"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:36:21 on Sat, 23 Apr 2016,
tim... remarked:

Sometime because selling that way is genuinely cheaper and sometimes (as
here) that saving has come about because the product on offer doesn't have
to jump through the regulatory hoops that have historically been set up
for that type of business, usually either to enforce tax collection or
improve consumer standards.

Or in this case, invent their own pirate ranks on double yellow lines,

So ticket them, I don't see the problem here (well I do see the problem,
what I don't see is why we have to "invent" a new solution, there is an
adequate one already available)

and clog the traffic as well as making it much harder to black cabs to
pick up and drop off at various venues.

I'm not sure if "having insurance" comes under your "consumer standards"

Of course

I am not on the side of Uber here

I think they are a predatory cherry picker.

And then of course there's the "employment standards" where the drivers
are trading short term work for longer term security.

Casual drivers are self employed, as long as they meet that definition
(supply own equipment, work hours to suit them etc etc) it's their choice.
If they don't like it they need to apply for a real job like the rest of us.
(By which I mean the rest of us have made that free choice, not that we are
all "employed" - because I know that WE are not)

But that's also the model for other ecommerce supplier with courier
drivers on zero hours self employed contracts.

That's a different matter (and possibly one that wouldn't stand to a legal
challenge if there were people with both the means and the motivation to
take it that far)

When they get too old or sick to work, the public purse will have to pick
up the tab.

as it will with employed people who haven't contributed sufficiently to a
pension. That's a total red herring

tim