"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

"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

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
news
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

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

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.

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

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/

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

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.

"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