In message , at 09:44:54 on Sat, 29 Oct 2016,
tim... remarked:

Uber, on the other hand, have stuck their head in the sand and said
the ruling only applies to the two drivers who brought the case.

And they wonder why people think so little of their practices.

Tis the typical response from any company who have just lost at an ET

They just need a holding position whilst they get their lawyers to look
at it to see what is the basis for an appeal.

And whilst I don't like Uber's MO from a competition POV, looking down
the list of reasons why the tribunal ruled that the drivers are workers
the only ones that seem to me to be an unreasonable practice is that of
not telling divers where the pick up wants to go to and penalising
drivers for not accepting pick ups.

The rest don't seem the slightest bit unreasonable IMHO

Isn't it about lawfulness, rather than reasonableness?

I too think the drivers are asking too much for some of the things like
holiday pay, although this is in danger of getting into a wider debate
about "zero-hours" contracts.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:44:54 on Sat, 29 Oct 2016,
tim... remarked:

Uber, on the other hand, have stuck their head in the sand and said the
ruling only applies to the two drivers who brought the case.

And they wonder why people think so little of their practices.

Tis the typical response from any company who have just lost at an ET

They just need a holding position whilst they get their lawyers to look at
it to see what is the basis for an appeal.

And whilst I don't like Uber's MO from a competition POV, looking down the
list of reasons why the tribunal ruled that the drivers are workers the
only ones that seem to me to be an unreasonable practice is that of not
telling divers where the pick up wants to go to and penalising drivers for
not accepting pick ups.

The rest don't seem the slightest bit unreasonable IMHO

Isn't it about lawfulness, rather than reasonableness?

But all the stuff in the press (well on the TV) has been union officials
crowing about how this will stop employers exploiting employees

And in this particular case, I can't see that there's any exploitation at
all

I repeat what I, sort of, said before. The taxi cab model only works if
drivers are SE.

Anything else leads either to no taxi cabs at all. Or a luxury-style
limousine service only

I too think the drivers are asking too much for some of the things like
holiday pay, although this is in danger of getting into a wider debate
about "zero-hours" contracts.

They weren't asking for any specific set of things

they just wanted to be classed as "workers" so that they could claim minimum
wage for all of the hours that they spent sitting in a cab "waiting" for a
ride.

All the rest came along in the bundle.

And if they think that the MO of paying drivers for sitting around waiting
for a ride is sustainable they are idiots (well, they are cab drivers so
that isn't an unlikely possibility).

All that it will result in is them not being able to log on for work during
slack hours and, instead of getting 4 pounds an hour from those hours they
will get nothing. (And bearing in mind that the 4 pounds is after they
have paid for some of the fixed costs of owing a car, costs which will still
have to be paid, they will be earning a nett negative amount from those lost
hours).

In article , (tim...)
wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:44:54 on Sat, 29 Oct
2016, tim... remarked:

Uber, on the other hand, have stuck their head in the sand and said
the ruling only applies to the two drivers who brought the case.

And they wonder why people think so little of their practices.

Tis the typical response from any company who have just lost at an ET

They just need a holding position whilst they get their lawyers to look
at it to see what is the basis for an appeal.

And whilst I don't like Uber's MO from a competition POV, looking down
the list of reasons why the tribunal ruled that the drivers are workers
the only ones that seem to me to be an unreasonable practice is that of
not telling divers where the pick up wants to go to and penalising
drivers for not accepting pick ups.

The rest don't seem the slightest bit unreasonable IMHO

Isn't it about lawfulness, rather than reasonableness?

But all the stuff in the press (well on the TV) has been union officials
crowing about how this will stop employers exploiting employees

And in this particular case, I can't see that there's any exploitation
at all

I repeat what I, sort of, said before. The taxi cab model only works if
drivers are SE.

Anything else leads either to no taxi cabs at all. Or a luxury-style
limousine service only

I too think the drivers are asking too much for some of the things
like holiday pay, although this is in danger of getting into a
wider debate about "zero-hours" contracts.

Holiday pay is pretty well mandatory in any employment. For the last year my
wife has had a zero-hours contract. All her paid hours had a holiday pay
supplement. She's on a proper full-time contract from next month now anyway.

They weren't asking for any specific set of things

they just wanted to be classed as "workers" so that they could claim
minimum wage for all of the hours that they spent sitting in a cab
"waiting" for a ride.

All the rest came along in the bundle.

And if they think that the MO of paying drivers for sitting around
waiting for a ride is sustainable they are idiots (well, they are cab
drivers so that isn't an unlikely possibility).

All that it will result in is them not being able to log on for work
during slack hours and, instead of getting 4 pounds an hour from
those hours they will get nothing. (And bearing in mind that the 4
pounds is after they have paid for some of the fixed costs of owing a
car, costs which will still have to be paid, they will be earning a
nett negative amount from those lost hours).

The evidence that the drivers are like employees looked pretty formidable to
me. They have almost no discretion over their work for a start, unlike taxi
drivers.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote in message
...
In article , (tim...)
wrote:


The evidence that the drivers are like employees looked pretty formidable
to
me. They have almost no discretion over their work for a start, unlike
taxi
drivers.

Penalising drivers for not accepting offers is a pretty dumb thing for Uber
to do (it's not clear to me why the MO requires it [1])

but the rest all seems pretty normal to me

There are plenty of SE people subbing for companies with a national brand
name to uphold (think window fitters, for example) where it seems reasonable
for the major to dictate the presentational details of "how" the job is
done, once the subbie has accepted the job. The reputation of the brand has
an interest in that.

I can't see that that distracts from the genuine SE nature of the contract.

tim

[1] I can think of a few possibilities, but have no knowledge as to if they
are applicable

In message , at 11:07:20 on Sun, 30 Oct
2016, tim... remarked:

There are plenty of SE people subbing for companies with a national
brand name to uphold (think window fitters, for example) where it seems
reasonable for the major to dictate the presentational details of "how"
the job is done, once the subbie has accepted the job. The reputation
of the brand has an interest in that.

If your brand is commonly known as Carpet-Wrong, what do you have to
protect?
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:07:20 on Sun, 30 Oct 2016,
tim... remarked:

There are plenty of SE people subbing for companies with a national brand
name to uphold (think window fitters, for example) where it seems
reasonable for the major to dictate the presentational details of "how"
the job is done, once the subbie has accepted the job. The reputation of
the brand has an interest in that.

If your brand is commonly known as Carpet-Wrong, what do you have to
protect?

just because you can find one example doesn't mean that it's the norm

tim

On 2016-10-31 08:03:47 +0000, tim... said:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:07:20 on Sun, 30 Oct
2016, tim... remarked:

There are plenty of SE people subbing for companies with a national
brand name to uphold (think window fitters, for example) where it seems
reasonable for the major to dictate the presentational details of "how"
the job is done, once the subbie has accepted the job. The reputation
of the brand has an interest in that.

If your brand is commonly known as Carpet-Wrong, what do you have to protect?

just because you can find one example doesn't mean that it's the norm

And to be fair, said company fitted my carpet (one of two pieces of
work on my house I haven't done myself, the other being the front door
because fitting was next to free when ordering a custom-size composite
door from the company I chose) cheaply and perfectly well. It is a
budget company so you have to manage your expectations accordingly
(like if you fly Eireflop or shop at Lidl) but that isn't in itself an
issue.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2016-10-30 11:07:20 +0000, tim... said:

Penalising drivers for not accepting offers is a pretty dumb thing for
Uber to do (it's not clear to me why the MO requires it [1])

Quite. I never knew they did, and it seems very stupid to me. I
thought the idea with Uber was that you work when you want, and if not
enough people are working to serve the demand you simply encourage more
onto the road by upping the price (hence surge pricing).

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On 2016-10-30 11:07:20 +0000, tim... said:

Penalising drivers for not accepting offers is a pretty dumb thing for
Uber to do (it's not clear to me why the MO requires it [1])

Quite. I never knew they did, and it seems very stupid to me. I thought
the idea with Uber was that you work when you want, and if not enough
people are working to serve the demand you simply encourage more onto the
road by upping the price (hence surge pricing).

Maybe they're 'leaning' on their drivers in order to get a minimum level of
service up and running?

Uber launched in Brighton and Hove on Friday: when I looked for a car home
from the statiuon on Friday the app said 'No cars available', and I have
just got the same message now (13:10 on Sunday) at home in central Brighton.

--
DAS