to be furious they have banned Uber from London?

[Acidophilus]

WTF?

Uber has itsbissues but this is ridiculous.

TFL have bowed to Black cab pressure and we will all pay massively for it. Or get mini cabs that are less safe and treat heir drivers worse.

Über is a terrible company. They treat their women employees horrendously. Read Susan Fowler's experience www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-one-very-strange-year-at-uber

My sister's been sexually assaulted twice by uber drivers on her way back from nights out. I'm pleased they're banned, they're nowhere near as safe as minicabs.

London has an excellent night bus service, there really is no need for the average punter to travel around in a car, blocking up the streets and adding further pollution to an already dangerous atmosphere. No need to book a cab, or take a black cab if you plan your journey and stop insisting that whatever it is you are doing is far more important than anyone else.

RidingWindhorses

Let's start with the unintelligible contracts with a clause preventing drivers challenging their self-employed status, no living wage, sick pay or pension contributions.

If the contracts were truly unintelligible, they'd be ruled in a court as being null and void. That hasn't ever happened. If they're just full of small print, like many contracts, it's up to the parties to seek clarification on anything they don't understand.

Before the gig economy court ruling, Uber always regarded (and still regards in the appeal) its drivers as self-employed partners. They all knew they were self-employed when they signed up to have customers provided for them by the Uber app, enjoying the flexibility that came with self-employed status, working whenever and how ever often they wanted (as long as they did something like 1 shift a month or week to keep signed into the app) and free to work elsewhere whenever they wanted, even competitors, in stark contrast to other FTE contracts of employment.

As anybody who is self-employed knows, you pay your own sick pay and sort out your own pension. If you want these paid for you, you go and get a FTE job with an employer.

I cannot understand at all how any Uber driver can complain and demand the flexibility and freedom of being self-employed whilst also failing in their own duty to provide their own sick pay etc.

On this point, I really hope Uber wins, but I bet it won't.

Re comments above that Uber isn't even making a profit yet, and that it's primarily a private equity money farm, I was reading an interesting series of articles last year.

I can't vouch for the writer, but he claims (and explains how) that Uber is basically after monopolies: drive the competition out of business and then rent-seek because you now own the market.

I know this is the Starbucks model: land and expand, saturate the local area with coffee shops stocked from your new local warehouse, using economies of scale to undercut the small guys, and if necessary running at a loss. Then when you've put the local competition out of business, close branches.

So the local area ends up with the same (or fewer) coffee shops... but they're all Starbucks. Or one of the other big boys playing the same game.

London has an excellent night bus service, there really is no need for the average punter to travel around in a car, blocking up the streets and adding further pollution to an already dangerous atmosphere. No need to book a cab, or take a black cab if you plan your journey and stop insisting that whatever it is you are doing is far more important than anyone else

Nonsense...

I recently had an appointment...planned my journey in suburban London via train. Get to station...train is cancelled. Black cabs are few and far between round here. Mini cab is an hour wait...can get an uber to me in less than five minutes though. Managed to get to my appointment in time.

Ifailed
London has an excellent night bus service, there really is no need for the average punter to travel around in a car

There are needs. I would take black cabs when I needed to get to meetings or events, there were Tube delays and nobody ever knows when a bus will turn up because the information screens invariably don't work or are switched off (if a bus stop has them at all).

I'd take Uber when late at night the tube station is so scary out of the middle of London that I'd be too afraid to walk across a pitch black tube car park to my car, or I was too afraid to walk home from the tube or bus stop which was nowhere near my house.

@Fortheloveofscience your sister must be the most unlucky girl in London. Given she knows exactly who the perpetrators are - what has been the police response?

London has an excellent night bus service, there really is no need for the average punter to travel around in a car, blocking up the streets and adding further pollution to an already dangerous atmosphere. No need to book a cab, or take a black cab if you plan your journey and stop insisting that whatever it is you are doing is far more important than anyone else

That is such clap trap!

Maybe if you go from Z1 to somewhere else in Z1. Or from Z2 to the centre. But try and get from Z3 NW to Z3 E and I'd like to see you do that by night bus in the 45 mins a cab takes...!

They were ruled by committee of MPs to be "gibberish" and "almost unintelligible". Chair, Frank Field commented: "They are well aware that many, if not most, of their drivers speak English as a second language".

The point about Uber, Amazon and Deliveroo, some couriers and other gig economy set ups, is that the way they operate is basically akin to being employed without any of the protection. As with zero hour contracts. The taxpayer picks up the tab and the management takes the profit.

^That was to Flowerpot

Mini cab is an hour wait..

What mini cab is an hour's wait in London anywhere?

Articles 1–4, if anyone has the appetite for this stuff. There's a post below article 4 where someone challenges the author, so that's probably also worth reading.

Can Uber Ever Deliver? Part One – Understanding Uber’s Bleak Operating Economics
www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-deliver-part-one-understanding-ubers-bleak-operating-economics.html

Can Uber Ever Deliver? Part Two: Understanding Uber’s Uncompetitive Costs
www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-uber-ever-deliver-part-two-understanding-ubers-uncompetitive-costs.html

Can Uber Ever Deliver? Part Three: Understanding False Claims About Uber’s Innovation and Competitive Advantages
www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-uber-ever-deliver-part-three-understanding-false-claims-about-ubers-innovation-and-competitive-advantages.html

Can Uber Ever Deliver? Part Four: Understanding That Unregulated Monopoly Was Always Uber’s Central Objective
www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-uber-ever-deliver-part-four-understanding-that-unregulated-monopoly-was-always-ubers-central-objective.html

From article 4 (bold mine):
"The first article presented the evidence that Uber is a fundamentally unprofitable enterprise, with negative 140% profit margins and incurring larger operating losses than any previous startup. Uber did not achieve any meaningful margin improvement between 2013 and 2015 while the limited margin improvements achieved in 2016 can be entirely explained by Uber imposed cutbacks to driver compensation. Uber’s ability to capture customers and drivers from incumbent operators is entirely due to predatory competition funded my massive investor subsidies—Uber passengers were only paying 41% of the costs of their trips, while competitors needed to charge passengers 100% of actual costs.
...
"This series of articles has focused on the economics of Uber, and presented evidence that its current operations are staggeringly unprofitable, that it is far less efficient than the incumbent operators it has been driving out of business, that it has not introduced any product/technological/process breakthroughs that could explain its rising market share, and that all of its growth to date is explained by predatory investors subsidies.

"There is no evidence it could ever earn sustainable profits in a competitive market and he returns its investors are seeking depend entirely on achieving quasi-monopoly industry dominance and eliminating or nullifying regulations that might limit its ability to exploit anti-competitive market power. The unprecedented size of its investment base and all of the strategies it has been pursuing over the years fully support its objective of unregulated monopoly."

What mini cab is an hour's wait in London anywhere?

Around school dropping off and picking up time if you're really lucky.

YABU. Uber has lost its licence partly because it doesn't make proper checks on its drivers. Anyone, vulnerable or not, deserves to know that their driver has been properly vetted when they take a taxi/cab/Ubermobile.

Anyway, the fact they don't have a licence doesn't mean they can't operate in London even if they lose their appeal against the decision. Cab operators can operate anywhere, so long as the transaction is processed in the same place as their drivers are licensed. So if Uber have a licence for their services in Market Harborough, and their drivers are licensed by the authorities in Market Harborough, and the transaction is processed in Market Harborough, Uber can operate anywhere in the country - including London.

RidingWindhorses
They were ruled by committee of MPs to be "gibberish" and "almost unintelligible". Chair, Frank Field commented: "They are well aware that many, if not most, of their drivers speak English as a second language".

Ah, so not actually unintelligible in a court of law, just "almost" by a group of MPs who don't make rulings. And for those whose speak English as a second language . Really not being picky here, just I was very surprised to read that they had been ruled as unintelligible which is a most serious matter.

is that the way they operate is basically akin to being employed without any of the protection. As with zero hour contracts. The taxpayer picks up the tab and the management takes the profit.

But there is nothing akin to being employed. As I've written before, they can work whenever and however often they want, for whoever they want, can step in and out whenever they want and stop, dictate their hours, etc etc. If they want "protection" or perks, then get an employed job where all this is taken away. Self-employed as always been you are employed by yourself, and you are therefore responsible for paying sick pay etc.

The taxpayer picks up the tab

I forgot, how so?

If the black cabs had been as good as some of the posters upthread claim, they wouldn't have stood a chance...

Anyone offering something cheap will get sales, even if the offering isn't the same. They operate on different models - black cab fees cover time they are empty for hire, the training and tighter regulation.
In my experience they do best at getting me around quickly in central London. Further out I use minicabs as I don't need to hail one quickly - they are cheaper.

Even with apps, there will always be a wait time for a minicab/uber. When I was young and clubbing age pre mobile phones we used to book our cabs earlier in the evening rather than take a chance with an unlicensed cab.

Why is transport expenditure per head £2700 in London but £5 per head in the north east if transport services are so shite you're all totally reliant on uber and can't possibly imagine how you're going to cope without it?

The taxpayer picks up the tab

I forgot, how so?

When regular jobs with sick pay and some degree of pension plan are replaced with faux 'self employed', low paid, zero hours contracts which people can't live on the tax payer will end up picking up the difference between what they earn and a living wage and also the shortfall in employers national insurance. I'd rather people earned enough to live on from an honest day's work.

Zero hours contracts are not the exclusive preserve of Uber of course - they are not the only company found to be breaching the law in terms of faux self employment.

Flowerpot Ah, 'rule' has more than one meaning, it's not only applicable in a legal context.

I forgot

You forgot? Or you don't understand how social protection works?

When regular jobs with sick pay and some degree of pension plan are replaced with faux 'self employed', low paid, zero hours contracts which people can't live on the tax payer will end up picking up the difference between what they earn and a living wage and also the shortfall in employers national insurance. I'd rather people earned enough to live on from an honest day's work.

Zero hours contracts are not the exclusive preserve of Uber of course - they are not the only company found to be breaching the law in terms of faux self employment.

Exactly. Good post.

I'm so glad. London's streets are clogged with Uber drivers and I have had some very unpleasant experiences with Uber drivers and their backwards views on women.

Ah, so not actually unintelligible in a court of law, just "almost" by a group of MPs who don't make rulings

The MPs who are reviewing and revising the law for the courts to administer. Also by employment tribunals incidentally.

Self-employed as always been you are employed by yourself

Which is all fine and dandy when you are in a higher paid skill set and can pick and choose your work. I've run my own business when I wanted to be free to do that.

However for most zero hours contract worker on low wages there is no real freedom - if they don't work when they are wanted then they don't get the next shift. There are still unofficial clauses precluding work for rival companies. You can be called in, pay the transport and find no work when you get there. Try doing that and eg planning childcare or family responsibilities. Low paid workers in these contracts have little or no industrial muscle and its bad employment practice.

Hope we all feel so bad about our self employed cleaners

@Flowerpot1234

"If the contracts were truly unintelligible, they'd be ruled in a court as being null and void."

Have their contracts been upheld in court?

A prosperous litigant can always pay someone to shut them up.