https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press ... tcmp=50167
Some info from TFL
Some info from TFL
Quote:
TfL considers that Uber's approach and conduct demonstrate a lack of corporate responsibility in relation to a number of issues which have potential public safety and security implications. These include:
•Its approach to reporting serious criminal offences.
•Its approach to how medical certificates are obtained.
•Its approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are obtained.
•Its approach to explaining the use of Greyball in London - software that could be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to the app and prevent officials from undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties.
•Its approach to reporting serious criminal offences.
•Its approach to how medical certificates are obtained.
•Its approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are obtained.
•Its approach to explaining the use of Greyball in London - software that could be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to the app and prevent officials from undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties.
Came across an interesting detailed look at Uber and its behaviour in London and elsewhere. I also now fear I might waste a lot of time on this blog. I've never been a big London fan but one thing I'm really fascinated by is its transport network (or at least the Underground - I have a deep seated loathing of buses).
Kern wrote:
Came across an interesting detailed look at Uber and its behaviour in London and elsewhere. I also now fear I might waste a lot of time on this blog. I've never been a big London fan but one thing I'm really fascinated by is its transport network (or at least the Underground - I have a deep seated loathing of buses).
That is very interesting, thank you.
London Reconnections is one of the biggest rabbit holes on the Internet. I lost an afternoon at work (when I was really fucking busy) to a four article series on rebuilding bank station recently.
I've never heard anyone talking about Uber being banned in London as being about the app, like that article says. Who says that?
[edit]Oh, the email they sent mentions it, I guess, but it's a bit of an odd thing to base an entire article on.
[edit]Oh, the email they sent mentions it, I guess, but it's a bit of an odd thing to base an entire article on.
95% of the cabs I take are for work so I use the work recommended company as its just easier.
The other 5% I'll be out in London and get black cabs as journeys are never that far and half the time my brother pays!
I do like the idea of Uber as black cabs can be a total rip-off, especially at Heathrow.
That said Uber appears to have a disregard for rules and have been disgracefully slack over a driver who was accused of assaulting a female passenger, (wasn't sacked until he did a 2nd time) their CEO was a bit of a nutter so hopefully, new leadership can change things.
The other 5% I'll be out in London and get black cabs as journeys are never that far and half the time my brother pays!
I do like the idea of Uber as black cabs can be a total rip-off, especially at Heathrow.
That said Uber appears to have a disregard for rules and have been disgracefully slack over a driver who was accused of assaulting a female passenger, (wasn't sacked until he did a 2nd time) their CEO was a bit of a nutter so hopefully, new leadership can change things.
Turns out they are a taxi firm after all.
Cras wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Quote:
"From my first day at City Hall I have been determined to drive up standards and improve safety for every passenger in London, while protecting the future of our iconic black cabs that provide a unique and invaluable service for Londoners."
It's clearly not an invaluable service. It very much has a fixed value, and passengers have decided that they don't value it highly enough to pay the higher fares.
It's an invaluable service since it preserves such "antiquated" things as "workers rights" or "unions". You can't just say that it should be the market to decide what's valuable or not. Market decided that it's ok to wreck the environment and trample workers rights by mass manufacturing gadgets and useless stuff in china. Most consumers just don't have any kind of social responsibility. Uber system is plain evil, and using their "contractor" model as a basis for every other service (who never heard of the "Uber for X" concept?) will only lead to a neo-liberal dystopia and the erosion of social values.
Seriously, fuck uber and everyone who uses it.
Aren't black cabbies self employed?
Bobbyaro wrote:
Aren't black cabbies self employed?
Don't know how it works in the UK. Some of them are, some of them aren't.
Still, the prices you pay include a percentage that will go to an union/professional order who in turn manages such an antiquated thing as welfare.
European court decided that Uber is a transportation company and not an IT Platform. Fuck yeah.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/d ... cid=346750
Obviously, they, will probably go on as usual, not caring for any local laws because they are from silicon valley, and obviously more important than any of us.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/d ... cid=346750
Obviously, they, will probably go on as usual, not caring for any local laws because they are from silicon valley, and obviously more important than any of us.
RuySan wrote:
Bobbyaro wrote:
Aren't black cabbies self employed?
Don't know how it works in the UK. Some of them are, some of them aren't.
Still, the prices you pay include a percentage that will go to an union/professional order who in turn manages such an antiquated thing as welfare.
They are self employed. They employ themselves. Whose welfare are they paying into? If their employer is treating them badly, they should probably have a word with themselves.
Bobbyaro wrote:
RuySan wrote:
Bobbyaro wrote:
Aren't black cabbies self employed?
Don't know how it works in the UK. Some of them are, some of them aren't.
Still, the prices you pay include a percentage that will go to an union/professional order who in turn manages such an antiquated thing as welfare.
They are self employed. They employ themselves. Whose welfare are they paying into? If their employer is treating them badly, they should probably have a word with themselves.
There are many many reports of Uber treating their employees badly. The problem is that Uber argues that they're not their employees. That's the main cause of concern. Uber takes a good chunk of their earnings and has no social obligations to them whatsoever.
So, that makes the black cabs unantiquated, how?
I ask every Uber I drive in what they think about the working conditions, and that's a lot of them. Absolutely without exception every single one says the flexibility they get from not being directly employed is the most attractive thing about the job. They want to be able to work as many or as few hours as they like, and most of them have not just Uber, but also Lyft or others, which they wouldn't be able to do if they were directly employed.
I appreciate that in somewhere like San Francisco, the pricing model is so brutal in order to steal the market that the drivers are painfully underpaid. In London, my experience is overwhelmingly that the model works for users and drivers.
I appreciate that in somewhere like San Francisco, the pricing model is so brutal in order to steal the market that the drivers are painfully underpaid. In London, my experience is overwhelmingly that the model works for users and drivers.
Bobbyaro wrote:
So, that makes the black cabs unantiquated, how?
It makes them "antiquated", according to some people. I was just arguing against that idea.
Traditional cabs model have problems, mainly because they don't have an incentive to offer a good service, but Uber definitely isn't the answer, and does more harm than good.
In my experience, the uber cars are cleaner, drivers cleaner, and fares cheaper than local minicabs. But this is based on 3 uber and lots minicabs.
Cras wrote:
I ask every Uber I drive in what they think about the working conditions, and that's a lot of them. Absolutely without exception every single one says the flexibility they get from not being directly employed is the most attractive thing about the job. They want to be able to work as many or as few hours as they like, and most of them have not just Uber, but also Lyft or others, which they wouldn't be able to do if they were directly employed.
I appreciate that in somewhere like San Francisco, the pricing model is so brutal in order to steal the market that the drivers are painfully underpaid. In London, my experience is overwhelmingly that the model works for users and drivers.
I appreciate that in somewhere like San Francisco, the pricing model is so brutal in order to steal the market that the drivers are painfully underpaid. In London, my experience is overwhelmingly that the model works for users and drivers.
Do you really think it's fair that Uber charges 25% of the cab fare, after being themselves who stipulate pricing conditions? With such conditions how can are argue that they are "self-employed"? Just because they chose their schedules, it doesn't necessarily mean they are self-employed.
When i do contractor work for someone, i have to pay something in taxes yes. It can be 25% or more if it adds VAT. Still, that money goes to the state and i get social benefits in return and also contribute to social services. It doesn't go to someone already filthy rich in california.
RuySan wrote:
Do you really think it's fair that Uber charges 25% of the cab fare, after being themselves who stipulate pricing conditions?
Yes.
Every single black can I’ve ever been in has been driven by a middle aged white guy. Many of them have been openly racist. Every single London Uber I’ve ever been in has been driven by an immigrant to the UK. That’s significant. Uber is a very good idea, executed brilliantly by flaming arseholes. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. I strongly distrust any binary opinion of the company, in either direction.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Every single black can I’ve ever been in has been driven by a middle aged white guy. Many of them have been openly racist. Every single London Uber I’ve ever been in has been driven by an immigrant to the UK. That’s significant. Uber is a very good idea, executed brilliantly by flaming arseholes. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. I strongly distrust any binary opinion of the company, in either direction.
And you think this is due to Uber "amazing inclusion policies" or because it's the immigrants that have more need to work and mind less about not being unionised or not having social benefits?
If someone were to use Bolt and got charged £10 too much when they processed the payment, and later received a text saying ‘oops, we charged your card £10 too much’, they’d be entitled to that money back, right?
Because they aren’t refunding the money and instead have added a £10 credit to the account, which has to be used within the month.
As they aren’t budging, who’d be the ombudsman to complain to? If it were on credit card it might be easier, but I think it is debit card.
Because they aren’t refunding the money and instead have added a £10 credit to the account, which has to be used within the month.
As they aren’t budging, who’d be the ombudsman to complain to? If it were on credit card it might be easier, but I think it is debit card.
Council might be a good shout.
It’s in London, and (I believe) across boroughs, so I’m not entirely sure how that would work.
The bank should sort this out. It doesn't matter whether it's a credit card or not, you can't just overcharge people and retain the credit.
Brill, thanks. It looks like trying to reason with them directly is not working. They’ve already issued credit, so they can’t do anything, apparently.
Page 2 of 2 [ 77 posts ]