cab would?

Or do they just sit outside and "hope"?

My experience of (pre-Uber) minicab drivers is they just sit outside in
the road tooting the horn until someone emerges from the house. Yet
another completely illegal procedure, of course.

I was aware of that

Recliner was talking as if they didn't even do that

Uber is more likely to be used by people who are out and about.

I don't use it

but I thought the MO of Uber was to be able to hail a mini-cab at an agreed
price, with all of the billing taken care of "automatically"

I can't see any reason why your normal mini-cab user wouldn't use it, none
at all

Once a
driver has been assigned, Uber sends the client a description of the car,
and it's up to the customer to identify it and get in.

Someone getting a mini cab from home is more likely to phone their local
firm,

why, they have all the aggro of paying in cash

which will be cheaper

will it. I thought that Uber was cheaper (or at least the same price) as
mini-cabs

and more likely to have a car available
locally.

why?

They will also accept pre-bookings, which Uber does not.


which is completely irrelevant if you want a car now

tim

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:35:19 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:58:33 on Tue, 16 Aug
2016,
tim... remarked:
And when Uber drivers arrive for a pick up at someone's house, surely
they
announce themselves in the same was as any mini cab would?

Or do they just sit outside and "hope"?

My experience of (pre-Uber) minicab drivers is they just sit outside in
the road tooting the horn until someone emerges from the house. Yet
another completely illegal procedure, of course.

I was aware of that

Recliner was talking as if they didn't even do that

Uber is more likely to be used by people who are out and about.

I don't use it

Rather obviously, as you seem to have an irrational hatred for it,
without any knowledge of what it is or how it works.


but I thought the MO of Uber was to be able to hail a mini-cab at an agreed
price, with all of the billing taken care of "automatically"

I can't see any reason why your normal mini-cab user wouldn't use it, none
at all

That's because you know nothing of Uber, then.

One obvious reason: it's more expensive, especially at 'surge' times.
- Second reason: it's less likely to have cars available locally in
residential areas (just like black cabs).
- Third reason: you have to have a smart phone, with a signal/wi-fi
access (which is why very few blind people will have an Uber account).
- Fourth reason: you have to have an Uber account before you can use
it, and Uber's app installed on your smart phone.

Enough?


Once a
driver has been assigned, Uber sends the client a description of the car,
and it's up to the customer to identify it and get in.

Someone getting a mini cab from home is more likely to phone their local
firm,

why, they have all the aggro of paying in cash

Not necessarily. You can set up an account with other mini cab firms,
and frequent users often do. Or you can often pay with a card.

With Uber, you have to have an account, before you can use it at all.
Cash isn't an option, and nor can you just order an Uber car without
first setting up an account.


which will be cheaper

will it. I thought that Uber was cheaper (or at least the same price) as
mini-cabs

No, you're wrong again. Do you really know nothing at all about Uber?

It's usually cheaper than black cabs, but more expensive than mini
cabs. Uber is really competing with black cabs, not other mini cabs.
That's why most of the anecdotal reports attacking Uber comes from
grumpy cabbies who see it as unfair competition that undercuts them.


and more likely to have a car available
locally.

why?

Just like black cabs, Uber drivers hang around busy places, with lots
of potential customers, not residential areas. Local mini cab firms
are far more likely to have drivers available close by.


They will also accept pre-bookings, which Uber does not.


which is completely irrelevant if you want a car now

Sure, but many (most?) mini cabs are pre-booked. As I said, Uber
competes more with black cabs.

I'm curious why you have this deep hatred for something you've never
used, and know nothing about?

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:29:27 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:




And anecdotal evidences suggest that Uber don't give a damn, unless
pushed,
and pushed and pushed and threatened with having their execs imprisoned
and
then actually having their execs imprisoned, before they decide to
comply.

Are there any Uber executives based in the UK? And good luck trying to
pin
any criminal conviction on them.

Uber are a US company operating world wide

I see no reason why events in other countries should not be used as
representative of the whole operation (and I'm talking civilised countries,
not tin-pot dictatorships)

Who provided that anecdotal evidence? Was it from an official source, or
the black cab trade, which is losing out to Uber?

This isn't a company that takes its responsibilities seriously.

It's probably better than most cab firms. The reason that black cabs hate
Uber is that it's so popular with customers, not that it provides poor
customer service.

I didn't say that it provided poor customer service

The complaint is that it achieves cheaper fares, in part, by ignoring its
obligations to comply with regulations,

Just like Ryanair used to

No, that's not why it's cheaper than black cabs. And it's more
expensive than other mini cabs.

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:35:19 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:58:33 on Tue, 16 Aug
2016,
tim... remarked:
And when Uber drivers arrive for a pick up at someone's house, surely
they
announce themselves in the same was as any mini cab would?

Or do they just sit outside and "hope"?

My experience of (pre-Uber) minicab drivers is they just sit outside
in
the road tooting the horn until someone emerges from the house. Yet
another completely illegal procedure, of course.

I was aware of that

Recliner was talking as if they didn't even do that

Uber is more likely to be used by people who are out and about.

I don't use it

Rather obviously,

I don't use it, as never have the need for a taxi

as you seem to have an irrational hatred for it,
without any knowledge of what it is or how it works.

I don't like it because it has a business model based upon making extra
"profit, by ignoring or circumventing regulations.

I have a hatred for all companies that do this, and that includes any
company that tries to get around giving their employees rights by bogus SE
contracts - though I accept that Uber drives are almost certainly SE
workers, it is elsewhere that Uber are lazy about compliance.

as such it isn't irrational.

but I thought the MO of Uber was to be able to hail a mini-cab at an
agreed
price, with all of the billing taken care of "automatically"

I can't see any reason why your normal mini-cab user wouldn't use it, none
at all

That's because you know nothing of Uber, then.

One obvious reason: it's more expensive, especially at 'surge' times.
- Second reason: it's less likely to have cars available locally in
residential areas (just like black cabs).
- Third reason: you have to have a smart phone, with a signal/wi-fi
access (which is why very few blind people will have an Uber account).
- Fourth reason: you have to have an Uber account before you can use
it, and Uber's app installed on your smart phone.

Enough?


Once a
driver has been assigned, Uber sends the client a description of the
car,
and it's up to the customer to identify it and get in.

Someone getting a mini cab from home is more likely to phone their local
firm,

why, they have all the aggro of paying in cash

Not necessarily. You can set up an account with other mini cab firms,
and frequent users often do. Or you can often pay with a card.

With Uber, you have to have an account, before you can use it at all.
Cash isn't an option, and nor can you just order an Uber car without
first setting up an account.

You might just as well argue that there's a deterrent to using the Dartford
crossing as you (almost) can't pay for that without setting up an account
(you can stop in a some garages somewhere to pay, but that's got to be even
more aggro)

which will be cheaper

will it. I thought that Uber was cheaper (or at least the same price) as
mini-cabs

No, you're wrong again. Do you really know nothing at all about Uber?

As a user, no.

Though what I do see is complaints from drivers about how little they end up
with in their pocket (before tax). I had naturally concluded that that was
because there fares were lower.

It's usually cheaper than black cabs, but more expensive than mini
cabs. Uber is really competing with black cabs, not other mini cabs.
That's why most of the anecdotal reports attacking Uber comes from
grumpy cabbies who see it as unfair competition that undercuts them.


and more likely to have a car available
locally.

why?

Just like black cabs, Uber drivers hang around busy places, with lots
of potential customers, not residential areas. Local mini cab firms
are far more likely to have drivers available close by.


They will also accept pre-bookings, which Uber does not.


which is completely irrelevant if you want a car now

Sure, but many (most?) mini cabs are pre-booked.

only in the "10 minutes before" sense

As I said, Uber
competes more with black cabs.

I'm curious why you have this deep hatred for something you've never
used, and know nothing about?

because it's a bottom feeding cherry picking predator.

And this isn't based upon just my vision of its UK operation. I am
following its "abuses" in other countries as well

tim

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

In message , at 15:05:49 on Wed, 17 Aug
2016, tim... remarked:

With Uber, you have to have an account, before you can use it at all.
Cash isn't an option, and nor can you just order an Uber car without
first setting up an account.

You might just as well argue that there's a deterrent to using the
Dartford crossing as you (almost) can't pay for that without setting up
an account

If I can chip in here, yes that is deterrent. I've avoided it ever
since. On the other hand I used the M6 toll for the first time a couple
of months ago, and all you have to do is lean out of the car and use any
old contactless credit card.
--
Roland Perry

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:35:19 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:58:33 on Tue, 16 Aug
2016,
tim... remarked:
And when Uber drivers arrive for a pick up at someone's house, surely
they
announce themselves in the same was as any mini cab would?

Or do they just sit outside and "hope"?

My experience of (pre-Uber) minicab drivers is they just sit outside
in
the road tooting the horn until someone emerges from the house. Yet
another completely illegal procedure, of course.

I was aware of that

Recliner was talking as if they didn't even do that

Uber is more likely to be used by people who are out and about.

I don't use it

Rather obviously,

I don't use it, as never have the need for a taxi

as you seem to have an irrational hatred for it,
without any knowledge of what it is or how it works.

I don't like it because it has a business model based upon making extra
"profit, by ignoring or circumventing regulations.

I have a hatred for all companies that do this, and that includes any
company that tries to get around giving their employees rights by bogus SE
contracts - though I accept that Uber drives are almost certainly SE
workers, it is elsewhere that Uber are lazy about compliance.

as such it isn't irrational.

but I thought the MO of Uber was to be able to hail a mini-cab at an
agreed
price, with all of the billing taken care of "automatically"

I can't see any reason why your normal mini-cab user wouldn't use it, none
at all

That's because you know nothing of Uber, then.

One obvious reason: it's more expensive, especially at 'surge' times.
- Second reason: it's less likely to have cars available locally in
residential areas (just like black cabs).
- Third reason: you have to have a smart phone, with a signal/wi-fi
access (which is why very few blind people will have an Uber account).
- Fourth reason: you have to have an Uber account before you can use
it, and Uber's app installed on your smart phone.

Enough?


Once a
driver has been assigned, Uber sends the client a description of the
car,
and it's up to the customer to identify it and get in.

Someone getting a mini cab from home is more likely to phone their local
firm,

why, they have all the aggro of paying in cash

Not necessarily. You can set up an account with other mini cab firms,
and frequent users often do. Or you can often pay with a card.

With Uber, you have to have an account, before you can use it at all.
Cash isn't an option, and nor can you just order an Uber car without
first setting up an account.

You might just as well argue that there's a deterrent to using the Dartford
crossing as you (almost) can't pay for that without setting up an account
(you can stop in a some garages somewhere to pay, but that's got to be even
more aggro)

which will be cheaper

will it. I thought that Uber was cheaper (or at least the same price) as
mini-cabs

No, you're wrong again. Do you really know nothing at all about Uber?

As a user, no.

You know nothing about Uber in any context, but still make all sorts of
barmy allegations about it.


Though what I do see is complaints from drivers about how little they end up
with in their pocket (before tax). I had naturally concluded that that was
because there fares were lower.

It's usually cheaper than black cabs, but more expensive than mini
cabs. Uber is really competing with black cabs, not other mini cabs.
That's why most of the anecdotal reports attacking Uber comes from
grumpy cabbies who see it as unfair competition that undercuts them.


and more likely to have a car available
locally.

why?

Just like black cabs, Uber drivers hang around busy places, with lots
of potential customers, not residential areas. Local mini cab firms
are far more likely to have drivers available close by.


They will also accept pre-bookings, which Uber does not.


which is completely irrelevant if you want a car now

Sure, but many (most?) mini cabs are pre-booked.

only in the "10 minutes before" sense

Not for the many people using them to go to the airport, station, hospital
appointment, etc. People who might otherwise drive or use public transport
(like me) uses a mini cab for such purposes.


As I said, Uber
competes more with black cabs.

I'm curious why you have this deep hatred for something you've never
used, and know nothing about?

because it's a bottom feeding cherry picking predator.

No it's. As I said, you seem to have an irrational hatred of somethig you
know nothing about. It's using technology to provide a new, and for many
customers, a better way of doing something. The people who dislike it most
are its competitors who still do things the old, inefficient way.


And this isn't based upon just my vision of its UK operation. I am
following its "abuses" in other countries as well

If there is a valid criticism of Uber, it's that it treats its drivers as
employees, but pays them as if they're self-employed. So it doesn't provide
employee benefits, but expects them to follow the sort of rules that
employees. That's a particular issue in the US.

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 14:37:28 on Wed, 17 Aug 2016, Recliner
remarked:
If there is a valid criticism of Uber, it's that it treats its drivers as
employees, but pays them as if they're self-employed. So it doesn't provide
employee benefits, but expects them to follow the sort of rules that
employees.

The "following rules for employees" is one of the acid tests in the UK
for whether you are actually an employee or not, irrespective of what
your contract says.
--
Roland Perry

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 15:05:49 on Wed, 17 Aug 2016,
tim... remarked:

With Uber, you have to have an account, before you can use it at all.
Cash isn't an option, and nor can you just order an Uber car without
first setting up an account.

You might just as well argue that there's a deterrent to using the
Dartford crossing as you (almost) can't pay for that without setting up an
account

If I can chip in here, yes that is deterrent. I've avoided it ever since.
On the other hand I used the M6 toll for the first time a couple of months
ago, and all you have to do is lean out of the car and use any old
contactless credit card.

Personally, I think that HMG should set up a single website for all
government run automated motoring charges (I know M6T is not government run,
but I think we can include it here), so that anybody who has, say, a London
Congestion Charge account automatically has one for Dartford, and all other
tolls that are somehow paid via the internet.

They could also add other ANPR based systems as they are rolled out across
the country - for instance the LA adjacent to mine has recently started ANPR
payments at its car parks for which you have to set up a special account
(fortunately you can still pay cash in the machine). No doubt they will not
be the only ones to do this.

They should add this to a national website so that all I have to do to use
these car parks is to go to my Dartford account and check a little box that
says allow deductions from LA XYZ Parking.

Having 20 people re-invent the wheel, to the detriment of the actual
customer is nutty, but should it become 200 positively ridiculous.

(I appreciate that given where you live this probably wouldn't help you, but
it's a start)

FTAOD, I will have no complaints if anyone with the right contacts steals my
idea and presents it to the appropriate people.

Note that I am absolutely not suggesting that private companies making
charges (other than the one above) should be allowed to join the scheme, nor
should "fines" be collected this way.

tim

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:35:19 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:58:33 on Tue, 16 Aug
2016,
tim... remarked:
And when Uber drivers arrive for a pick up at someone's house,
surely
they
announce themselves in the same was as any mini cab would?

Or do they just sit outside and "hope"?

My experience of (pre-Uber) minicab drivers is they just sit outside
in
the road tooting the horn until someone emerges from the house. Yet
another completely illegal procedure, of course.

I was aware of that

Recliner was talking as if they didn't even do that

Uber is more likely to be used by people who are out and about.

I don't use it

Rather obviously,

I don't use it, as never have the need for a taxi

as you seem to have an irrational hatred for it,
without any knowledge of what it is or how it works.

I don't like it because it has a business model based upon making extra
"profit, by ignoring or circumventing regulations.

I have a hatred for all companies that do this, and that includes any
company that tries to get around giving their employees rights by bogus
SE
contracts - though I accept that Uber drives are almost certainly SE
workers, it is elsewhere that Uber are lazy about compliance.

as such it isn't irrational.

but I thought the MO of Uber was to be able to hail a mini-cab at an
agreed
price, with all of the billing taken care of "automatically"

I can't see any reason why your normal mini-cab user wouldn't use it,
none
at all

That's because you know nothing of Uber, then.

One obvious reason: it's more expensive, especially at 'surge' times.
- Second reason: it's less likely to have cars available locally in
residential areas (just like black cabs).
- Third reason: you have to have a smart phone, with a signal/wi-fi
access (which is why very few blind people will have an Uber account).
- Fourth reason: you have to have an Uber account before you can use
it, and Uber's app installed on your smart phone.

Enough?


Once a
driver has been assigned, Uber sends the client a description of the
car,
and it's up to the customer to identify it and get in.

Someone getting a mini cab from home is more likely to phone their
local
firm,

why, they have all the aggro of paying in cash

Not necessarily. You can set up an account with other mini cab firms,
and frequent users often do. Or you can often pay with a card.

With Uber, you have to have an account, before you can use it at all.
Cash isn't an option, and nor can you just order an Uber car without
first setting up an account.

You might just as well argue that there's a deterrent to using the
Dartford
crossing as you (almost) can't pay for that without setting up an account
(you can stop in a some garages somewhere to pay, but that's got to be
even
more aggro)

which will be cheaper

will it. I thought that Uber was cheaper (or at least the same price)
as
mini-cabs

No, you're wrong again. Do you really know nothing at all about Uber?

As a user, no.

You know nothing about Uber in any context,

I know loads about Uber

I read the press, both normal and technological.

there are plenty of articles about it, all saying much the same thing.

I also read about what happens in other countries, and the common theme is
that the don't play by the rules there either

but still make all sorts of
barmy allegations about it.

such as?

Its staff *were* imprisoned for not complying with lawmakers demands that it
follow their rules

The drivers that they "employ" do, regularly flout local compliance laws for
cab drivers and Uber do SFA to stop it.

what is barmy about that?

Though what I do see is complaints from drivers about how little they end
up
with in their pocket (before tax). I had naturally concluded that that
was
because there fares were lower.

It's usually cheaper than black cabs, but more expensive than mini
cabs. Uber is really competing with black cabs, not other mini cabs.
That's why most of the anecdotal reports attacking Uber comes from
grumpy cabbies who see it as unfair competition that undercuts them.


and more likely to have a car available
locally.

why?

Just like black cabs, Uber drivers hang around busy places, with lots
of potential customers, not residential areas. Local mini cab firms
are far more likely to have drivers available close by.


They will also accept pre-bookings, which Uber does not.


which is completely irrelevant if you want a car now

Sure, but many (most?) mini cabs are pre-booked.

only in the "10 minutes before" sense

Not for the many people using them to go to the airport, station, hospital
appointment, etc. People who might otherwise drive or use public transport
(like me) uses a mini cab for such purposes.

I didn't say that everybody only booked 10 minutes ahead

but I bet most do

The only time that we, as a family (I was a child at the time) pre-booked a
cab for the airport, they didn't turn up!

As I said, Uber
competes more with black cabs.

I'm curious why you have this deep hatred for something you've never
used, and know nothing about?

because it's a bottom feeding cherry picking predator.

No it's.

It's exactly that

As I said, you seem to have an irrational hatred of somethig you
know nothing about.

I know enough about it to know that my hatred of it is not irrational

Just because you don't agree that my reason are valid, I do. That
categorically DOESN'T make my dislike irrational. It is for a reasonably
believed reason.

you need to look up the meaning of irrational.

It's using technology to provide a new,

I didn't say otherwise.

But it's hiding behind that technology to pretend that it is a "digital"
company that ought to be allowed to get away with non compliance as it's a
startup when it's just a bottom feeding cherry picking predator.

and for many
customers, a better way of doing something.

Many people though that the Ryanair model was great too. That doesn't make
it right.

The people who dislike it most
are its competitors who still do things the old, inefficient way.

I shed no tears for taxi drivers.

I just think that if there is to be competition, it should be fair, and it
isn't Uber cheats.

And this isn't based upon just my vision of its UK operation. I am
following its "abuses" in other countries as well

If there is a valid criticism of Uber, it's that it treats its drivers as
employees,

does it?

I don't know what their contracts say, but do they:

allow drivers to choose their own hours on a day to day basis

allow drivers to "drive" for someone else?

but pays them as if they're self-employed. So it doesn't provide
employee benefits, but expects them to follow the sort of rules that
employees. That's a particular issue in the US.

They seem to have settled that in the time honoured (US) way of paying some
money to make it go away, because fighting it would cost more, even if they
won.

tim

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 14:37:28 on Wed, 17 Aug 2016, Recliner
remarked:
If there is a valid criticism of Uber, it's that it treats its drivers as
employees, but pays them as if they're self-employed. So it doesn't
provide
employee benefits, but expects them to follow the sort of rules that
employees.

The "following rules for employees" is one of the acid tests in the UK for
whether you are actually an employee or not, irrespective of what your
contract says.

I don't believe that it treats its drivers like employees.

They appear to claim that because they want to be paid for their time
sitting around waiting for a pick-up as Uber can't supply them with enough
business (as there are too many drivers. Probably because becoming a Uber
driver is too easy - perhaps because of insufficient compliance checks)

But cabbies never get paid waiting (for a pick up) time. They have to make
it back from the pickups that they do get.

The fact that they don't seem able to do this is the reason why I thought
Uber fares were cheaper, cos black cabbies never complain that they don't
make a living wage (though whether they earn enough to pay for the vehicle
is another matter).

ISTR that there is a group of Uber cabbies looking to test their status in
court. I look forward to the result and will be amazed if it is found in
their favour.

tim

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

In message , at 18:52:49 on Wed, 17 Aug
2016, tim... remarked:

If there is a valid criticism of Uber, it's that it treats its
drivers as employees, but pays them as if they're self-employed. So
it doesn't provide employee benefits, but expects them to follow the
sort of rules that employees.

The "following rules for employees" is one of the acid tests in the
UK for whether you are actually an employee or not, irrespective of
what your contract says.

I don't believe that it treats its drivers like employees.

Perhaps recliner can expand on what "expects them to..." involves.
--
Roland Perry

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:52:49 on Wed, 17 Aug
2016, tim... remarked:

If there is a valid criticism of Uber, it's that it treats its
drivers as employees, but pays them as if they're self-employed. So
it doesn't provide employee benefits, but expects them to follow the
sort of rules that employees.

The "following rules for employees" is one of the acid tests in the
UK for whether you are actually an employee or not, irrespective of
what your contract says.

I don't believe that it treats its drivers like employees.

Perhaps recliner can expand on what "expects them to..." involves.

http://fortune.com/2015/06/19/it-won...ike-employees/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ts-its-drivers

https://thinkprogress.org/the-uber-r...4bc#.lrqvkjwcu

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/28/tech...pool-timeouts/

http://mentalfloss.com/article/67010...nd-its-drivers

Quote:
Uber tells drivers that they should accept 80 percent of all the ride
requests they receive, but "the closer to 100 percent the better." And
while one of the biggest draws of Uber is that drivers get to set their own
hours, they’re encouraged to drive as much as possible. “If you drive 50
hours a week you get 10 percent on top of what you made that week as a
bonus,� Barrett says. Most are on the road for fewer than 15 hours a week,
according to Uber data.

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 07:48:48 on Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Recliner
remarked:
If there is a valid criticism of Uber, it's that it treats its
drivers as employees, but pays them as if they're self-employed. So
it doesn't provide employee benefits, but expects them to follow the
sort of rules that employees.

The "following rules for employees" is one of the acid tests in the
UK for whether you are actually an employee or not, irrespective of
what your contract says.

I don't believe that it treats its drivers like employees.

Perhaps recliner can expand on what "expects them to..." involves.

http://fortune.com/2015/06/19/it-won...ike-employees/

That's a long list of things where Uber *doesn't* treat its drivers as
employees (such as providing them with cars, various employment benefits
and so on).
--
Roland Perry

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 07:48:48 on Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Recliner
remarked:
If there is a valid criticism of Uber, it's that it treats its
drivers as employees, but pays them as if they're self-employed. So
it doesn't provide employee benefits, but expects them to follow the
sort of rules that employees.

The "following rules for employees" is one of the acid tests in the
UK for whether you are actually an employee or not, irrespective of
what your contract says.

I don't believe that it treats its drivers like employees.

Perhaps recliner can expand on what "expects them to..." involves.

http://fortune.com/2015/06/19/it-won...ike-employees/

That's a long list of things where Uber *doesn't* treat its drivers as
employees (such as providing them with cars, various employment benefits
and so on).

Obviously what I meant was that Uber doesn't provide the benefits expected
by employees, but still expects its drivers to behave like employees, in
terms of being constantly available. One example of this is its use of
timeouts:

From:
https://consumerist.com/2016/07/28/u...-get-timeouts/

Quote:

Drivers also say it isn’t always clear exactly when and why they’re put in
timeout. Uber didn’t offer details about timeouts, but its policy says if
drivers have a low ride acceptance rate they may be temporarily logged out
of the app:

“If you are consistently not accepting trip requests, we will notify you
that your ability to remain online may be at risk,� the policy reads. “�If
your acceptance rate does not improve, you may temporarily be logged out of
the app for a limited period of time.�

Critics of Uber’s stance that drivers are independent contractors point to
the practice of timeouts as further evidence that the company actually
treats drivers like employees.

“True independent contractors have the freedom to decide when they want to
work and what kind of work they want to do,� Benjamin Sachs, a Harvard Law
School professor told CNNMoney. “By giving drivers timeouts, Uber is
exercising the kind of control over its workforce that employers exercise
over employees.�

More examples in
http://therideshareguy.com/how-to-ta...e-rate-policy/

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 09:14:01 on Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Recliner
remarked:

“True independent contractors have the freedom to decide when they want to
work and what kind of work they want to do,� Benjamin Sachs, a Harvard Law
School professor told CNNMoney. “By giving drivers timeouts, Uber is
exercising the kind of control over its workforce that employers exercise
over employees.�

I thought the whole point of Uber from a drivers point of view was being
able to work flexible hours and/or part time.
--
Roland Perry

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 09:14:01 on Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Recliner
remarked:

“True independent contractors have the freedom to decide when they want to
work and what kind of work they want to do,� Benjamin Sachs, a Harvard Law
School professor told CNNMoney. “By giving drivers timeouts, Uber is
exercising the kind of control over its workforce that employers exercise
over employees.�

I thought the whole point of Uber from a drivers point of view was being
able to work flexible hours and/or part time.

Yes, but it seems they have less freedom than they expected. And unlike a
truly self-employed person who can take a break whenever they like, Uber
penalises them if they do.

Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 09:14:01 on Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Recliner
remarked:

“True independent contractors have the freedom to decide when they want to
work and what kind of work they want to do,� Benjamin Sachs, a Harvard Law
School professor told CNNMoney. “By giving drivers timeouts, Uber is
exercising the kind of control over its workforce that employers exercise
over employees.�

I thought the whole point of Uber from a drivers point of view was being
able to work flexible hours and/or part time.

well I think that they can, in the sense that they can choose what shift
times to work this week

The issue seems to be around not accepting particular rides when
self-declared "on shift".

Though the post that Recliner made was about poolriding.

Complaint was, it's more effort for no more money.

I find that very strange. I though the MO of Uber was that all of the
billing, less some percentage commission goes to the driver (the same as the
hotel booking sites for instance). So if the billing goes up because three
pool riders are sharing, then so should the amount that the driver gets.

If Uber have structured this deal so that they get to keep all of the extra
income (whilst incurring the driver in extra expense of the
pick-up/set-downs), them my like of Uber has gone down even more (by a
couple of notches).

tim