On Saturday, 23 September 2017 12:27:43 UTC+1, DRH wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2017 11:18:38 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
TfL has concluded the ride-hailing app firm was not fit and proper to hold
a private hire operator licence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41358640

I wonder if the recent announcement of the impending retirement of the TFL Commissioner for Surface Transport and the withdrawal of Uber's licence are in some way connected.

DRH

There is no such job at TfL. The Commissioner is Mike Brown. If you referring to Leon Daniels then he is the Managing Director of Surface Transport. I keep seeing references to alleged "connections" between events or between Leon and certain companies which are borderline smears. As I have said elsewhere if people think Leon is crooked and have evidence thereof then go to the Police with said evidence. Otherwise people should really not make such "suggestions", or in the case of some people on social media, libellous slurs. It doesn't take the debate anywhere to be chucking muck around.

There is an excellent article about Uber on the London Reconnections blog which sets out where Uber have come from, issues they've had in the States and here and why those issues have TfL (and the Mayor) pause for thought. People seem not to realise that Uber were given 4 months to put things right or to at least present a plan that would get them into compliance. These issues are not new and I suspect, given Uber's culture and "way of doing things", that it thought TfL were bluffing and even if they weren't they could ignore what was going on and "hang the Mayor" in the court of social media opinion. Well they were wrong weren't they. This isn't the US, TfL aren't some tin pot council or State department and the Mayor isn't someone who can be ignored. Obviously we will see what happens with the court appeal case and what evidence TfL present but Uber remain in business until the legal process concludes which could be months away.

Personally they can close down tomorrow for all I care. Taking tens of thousands of cars off the streets would do wonders for congestion.

--
Paul C
via Google

Thank you for that post.

Regarding your last paragraph, I have to reiterate a point I've
made many times before. The huge increase in traffic congestion
in London has been caused primarily by TfL and anti-motor car
local authorities deliberately making our roads unfit for purpose.

Yesterday I strolled around the City and then from Aldgate to
Whitechapel. I was once again disgusted by the way the road
system had been damaged. I counted the private hire cars in
various long queues of vehicles. There were very few and those
few certainly were not the cause of the congestion and resulting
air pollution.

If Uber go out of business, their drivers will not abandon their
careers. They will drive for another minicab firm and their cars
will still be on the roads.

In message , at 09:40:25 on Wed, 27
Sep 2017, Robin9 remarked:

If Uber go out of business, their drivers will not abandon their
careers. They will drive for another minicab firm and their cars
will still be on the roads.

There's 40,000 of them with the contrary painted on the shrouds they are
waving.
--
Roland Perry

I haven't seen that, but even if it's true, so what? It has been
pretty well established and accepted that most Uber drivers
also work with local minicab firms. (This is why Uber can provide
a car so quickly in the suburbs)

The question is not what propaganda Uber drivers are currently
disseminating but what will be in their interests if TfL win in court.

In message , at 18:20:11 on Wed, 27
Sep 2017, Robin9 remarked:

I haven't seen that,

[sadly snipped information]

but even if it's true, so what? It has been pretty well established and
accepted that most Uber drivers also work with local minicab firms.
(This is why Uber can provide a car so quickly in the suburbs)

The Uber model allows a degree of flexible working which is hard to
replicate with conventional minicab firms.

One quote in the press: "[my dad] has diabetes so it's important he can
work when he wants so he can attend his medical appointments. Sometimes
he will work 20 hours a day and earn around £300 and on others he will
only make £8 a day."

Thanks, but no thanks, to being one of his passengers in hour 19. £15/hr
is verging on modern slavery, but the well-heeled punters lap it up.
--
Roland Perry

Interesting, but none of that changes the simple reality which is
that if Uber shut down in London, their drivers will not then give
up being minicab drivers and seek new vocations. They will
continue as minicab drivers as best they can and their cars will
still be on London's roads. .

In message , at 09:49:01 on Thu, 28
Sep 2017, Robin9 remarked:

[excessive snippage]

Interesting, but none of that changes the simple reality which is
that if Uber shut down in London, their drivers will not then give
up being minicab drivers and seek new vocations. They will
continue as minicab drivers as best they can and their cars will
still be on London's roads. .

Why didn't they do that *before* Uber arrived?

You are saying that the Uber app wasn't facilitating extra cabs after
all.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 07:40:16PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

?15/hr is verging on modern slavery, but the well-heeled punters lap
it up.

Fifteen quid an hour, assuming an 8 hour day and 5 day working week,
puts you well above the national average income. OK, so Uber's
independent contractors then have expenses to pay from that, but even so
to call it "modern slavery" is pretty silly.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"

If you can't imagine how I do something, it's
because I have a better imagination than you

In message , at 15:13:57
on Thu, 28 Sep 2017, David Cantrell remarked:

?15/hr is verging on modern slavery, but the well-heeled punters lap
it up.

Fifteen quid an hour, assuming an 8 hour day and 5 day working week,
puts you well above the national average income.

I bet that national average isn't weighted for full time/part time/gig
workers.

OK, so Uber's
independent contractors then have expenses to pay from that, but even so
to call it "modern slavery" is pretty silly.

Given they are on zero-hours "contracts", work unsocial hours, have no
pensions, holiday or sick pay (the case for those is in the courts right
now) and reduced rights to benefits because of being self-employed.

And the elephant in the room is that it's the gross pay. Knock off 25%
for Uber's commissions, then most estimates for the cost of car rental,
petrol and valeting come in at about £300/week, so for a 60hr week you'd
see something like:

60 x 15 gross = 900
less 25% = 675
less £300 = 375

so that's more like £6.25/hr now, and under minimum wage, plus all the
risks of running your own business.
--
Roland Perry

Apologies for getting the job title wrong.

But no apologies for posing a question as to whether two events, one controversial, are in some way connected. That is fair comment.

And no need for the lecture on social media, chucking muck around etc.

But I would agree the London Reconnections piece is good.

DRH

On Tuesday, 26 September 2017 22:41:14 UTC+1, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2017 12:27:43 UTC+1, DRH wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2017 11:18:38 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
TfL has concluded the ride-hailing app firm was not fit and proper to hold
a private hire operator licence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41358640

I wonder if the recent announcement of the impending retirement of the TFL Commissioner for Surface Transport and the withdrawal of Uber's licence are in some way connected.

DRH

There is no such job at TfL. The Commissioner is Mike Brown. If you referring to Leon Daniels then he is the Managing Director of Surface Transport. I keep seeing references to alleged "connections" between events or between Leon and certain companies which are borderline smears. As I have said elsewhere if people think Leon is crooked and have evidence thereof then go to the Police with said evidence. Otherwise people should really not make such "suggestions", or in the case of some people on social media, libellous slurs. It doesn't take the debate anywhere to be chucking muck around.

There is an excellent article about Uber on the London Reconnections blog which sets out where Uber have come from, issues they've had in the States and here and why those issues have TfL (and the Mayor) pause for thought. People seem not to realise that Uber were given 4 months to put things right or to at least present a plan that would get them into compliance. These issues are not new and I suspect, given Uber's culture and "way of doing things", that it thought TfL were bluffing and even if they weren't they could ignore what was going on and "hang the Mayor" in the court of social media opinion. Well they were wrong weren't they. This isn't the US, TfL aren't some tin pot council or State department and the Mayor isn't someone who can be ignored. Obviously we will see what happens with the court appeal case and what evidence TfL present but Uber remain in business until the legal process concludes which could be months away.

Personally they can close down tomorrow for all I care. Taking tens of thousands of cars off the streets would do wonders for congestion.

--
Paul C
via Google