Languish.org

QuoteTransportation service Uber is being criticized as "tone-deaf" for a blog post praising itself for offering underpaid teachers part-time jobs as drivers.

The post, titled "Teachers: Driving Our Futures," says Uber intends to "celebrate the educators who are also our Uber partner drivers." But some readers said Uber, which allows people to order transportation from a smartphone, seems to congratulate itself for giving underpaid teachers the opportunity to make supplemental income working as part-time drivers.

"Every day teachers are asked to do more with less, constantly faced with new challenges and limited resources. Uber opens the door for more possibilities and delivers a meaningful impact to the communities we serve," says the post.

It continues: "By utilizing Uber, teachers are increasing their earnings while dedicating their lives to shaping students' futures -- cultivating a generation that is imaginative, determined and believes in extraordinary possibilities."

In an op-ed for Digital Journal, writer and entrepreneur Aron Soloman slammed the car company's post.

"It would be difficult to argue that a more tone-deaf piece has ever been written," wrote Soloman.

A post on The Awl said the Uber blog "almost feels like a parody."

"Had Uber tweaked the language the slightly, with a pinch of outrage ... it would seem almost righteous, rather than crassly exploitative of the ills of the American education system. But the post seems to go to great pains to avoid acknowledging the actual issues facing teachers or the sources of those problems," the article said.

Twitter users also decried the post:

QuoteIn which @uber celebrates that our TEACHERS are so poorly paid they take 2nd jobs as unregulated taxi drivers http://t.co/mRMFJxIecy

QuoteStunningly tone-deaf post by @Uber — #Teachers: Driving Our Future | https://t.co/K96WqlqOCw Our educators shouldn't just scrape by. #SRVUSD

QuoteHas Uber become a parody of itself? http://t.co/9toAd7vGoJ We pay teachers shit, so let them work double shifts chauffeuring the moneyed

QuoteB/c we pay teachers so poorly, @Uber wants them to moonlight as drivers. Learn English Lit on your way to get lit. http://t.co/MuPb4jAeSd

QuoteAnyone else offended by @uber for this shameless "celebration" of teachers who have to drive taxis to make ends meet? http://t.co/yZuncRgJ1F

Quoteself-congratulatory @Uber doesn't get that #teachers cld best "drive our future" if they didn't have to drive taxis http://t.co/sl5ht9I1Pp

Uber did not immediately respond to The Huffington Post's request for a comment.

Uber's post reflects the sad reality that many teachers take part-time jobs to make ends meet. In 2011, the Association of American Educators found that one in five educators had second jobs. The National Education Association, the largest teachers union, reported that the average national starting salary for teachers in 2012–2013 was $36,141.

Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2014, 08:55:56 AM
:lol:  Stupid Uber.  Teachers should never have to work more than 34 hours a week, 42 weeks a year.

Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2014, 09:11:50 AM
Figured that would drag in our old pal grumbles :D

Quote from: grumbler on October 02, 2014, 09:06:02 AM
This "uber being tone-deaf" thing is a totally fabricated 'crisis" that wouldn't even get mentioned except on a very slow news day.

Quote from: Scipio on October 02, 2014, 01:49:16 PM
I always tell my students, right before they take the final: "If you have enjoyed this class half as much as I have, then I've enjoyed it twice as much as you."

Nobody laughs. And only about half of them get it.

Quote from: The Brain on October 02, 2014, 04:11:07 PM
In a land of opportunity desperate poverty is self-inflicted.

Quote from: Tyr on October 03, 2014, 01:06:51 PM
It always bemuses me to read of the situation in the US where lots of teachers are unemployed.
In the UK they're desperate for teachers. Its the job people who can't get a job doing something else do.

QuoteUber Drivers Protest In SF And LA While Drivers In NY And London Strike

Outside of Uber's headquarters, drivers frustrated with some of the on-demand ride company's practices gathered Wednesday to protest for what they believe are their rights as partners of the firm. They were joined in Los Angeles by drivers protesting outside local Uber offices, including a strong representation from members of the California App-Based Drivers Association (CADA).

In New York and London, Uber drivers networks encouraged drivers to go on a work strike in solidarity with the protesters. According to reports from the London Uber drivers network, in many locations there were no UberX cars available throughout the day.

The complaints, much like those of New York drivers in protests this past summer, were concerned with the now-permanent fare cuts that made UberX rides cheaper than a taxi in their respective cities, as well as the company's no-tip policy and the commission the company makes off each fare.

"UberX is said to include a 20% tip," an UberX driver and speaker yelled to the crowd. "Uber is charging a commission on those tips, this is tip theft. That's illegal. Uber black cars are not even allowed to accept tips. We're service workers, we work on tips. Uber kept prices artificially low by asking drivers not to tip."

But the list of demands from the organizers of the protest addressed more than simple differences in income between what drivers make now and how much they made before the fare cuts. Many of the demands dealt with the overall treatment and protection of both drivers and their passengers.

In addition to demanding that Uber lower its commission to 15% — "drivers bear the costs of this multi-billion dollar company," the list of demands reads — and return to 2013 fares, the drivers demanded that the company stop changing the approved vehicle list for Uber's luxury car service Uber Black. They also demanded that Uber: create an in-app feature that allows customers to tip; provide job security for those who participate in its car financing program; develop a system of recourse for drivers are facing deactivation; improve background checks; require comments from passengers who give drivers less than a five-star rating; provide job security for drivers who invest in wheelchair accessible vehicles; and provide coverage under Uber's insurance in the case of accident.

"This goes beyond securing the rights of drivers as independent contractors," one UberX driver, who was one of the speakers at the protest and did not wish to be named, told BuzzFeed News.

"They've dropped fares so low that it's not worth it anymore," the driver said. "Drivers are driving around frustrated and who are they taking it out on? It endangers passengers."

L.A.-based UberX Driver and CADA representative Ayda Valilar said she has to work 100 hours a week to make the same amount she once did.

"When I started it was $2.50 a mile and now it's $1.10 a mile in LA," Valilar told BuzzFeed News. "We can't maintain our cars, we become like taxi car drivers, basically. Everything people didn't want, we're becoming. We're not even making minimum wage. I personally work 100 hours a week. It's very dangerous. I know many people who have crashed just because they were working so many hours just to make ends meet. The hours that people work has to be regulated. Not everyone is reasonable enough to say I really can't take it anymore this week, I can't drive."

Uber, however, refutes these statements. The company contends that in an hour, a driver can make an average of $25.79, and that the no-tip policy actually brings more riders to the platform. "Riders choose Uber for a seamless experience — no cash, no math, no hassle. More riders means more money in drivers' pockets," a leaflet handed out by an Uber spokesperson to BuzzFeed News reads. Uber reported that in the past week there were more trips than in all of 2012.

Denny Bailey, an UberX driver who didn't attend the protest, said the concerns these drivers have are legitimate, but that their energy could be spent elsewhere.

"I don't think Uber has done anything wrong," Bailey told BuzzFeed News when reached by phone.

"There are things that maybe they can do better, but it's pretty good. We're all testing the waters. There are legitimate complaints but [Uber has] addressed them in the past. It's a tricky balancing act — it's the driver versus the consumers. It sounds bad on the surface, 'Oh well, we were making $45 an hour, now it's $38 an hour.' To say they're inhibiting our ability to earn money or whatever is not necessarily true. I did think there's a point that lowering the fares will be detrimental...but again the market will balance itself out."

In New York, many drivers continue to fight to make Uber change its policies rather than leave the company because they say they understand Uber is the industry leader and its policies impact the taxi industry as a whole. In San Francisco, however, several of the drivers BuzzFeed News spoke with indicated that they planned to leave Uber and continue to fight for the rights of drivers because Uber's policies illustrate many of the problems with the tech industry as a whole.

"Companies like Uber have created this two-tier system," an UberX driver and speaker told BuzzFeed News. "On top, you have the white collar workers who sit in their ivory towers and are well compensated and have good benefits, and on the bottom you have the frontline workers with lower pay and no benefits and are seen as a cost."

But the UberX driver did admit that many Uber drivers took pride in being independent contractors, as it affords them the flexibility and autonomy of owning their own businesses.

In a statement provided to BuzzFeed News, Uber argued just that.

"Four years ago, the only choice for drivers was to start the day more than $100 in the hole to rent a taxi – today, hundreds of thousands of drivers take to the road on the Uber platform," the statement read. "Uber powers entrepreneurship by providing the tools to build a small business. The thousands of drivers driving on the platform at this moment are a testament to that opportunity."

A driver who works for Lyft, Uber, and Sidecar who asked not to be named agreed that companies like Uber and Lyft don't prioritize the independent contractors working for their services.

"It's an industry predicated on disposable employees," he told BuzzFeed News. "I like that they have the little sign about the self-driving cars. Travis and Uber people have been really clear that drivers don't really mean anything to them. Once they're able to get rid of them [and] that excess cost, they're going to be totally stoked about it. Part of the frustration comes out of the stupid fare war with Lyft. For Uber, they can charge $1.00 for every ride and still make $.20. So they can go as low as they want. Lyft at least gives that fake pretense that they care, which is bullshit...but Uber is pretty clear about being like, 'We're this strong company and we're going to do whatever we can to make money.'"

...

Quote from: The Brain on October 02, 2014, 04:11:07 PM
In a land of opportunity desperate poverty is self-inflicted.

Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2014, 03:38:54 PM
I like that SVU had its episode where they portrayed services like Uber as facilitating prostitution rings.

Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2014, 07:03:05 AM
Is it normal to have widespread protests/strikes by your own employees within 5 years of starting up? :unsure: 

Quote from: grumbler on October 23, 2014, 09:52:07 AM

Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2014, 07:03:05 AM
Is it normal to have widespread protests/strikes by your own employees within 5 years of starting up? :unsure: 

For new technologies, especially where the "employees" are not employees, but rather independent operators?  Yes.

QuoteNew Delhi bans Uber over rape accusations

Transportation officials in India's capital banned the online car service Uber on Monday after one of its drivers was arrested on suspicion of raping a passenger.

The move was a blow for Uber in the huge Indian market, as well as another public relations headache.

The San Francisco-based company, which operates in 45 countries, has come under fire for what some consider a lax attitude toward protecting the private data of its customers and ensuring passenger safety.

In New Delhi, protesters on Monday demanded greater protections for women as police called in an Uber official for questioning about the company's screening methods, saying it had not taken simple security measures, such as fingerprinting the accused cabdriver or conducting a background check.

Shiv Kumar Yadav, 32, was arrested Saturday on suspicion of sexually assaulting a passenger who was on her way home from a party the previous night. Police said he was acquitted of rape charges in a 2011 incident.

In a statement, the Delhi Transport Department condemned the "unfortunate and heinous crime," banning Uber from operating in the city. The service continues in five other Indian cities.

The alleged rape came as a chilling reminder of Delhi's continued inability to provide safe commuting options for women at night — even after the fatal gang rape of a woman aboard a moving bus two years ago.

Uber said in a statement Sunday that safety was its top "priority."

"What happened over the weekend in New Delhi is horrific," the statement said. "Our entire team's hearts go out to the victim of this despicable crime."

Uber's chief executive, Travis Kalanick, stopped short of acknowledging systemic company failings. A statement by Kalanick deflected some of the blame on India's licensing norms, saying Uber will "work with the government to establish clear background checks currently absent in their commercial transportation licensing programs."

Police said their probe has revealed shortcomings in the company's Indian operations, which apparently were so bare-bones that investigators were unable to locate the phone number or address of Uber's India office on the company's Web site when the rape complaint was made.

A report in the newspaper Indian Express said police had to finally download the Uber application and book a cab to locate the Gurgaon address of the company.

Uber has been under scrutiny almost since its 2009 inception. Traditional cab companies deem it an illegal taxi service. But despite such opposition, Uber has managed to expand aggressively throughout the United States, as well as globally since opening in Paris in 2011. But there have been growing pains overseas, in addition to criticism at home: On Monday, a Dutch court banned Uber from taking bookings on its smartphone app, threatening stiff fines for violations.

Now critics are asking whether the company grew too quickly and jeopardized passenger safety in favor of expansion.

Last month, meanwhile, an Uber executive suggested that he would pay to dig up information on the personal lives of journalists writing negative things about Uber, comments that appeared to target a Silicon Valley writer who had been chronicling the sexual misconduct of Uber drivers in the United States.

The Indian woman who was allegedly assaulted, an unidentified 27-year-old working at a tax consulting firm in a New Delhi suburb, booked the Uber cab through her cellphone app late Friday to return home, police said. The driver took the woman to a deserted area and raped her, authorities said. She also has accused him of punching and slapping her.

When he finally dropped her home, authorities said, he threatened to come back and kill her if she went to the police. But the woman managed to take a picture of the car with her cellphone after getting out of the vehicle.

Reports of the alleged attack Friday shocked many Indians who have come to rely on cabs booked through companies that use GPS trackers or through smartphone applications. The option is widely regarded as safer than public transportation because the passenger's cab location can be tracked in real time.

"Sleek App, sleeker cars till one ride opens a cab of worms," read a headline in the Indian Express on Monday.

Kunal Lalani, president of the Association of Radio Taxis in India, said the incident is likely to affect the country's burgeoning business of private cabs. Uber has been operating in India since last year.

"Certainly there will be an immediate impact on the business and create trust deficit," Lalani said.

Protesters angry about yet another high-profile incident of violence against women demonstrated outside a police station in New Delhi on Monday.

"We need to invest in safe public transport and services for women. In its absence, we are relying on several private cab companies without knowing who is monitoring or regulating them," said Suneeta Dhar, head of Jagori, a nonprofit that works with women.

For many women in the city, the incident is a wake-up call even though they already take additional precautions when using a private cab.

"I take the vehicle number and driver's number beforehand and pass it on to my family," said Sonam Vardhan, 26, who works with an e-commerce company and commutes by private cabs every day.

QuoteUber vs. Portland: City Hall denies ticketing rideshare drivers, but it's gathering evidence

It appears that Portland's code police still haven't been able to successfully book a ride from an unpermitted Uber driver.

The tech blog Geekwire has backpedaled from a report saying City Hall had levied "hefty fines" against several of the clandestine rideshare company's drivers over the weekend.

"No fines have been written," said Bryan Hockaday, a policy advisor to city Commissioner Steve Novick, who oversees transportation issues. "But we are pulling together documentation of violations."

In other words, after a failed attempt to throw the book at an Uber driver in front of the local media on Friday night, city code enforcers apparently haven't had any luck over the past three days with setting up a face-to-face ride.

Drivers repeatedly canceled reservations made by code enforcers on Friday night. The officers resorted to grabbing screenshots of Uber driver information -- license plate numbers, names and vehicle makes -- on their smartphones.

"An Uber driver agreeing to pick up a passenger in the city of Portland constitutes a violation of city code," said Frank Dufay, the city's private-for-hire-transportation manager. Dufay said his office will attempt to send citations with the information.

Hockaday said the screenshots "are part of the documentation" of violations.

Without little warning or approval from City Hall, the company rolled out UberX at 5 p.m. Friday. The service allows passengers to use an app to get a ride from drivers who use their own cars as low-cost de facto taxis. Uber cars usually arrive in less than 10 minutes and offer fares that are 35 percent lower than those of traditional taxis.

Arguing that the city's taxi regulations are antiquated, Uber has told its drivers to keep rolling, even if they're fined by the police. "Uber will pay the fines and any impoundment costs" that its drivers rack up while picking up customers, said Eva Behrend, an Uber spokeswoman.

Meanwhile, Geekwire posted a correction to its earlier report about drivers and the company being ticketed for nearly $4,000 per violation:

Editor's note: This story was edited to reflect that penalties have not yet been issued, but that city officials have "documented" drivers in violation of regulations.

Brooke Steger, Uber's regional general manager, didn't know why city officers might be having a tough time booking a ride with Uber's smartphone app.

She said Portlanders took "thousands of trips" using Uber over the weekend. "We don't release actual numbers," she said.

Hockaday said more information about the city's enforcement plans will be released Monday afternoon.

QuoteCity of Portland sues Uber for operating illegal, unregulated transportation service

The City of Portland has filed suit against Uber Technologies Inc. in Multnomah County Circuit Court, after documenting that the California-based company started operating private-for hire transportation services in the city.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief that Uber is subject to and in violation of the City of Portland's Private for Hire Transportation Regulations and Administrative Rules. The City's lawsuit is asking for a declaration by the court that Uber is subject to the City's regulations. The lawsuit also asks the Court to order Uber to stop operating in Portland until it is in compliance with the City's safety, health and consumer protection rules.

Transportation Director Leah Treat on Monday morning issued a Cease and Desist Order to Uber. The order was cited in the lawsuit.

"I am hereby directing that Uber Technologies Inc.... or any other Uber affiliate entity immediately cease and desist operating within the City of Portland until such time as appropriate permits are obtained and Uber is in full compliance with the requirements of Portland City Code Chapter 16.40," Treat wrote. "Please alert all Uber-affiliated drivers that they are to cease and desist."

"Our main concern is public health and safety, because the state invested in the cities the responsibility to do that," Mayor Charlie Hales said. "Beyond that, though, is the issue of fairness. Taxi cab companies follow rules on public health and safety. So do hotels and restaurants and construction companies and scores of other service providers. Because everyone agrees: good regulations make for a safer community. Uber disagrees, so we're seeking a court injunction."

City Commissioner Steve Novick, who oversees PBOT, said the City is prepared to issue civil and criminal penalties against Uber and its drivers for operating without required permits and inspections. The City of Portland requires permits for drivers and companies that offer taxi or executive sedan service within the city limits.

"If Uber thinks there should be no maximum price on what they charge Portlanders, they should make their case to the Portland City Council," Novick said. "If Uber thinks taxi companies shouldn't have to serve people with disabilities, they should make their case. If Uber thinks taxis should not have to have proper insurance in case of a crash, they should tell us why we should allow that."

Uber drivers accepted and then later cancelled two rides requested by Portland Bureau of Transportation enforcement officials on Friday night. Uber drivers provided three rides to City enforcement officials on Saturday night. Uber has widely publicized that it was operating in Portland over the weekend.

The Transportation Bureau issued two civil penalties to Uber on Monday, one for operating without a company permit and another for operating without a vehicle permit.

As the City documents Uber's unpermitted operations in Portland, the Bureau will issue warnings to Uber drivers and penalties to the company. Drivers found to be repeatedly operating without a permit may be subject to civil and criminal penalties.

An attorney representing the City of Portland also issued a Cease and Desist Order Monday to Uber for unauthorized use of the image of the historic "Portland, Oregon" sign in Old Town in its advertising. The sign's image is a trademark registered with the State of Oregon. If Uber does not cease all commercial use of the sign by 5 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 11, the City is prepared to seek a court order, damages and attorney's fees.

The Transportation Bureau encourages the public to report illegal taxi operations, and complaints about any private for hire transportation provider to 503-865-2486 or by email to [email protected]

See attachments: • CityofPortlandvUber • CityofPortlandCeaseandDesist • TrademarkCeaseAndDesist • FrequentlyAskedQuestions

Background on Private for Hire Transportation in Portland Portland and Vancouver, Wash. are the only cities in the metropolitan area that regulate taxi companies. Uber recently started operating in Vancouver without permits and in other area cities that do not regulate taxis.

Since the City Council moved taxi regulation from the Revenue Bureau to PBOT, effective July 1, Commissioner Novick and transportation officials started a top-to-bottom review intended to update the City's taxi and executive sedan regulations.

Commissioner Novick is convening a task force to reexamine existing taxi regulations and see if those regulations should be restructured while protecting consumers and drivers.

It is illegal for motorists to pick up passengers for a fee in the Portland city limits without proper permits. Taxis that pick up passengers outside of Portland may drop off those passengers in Portland without a permit.

Anyone in Portland can use the smartphone app Curb to call taxis from Broadway and Radio Cab, which are two of the largest permitted taxi companies in the city.

The three most common violations of City Code that city enforcement officers find, and which Uber and its drivers may be in violation of, are:

Code Section Requirement 1st Offense 2nd Offense Subsequent Offenses 16.40.090 A. LPT and Taxi Driver Permit $1,000 $2,500 $5,000 16.40.150 A. Taxi Company Permit $1,500 $2,500 $5,000 16.40.190 B. Taxiplate $1,250 $2,500 $5,000 Full City Code Citation: http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/?c=28593#cid_408153

The Limited Passenger Transportation and Taxi Driver Permit requirements ensure the public that drivers have passed annual City-required annual background checks.

The Taxi Company Permit requirement ensures the public that licensed companies have appropriate commercial insurance that will cover passengers in the event of a crash, and that the companies' drivers have annual City-required background checks and inspected vehicles.

The Taxiplate display requirement calls for posting of a metal plate on the vehicle with an identification number. It helps customers and enforcement officers identify permitted operators.

We've also put together a collection of frequently asked questions about taxi and other private for hire transportation regulations in Portland.

Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2014, 08:39:28 PM
Are teachers underpaid?  Don't they usually make like $40-60k?

Quote from: garbon on December 08, 2014, 08:41:05 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2014, 08:39:28 PM
Are teachers underpaid?  Don't they usually make like $40-60k?

Many (most?) of my teacher's in high school had 2nd jobs during the school year.

Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2014, 08:39:28 PM
Are teachers underpaid?  Don't they usually make like $40-60k?

Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2014, 08:42:02 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 08, 2014, 08:41:05 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2014, 08:39:28 PM
Are teachers underpaid?  Don't they usually make like $40-60k?

Many (most?) of my teacher's in high school had 2nd jobs during the school year.

That's a non-answer.  My mom drove buses.  Doesn't mean she didn't get paid.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 08, 2014, 09:17:08 PM
I'm not sure it makes sense to blame them for the conduct of their customers.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 08, 2014, 09:32:09 PM
Why not?

Quote from: garbon on December 08, 2014, 09:51:21 PM
I think that absolves Uber of too much responsibility.

Quote from: Neil on December 08, 2014, 09:58:19 PM
That was the argument that the torrent sites have been trying to make.  It isn't working.

QuoteSpain And Thailand Ban Uber

The U.S.-based private taxi company was not authorized to operate in both countries. The Indian capital of New Delhi also banned Uber after one of its drivers allegedly raped a woman.

A Madrid judge banned Uber in Spain Tuesday, after a series of protests by the country's taxi associations against the San Francisco-based private cab app, El Pais reported.

The judge ordered Uber to cease all its operations in the country, accepting the measures proposed by the Madrid Taxi Association which said Uber drivers do not have official authorization to offer their services and were thereby competing unfairly with licensed taxi drivers.

El Pais reported that Uber had no license or insurance for putting passengers and drivers in touch and keeping 20% of the fare.

The judge's ruling came ahead of a court case the taxi association is planning to file against Uber.

Since Uber first began operating in Barcelona in April, taxi drivers protested against the American company deeming it unfair competition. Uber also began operating in Madrid in April and Valencia in October.

The judge took the cautionary measures without hearing Uber's arguments, El Pais reported.

Thailand also banned Uber on Tuesday following the company's ban in the Indian capital of New Delhi.

Thailand's department of transport ordered Uber to cease its operations saying that its drivers were not registered or insured to drive commercial vehicles and the company's credit card system did not comply with regulations, Al Jazeera America reported.

The ban in Spain and Thailand comes a day after New Delhi blacklisted the services of Uber in the country's capital after an Uber taxi driver allegedly raped a 25-year-old woman in the vehicle.

The New Delhi government said the company was banned for "misleading customers" by using vehicles which did not have all-India permits.

QuoteWe Can't Trust Uber

UBER, the popular car-service app that allows you to hail a cab from your smartphone, shows your assigned car as a moving dot on a map as it makes its way toward you. It's reassuring, especially as you wait on a rainy street corner.

Less reassuring, though, was the apparent threat from a senior vice president of Uber to spend "a million dollars" looking into the personal lives of journalists who wrote critically about Uber. The problem wasn't just that a representative of a powerful corporation was contemplating opposition research on reporters; the problem was that Uber already had sensitive data on journalists who used it for rides.

Buzzfeed reported that one of Uber's executives had already looked up without permission rides taken by one of its own journalists. And according to The Washington Post, the company was so lax about such sensitive data that it even allowed a job applicant to view people's rides, including those of a family member of a prominent politician. (The app is popular with members of Congress, among others.)

After the Uber executive's statements, many took note of a 2012 post on the company's blog that boasted of how Uber had tracked the rides of users who went somewhere other than home on Friday or Saturday nights, and left from the same address the next morning. It identified these "rides of glory" as potential one-night stands. (The blog post was later removed.)

Uber had just told all its users that if they were having an affair, it knew about it. Rides to Planned Parenthood? Regular rides to a cancer hospital? Interviews at a rival company? Uber knows about them, too.

Uber isn't alone. Numerous companies, from social media sites like Facebook to dating sites like OKCupid, make it their business to track what we do, whom we know and what our typical behaviors and preferences are. OKCupid unashamedly announced that it experimented on its users, sometimes matching them with incompatible dates, just to see what happened.

The data collection gets more extensive at every turn. Facebook is updating its terms of service as of Jan. 1. They state in clearer terms that Facebook will be tracking your location (unless you disable it), vacuuming up data that other people provide about you and even contacts from your phone's address book (if you sync it to your account) — important provisions many of Facebook's 1.35 billion users may not even notice when they click "accept."

We use these apps and websites because of their benefits. We discover new music, restaurants and movies; we meet new friends and reconnect with old ones; we trade goods and services. The paradox of this situation is that while we gain from digital connectivity, the accompanying invasion into our private lives makes our personal data ripe for abuse — revealing things we thought we had not even disclosed.

The retailer Target, for example, started sending coupons for baby gear to customers who, sales data told them, were likely to be pregnant. Researchers in Cambridge, England, found that merely knowing a Facebook user's likes was enough to predict attributes such as gender, race, sexual orientation, political party, potential drug use and personality traits — even if the user had shared none of that information.

Facebook says that it conducts not one but "over a thousand experiments each day," and a former Facebook data scientist recently revealed that "experiments are run on every user at some point." A 2012 study in Nature showed that a single tweak modifying an "I voted" button on Facebook increased turnout in the 2010 congressional elections by about 340,000 votes. That is enormous power.

What's rare is not the kind of analysis Uber can do with sensitive data, but that it was publicly disclosed. Because of the user backlash, companies are moving toward secrecy. That would be detrimental to the public interest.

Uber argues that it's doing only what other technology companies regularly do. That may be true but it only underlines why we need oversight mechanisms that cover all of them. Reputational penalties have not been sufficient incentives to encourage more responsible use of data and algorithms, especially because almost all the big players engage in similar behavior — and Uber has just been rewarded by its investors to the tune of $1.2 billion.

Codes of conduct developed by companies are a start, but we need information fiduciaries: independent, external bodies that oversee how data is used, backed by laws that ensure that individuals can see, correct and opt out of data collection. The European Union has established strict controls on personal data that include provisions of privacy, limited and legitimate use and user access to their own data. That shows that accountability is possible.

We already regulate sensitive data, ranging from health records to financial information. We must update oversight for 21st-century data as well. When we're picked up on a rainy street corner, it's not enough to know where the car is going. We need to know where our data is going, and how it's used.

Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2014, 10:44:02 AM
to the difficulties of hailing a cab on the street.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 09, 2014, 10:47:52 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2014, 10:44:02 AM
to the difficulties of hailing a cab on the street.

That's just being black in New York, though.

Quote from: celedhring on December 09, 2014, 04:10:26 PM
Banned in Spain today, pending trial.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2014, 04:17:34 PM
Countries with strong taxi lobbies.

Quote from: celedhring on December 09, 2014, 04:36:00 PM
I think there's a happy medium between entrenched cartels and unlicensed and uninsured commercial drivers.

Quote from: celedhring on December 09, 2014, 04:36:00 PM
I think there's a happy medium between entrenched cartels and unlicensed and uninsured commercial drivers.

Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2014, 10:50:39 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 09, 2014, 10:47:52 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2014, 10:44:02 AM
to the difficulties of hailing a cab on the street.

That's just being black in New York, though.

That was part of the trailer I saw for Chris Rock's movie.

http://youtu.be/wJ0Qhbm3Xj8?t=2m3s

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2014, 04:38:29 PM

Quote from: celedhring on December 09, 2014, 04:36:00 PM
I think there's a happy medium between entrenched cartels and unlicensed and uninsured commercial drivers.

Uber drivers all presumably have a drivers' license.  Would you like some licensing requirement on top of that?  If so, what kind and why?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2014, 04:38:29 PM
Uber drivers all presumably have a drivers' license.  Would you like some licensing requirement on top of that?  If so, what kind and why?

QuoteSuits Seek To Force Lyft And Uber To Treat Drivers As Employees

Lyft and Uber are facing separate federal lawsuits brought by drivers who contend they are misclassified as independent contractors and should be categorized and treated as formal employees. Although the cases are distinct, both involve similar issues. A win for the plaintiffs could compel Uber and Lyft to radically change their business models to treat drivers as employees and give drivers either hourly wages or salaries as well as benefits, and possibly reimburse them for expenses.

The summary judgment hearing for Lyft's case was held this morning in San Francisco Federal Court. This was just an initial step of a process in which the plaintiffs are seeking class action status. Although the plaintiffs have yet to indicate which damages they are seeking, they may eventually seek expense reimbursement.

"It's the most significant damages under California law," the plaintiffs' attorney in both cases Shannon Liss-Riordan told BuzzFeed News. "That includes [reimbursement for] owning or leasing their vehicles, gas, car maintenance... That alone is extremely significant for the drivers. What those companies have done is really shifted expenses for operating car services onto their drivers."

Liss-Riordan also told BuzzFeed News she's quite pleased with how the hearing went. "The judge seemed very skeptical of Lyft's argument," she said. "We look forward to seeing his decision."

Lyft declined to comment.

Lyft argues that drivers are independent contractors because they can choose when and how much they work. However, drivers contend that because they can be fired or deactivated without any notice, and because they are told how to behave and interact with passengers and risk termination if they don't follow those guidelines, then they should be treated as employees.

"Drivers also constantly receive emails from Uber, advising them about how to improve their ratings (so as not to be deactivated) or where to locate themselves to get customers, and warning them if they are at risk of suspension or deactivation for various reasons, including customer complaints, low customer ratings, cancelling [sic] too many rides, or for failing to accept enough rides while 'on-duty,'" the plaintiffs' opposition to Uber's motion for a summary judgment briefing reads. "While these 'best practices' are couched as 'suggestions,' a driver's failure to comply with them can lead to their termination."

As the IRS states: "You are not an independent contractor if you perform services that can be controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This applies even if you are given freedom of action.

What matters is that the employer has the legal right to control the details of how the services are performed. If an employer-employee relationship exists (regardless of what the relationship is called), you are not an independent contractor and your earnings are generally not subject to Self-Employment Tax."

"Most of the inquiry looks at how much control the company has and in both cases I think there's lot of evidence both companies have a lot of control over the drivers," Liss-Riordan said.

Uber requested that documents submitted by the plaintiffs, such as emails, be sealed because they would "expose trade secrets" and because it infringed on the privacy of the individuals named in the emails submitted, but Judge Edward Chen rejected the request, stating that names could be redacted and that there were no instances of information that could reveal trade secrets present.

Judge Chen is presiding over the hearings for both cases. Uber will go to court tomorrow.

Uber did not respond to a request for comment from BuzzFeed News.

Quote from: grumbler on January 30, 2015, 01:58:54 PM
I suspect that Uber and Lyft would just change their contracts to eliminate whatever elements of the existing contracts imply that the drivers are employees.  There seems to be no reason for the companies to accept the idea that the drivers are employees.

Quote from: Jacob on January 30, 2015, 02:18:26 PM
That kind of depends on what those bits are, I'd expect.

The plaintiff's attorney alleges that the company has a fair bit of control over the drivers - that seems to be their case for being considered employees. Presumably that control, whatever it is (and whether it's enough to be considered an employee or not in the end), is there for a business reason. Eliminating that control might not be desirable from an operations or business point of view.

QuoteUber deserved to lose its licence – Londoners' safety must come first
by Sadiq Khan

From the steam engine to the web, Britain has a long history of inventing and embracing brilliant new technology, often with London leading the way with the very latest developments.

In recent years, we have seen great leaps forward in areas such as green technology, medical innovations and contactless payments on the underground, but also with mobile phone applications that can make the lives of Londoners easier – whether it's ordering food, renting a flat or doing financial transactions.

As we move through the next stage of 21st century innovation, I want London to continue to be at the forefront of these developments and to be a natural home for exciting new companies that help Londoners by providing a better and more affordable service.

I welcome and embrace these innovations - not only because they can improve the everyday lives of Londoners, but because they can spark new ideas for business, new possibilities for jobs in our city and new opportunities to cement London as a global capital of digital technology.

However, as with every other sector doing business in this city, from the financial services to manufacturing, all companies in London must play by the rules and adhere to the high standards we expect – above all when it comes to the safety of customers.

Providing an innovative service is not an excuse for it being unsafe.

Today, Transport for London has made the formal decision not to renew Uber's operating licence. This was made independently by TfL as the regulator. I know this decision will be controversial in some quarters. Uber has become a popular service for many Londoners. But I fully understand the decision that has been taken.

It would be simply wrong for TfL to continue to license Uber if there was any way this could pose a threat to Londoners' safety or security. TfL has said it believes Uber's conduct demonstrates a lack of corporate responsibility around a number of issues that have potential public safety and security implications. These include Uber's approach to reporting serious criminal offences, and the way it obtains medical certificates and security checks (Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service) for their drivers.

All private-hire operators in London need to play by the rules. The safety and security of customers must be paramount.

Uber's current licence does not expire until the end of September so the service will continue, for now. The company will also be able to continue to operate until the appeals process has been exhausted.

Around the world, new private-hire vehicle companies and other disruptive technology businesses are springing up all the time, with new and different ways of working. We know it is possible to combine innovative technology within these fields while also ensuring the necessary safety standards are met. It would not be right for exceptions to be made.

I have repeatedly said the regulatory environment is critical in protecting Londoners' safety, maintaining workplace standards for drivers and sustaining a vibrant taxi and private hire market with space for a range of providers to flourish. It is not simply regulation for regulation's sake.

One of the reasons why London has become such a success with international business over centuries is because of our professionalism and sense of British fair play, with transparent rules, laws and regulations. This ensures that all companies are treated equally – something we would never want to lose.

I suspect it will take some time before this situation with Uber fully plays out. In the meantime, I will continue my work to help support innovative businesses in London and to create a vibrant and safe taxi and private hire market.

During the mayoral election, I promised I would be the most pro-business mayor London has ever had. That promise is reflected in the work we are doing from City Hall to support companies and entrepreneurs who are reinventing and reviving many of our traditional business sectors.

As we go forward in the months and years ahead, I know London will continue to be an incredible hotbed of innovation and new technology, as well as a city where businesses understand that they have no choice but to adhere to the rules like everyone else – especially when it comes to the safety of Londoners.

Quote from: The Brain on September 22, 2017, 01:21:41 PM
Yeah the major problem facing London the coming years is Uber.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2017, 01:17:56 PM
Lol, suck it, Übër.  Go taxis.

Quote from: Jacob on September 22, 2017, 10:32:43 PM
IMO, a company's competitive advantage should not come from circumventing the regulations its competitors have to follow.

Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2017, 10:39:40 PM
Problem is that the "regulations it's competitors have to follow" are deeply anti-consumer and generally designed for the benefit of taxi-owners.

In the battle between Uber and the Taxi industry it's one of those situations where you want both sides to lose.

Quote from: Jacob on September 22, 2017, 11:29:48 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2017, 10:39:40 PM
Problem is that the "regulations it's competitors have to follow" are deeply anti-consumer and generally designed for the benefit of taxi-owners.

In the battle between Uber and the Taxi industry it's one of those situations where you want both sides to lose.

Some of the regulations seem to be primarily about supporting cartels, yes, but as I understand it Uber also has a record of circumventing or skirting employment laws, insurance regulations, data collection and privacy rules, et. al. in various jurisdictions.

I don't have a problem with an Uber like outfit outcompeting traditional taxi companies on more or less even ground, but not at the cost of the drivers and sidestepping various worker protection acts etc.

Quote from: garbon on September 23, 2017, 03:33:10 AM
Not sure why you are attacking the pro-taxi stance with relation to Jacob when that's clearly not his position.

Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2017, 03:53:04 AM

Quote from: garbon on September 23, 2017, 03:33:10 AM
Not sure why you are attacking the pro-taxi stance with relation to Jacob when that's clearly not his position.

I don't think the anti-Uber stance can be separated from the pro-taxi one. There is a totally unrealistic amount of outrage over Uber and their practices, when basically in all economic sectors you can find similar technology-enabled effects, good and bad.

Quote from: garbon on September 22, 2017, 12:50:40 PM

QuoteUber deserved to lose its licence – Londoners' safety must come first
by Sadiq Khan

From the steam engine to the web, Britain has a long history of inventing and embracing brilliant new technology, often with London leading the way with the very latest developments.

In recent years, we have seen great leaps forward in areas such as green technology, medical innovations and contactless payments on the underground, but also with mobile phone applications that can make the lives of Londoners easier – whether it's ordering food, renting a flat or doing financial transactions.

As we move through the next stage of 21st century innovation, I want London to continue to be at the forefront of these developments and to be a natural home for exciting new companies that help Londoners by providing a better and more affordable service.

I welcome and embrace these innovations - not only because they can improve the everyday lives of Londoners, but because they can spark new ideas for business, new possibilities for jobs in our city and new opportunities to cement London as a global capital of digital technology.

However, as with every other sector doing business in this city, from the financial services to manufacturing, all companies in London must play by the rules and adhere to the high standards we expect – above all when it comes to the safety of customers.

Providing an innovative service is not an excuse for it being unsafe.

Today, Transport for London has made the formal decision not to renew Uber's operating licence. This was made independently by TfL as the regulator. I know this decision will be controversial in some quarters. Uber has become a popular service for many Londoners. But I fully understand the decision that has been taken.

It would be simply wrong for TfL to continue to license Uber if there was any way this could pose a threat to Londoners' safety or security. TfL has said it believes Uber's conduct demonstrates a lack of corporate responsibility around a number of issues that have potential public safety and security implications. These include Uber's approach to reporting serious criminal offences, and the way it obtains medical certificates and security checks (Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service) for their drivers.

All private-hire operators in London need to play by the rules. The safety and security of customers must be paramount.

Uber's current licence does not expire until the end of September so the service will continue, for now. The company will also be able to continue to operate until the appeals process has been exhausted.

Around the world, new private-hire vehicle companies and other disruptive technology businesses are springing up all the time, with new and different ways of working. We know it is possible to combine innovative technology within these fields while also ensuring the necessary safety standards are met. It would not be right for exceptions to be made.

I have repeatedly said the regulatory environment is critical in protecting Londoners' safety, maintaining workplace standards for drivers and sustaining a vibrant taxi and private hire market with space for a range of providers to flourish. It is not simply regulation for regulation's sake.

One of the reasons why London has become such a success with international business over centuries is because of our professionalism and sense of British fair play, with transparent rules, laws and regulations. This ensures that all companies are treated equally – something we would never want to lose.

I suspect it will take some time before this situation with Uber fully plays out. In the meantime, I will continue my work to help support innovative businesses in London and to create a vibrant and safe taxi and private hire market.

During the mayoral election, I promised I would be the most pro-business mayor London has ever had. That promise is reflected in the work we are doing from City Hall to support companies and entrepreneurs who are reinventing and reviving many of our traditional business sectors.

As we go forward in the months and years ahead, I know London will continue to be an incredible hotbed of innovation and new technology, as well as a city where businesses understand that they have no choice but to adhere to the rules like everyone else – especially when it comes to the safety of Londoners.

Quote from: garbon on September 22, 2017, 02:30:08 PM
My stance is probably clear. I'm glad to see Uber get comeuppance. Basically does all the shady shit that I don't want corporations doing. -_-

Quote from: garbon on September 23, 2017, 04:23:59 AM
I'm not really sure our current mayor is part of a cartel. :hmm:

Quote
Their approach to reporting serious criminal offences.
Their approach to how medical certificates are obtained.
Their approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are obtained.
Their 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.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 26, 2017, 08:02:50 AM
Rumors are that Uber will leave Quebec.

:yeah:

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 26, 2017, 08:02:50 AM
Rumors are that Uber will leave Quebec.

:yeah:

Quote from: Tamas on September 26, 2017, 08:25:37 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 26, 2017, 08:02:50 AM
Rumors are that Uber will leave Quebec.

:yeah:

Easier exploitation of people this way in Quebec! :yeah:

Quote from: Tamas on September 26, 2017, 08:25:37 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 26, 2017, 08:02:50 AM
Rumors are that Uber will leave Quebec.

:yeah:

Easier exploitation of people this way in Quebec! :yeah:

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 26, 2017, 08:47:40 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 26, 2017, 08:25:37 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 26, 2017, 08:02:50 AM
Rumors are that Uber will leave Quebec.

:yeah:

Easier exploitation of people this way in Quebec! :yeah:

:huh: Uber is the one exploiting people, mate.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 26, 2017, 08:47:40 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 26, 2017, 08:25:37 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 26, 2017, 08:02:50 AM
Rumors are that Uber will leave Quebec.

:yeah:

Easier exploitation of people this way in Quebec! :yeah:

:huh: Uber is the one exploiting people, mate.

Quote from: Habbaku on September 26, 2017, 09:57:33 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 26, 2017, 08:47:40 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 26, 2017, 08:25:37 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 26, 2017, 08:02:50 AM
Rumors are that Uber will leave Quebec.

:yeah:

Easier exploitation of people this way in Quebec! :yeah:

:huh: Uber is the one exploiting people, mate.

Does Quebec/Montreal have taxi guilds?

Quote from: Tamas on September 26, 2017, 10:06:29 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 26, 2017, 08:47:40 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 26, 2017, 08:25:37 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 26, 2017, 08:02:50 AM
Rumors are that Uber will leave Quebec.

:yeah:

Easier exploitation of people this way in Quebec! :yeah:

:huh: Uber is the one exploiting people, mate.

Are they

a) forcing their drivers to work for them
b) forcing people to pay more than necessary for taxi fares
c) both

?

Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2017, 03:06:53 PM
If Uber drivers can negotiate themselves a better deal by acting collectively, good for them.

But the argument that people working in a free society at a voluntary job entered into of their own free will are "exploited"?

Bullshit.

Quote from: HVC on September 29, 2017, 03:35:56 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2017, 03:06:53 PM
If Uber drivers can negotiate themselves a better deal by acting collectively, good for them.

But the argument that people working in a free society at a voluntary job entered into of their own free will are "exploited"?

Bullshit.

I don't know enough about uber to comment on them, but there are  jobs entered under voluntary status that are exploitive, such as migrant fruit pickers or sweatshop workers (i'm thinking ones in the western world in this scenario)

Quote from: HVC on September 29, 2017, 03:35:56 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2017, 03:06:53 PM
If Uber drivers can negotiate themselves a better deal by acting collectively, good for them.

But the argument that people working in a free society at a voluntary job entered into of their own free will are "exploited"?

Bullshit.

I don't know enough about uber to comment on them, but there are  jobs entered under voluntary status that are exploitive, such as migrant fruit pickers or sweatshop workers (i'm thinking ones in the western world in this scenario)

Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2017, 04:06:07 PM
If it is such a terrible deal, working 100 hours a week to earn very little, go do something else. You are a moron if you are working 100 hours a week to make very little money.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2017, 04:45:27 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2017, 04:06:07 PM
If it is such a terrible deal, working 100 hours a week to earn very little, go do something else. You are a moron if you are working 100 hours a week to make very little money.

Unfortunately the USN considers that AWOL.

Quote from: HVC on September 29, 2017, 03:35:56 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2017, 03:06:53 PM
If Uber drivers can negotiate themselves a better deal by acting collectively, good for them.

But the argument that people working in a free society at a voluntary job entered into of their own free will are "exploited"?

Bullshit.

I don't know enough about uber to comment on them, but there are  jobs entered under voluntary status that are exploitive, such as migrant fruit pickers or sweatshop workers (i'm thinking ones in the western world in this scenario)

Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2017, 10:14:44 AM
migrant fruit pickers aren't exactly exploited.  Yes, they earn less than a local.  They are fed, they are lodged, they can collect EI premiums when they back in their country and they make 10 times more here than in Guatemala or whatever south american country they're from.

Sweatshop workers are often involuntary, in the sense that they don't have any papers, their passport were confisctated by the shop managers, they don't speak the local language(s) and they're told bad things will happen to their family if they try to quit.

Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2017, 10:14:44 AM

Quote from: HVC on September 29, 2017, 03:35:56 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2017, 03:06:53 PM
If Uber drivers can negotiate themselves a better deal by acting collectively, good for them.

But the argument that people working in a free society at a voluntary job entered into of their own free will are "exploited"?

Bullshit.

I don't know enough about uber to comment on them, but there are  jobs entered under voluntary status that are exploitive, such as migrant fruit pickers or sweatshop workers (i'm thinking ones in the western world in this scenario)

migrant fruit pickers aren't exactly exploited.  Yes, they earn less than a local.  They are fed, they are lodged, they can collect EI premiums when they back in their country and they make 10 times more here than in Guatemala or whatever south american country they're from.

Sweatshop workers are often involuntary, in the sense that they don't have any papers, their passport were confisctated by the shop managers, they don't speak the local language(s) and they're told bad things will happen to their family if they try to quit. 

Sure, compared to a black south carolinian slave in 1849, they are free.  But I wouldn't compare this to an Uber driver who decides to put his car and his time at Uber's disposal when he choses to.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2017, 10:36:01 AM

Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2017, 10:14:44 AM
migrant fruit pickers aren't exactly exploited.  Yes, they earn less than a local.  They are fed, they are lodged, they can collect EI premiums when they back in their country and they make 10 times more here than in Guatemala or whatever south american country they're from.

Sweatshop workers are often involuntary, in the sense that they don't have any papers, their passport were confisctated by the shop managers, they don't speak the local language(s) and they're told bad things will happen to their family if they try to quit.

In which fantasy setting does this story take place?

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on September 30, 2017, 12:02:40 PM
One in which Guatemala is a South American country?  :P

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2017, 12:08:44 PM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on September 30, 2017, 12:02:40 PM
One in which Guatemala is a South American country?  :P

If they're still in Guatemala they're not really migrating, now are they?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2017, 12:08:44 PM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on September 30, 2017, 12:02:40 PM
One in which Guatemala is a South American country?  :P

If they're still in Guatemala they're not really migrating, now are they? 

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2017, 03:40:03 PM
Oh, you assholes are talking about Canada.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2017, 03:40:03 PM
Like I said, Land of Make-Believe.

Quote from: Ed Anger on October 01, 2017, 07:34:35 PM
Yuck. CFL football.

Quote from: Tyr on October 02, 2017, 08:27:53 AM
At first I dismissed the result on account of the low turnout and it being obvious no voters wouldn't bother to vote.
But saw this :

Catalonia:
90% vote Yes, turnout 42.3% = 38.1% of elec.
UK:
51.8% vote #Brexit, turnout 72.1%. = 37.5% of elec.

Yet one of them is being taken as holy writ and the other stamped  out.
And not the ones that should be.

Quote from: Tyr on October 02, 2017, 08:27:53 AM
At first I dismissed the result on account of the low turnout and it being obvious no voters wouldn't bother to vote.
But saw this :

Catalonia:
90% vote Yes, turnout 42.3% = 38.1% of elec.
UK:
51.8% vote #Brexit, turnout 72.1%. = 37.5% of elec.

Yet one of them is being taken as holy writ and the other stamped  out.
And not the ones that should be.

Quote from: Malthus on October 02, 2017, 09:19:58 AM
The difference is that the "no" side didn't think that the referendum was valid, so (mostly) stayed away.

There is no way of knowing whether the majority of the electorate who failed to turn up and vote, did so because they believed the referendum was illegitimate (and so ought to be counted as "no") or not.

Quote from: frunk on October 02, 2017, 09:33:28 AM

Quote from: Malthus on October 02, 2017, 09:19:58 AM
The difference is that the "no" side didn't think that the referendum was valid, so (mostly) stayed away.

There is no way of knowing whether the majority of the electorate who failed to turn up and vote, did so because they believed the referendum was illegitimate (and so ought to be counted as "no") or not.

Tyr's point is in the last column.  If you assume that everyone who stayed home would have voted 'no' in both cases there was about equal support for Catalonia and Brexit.

Quote from: Malthus on October 02, 2017, 09:37:51 AM
Yes, but there is a lot more legitimate reason to assume that in a case where one side has declared that the referendum is essentially illegal (and allegedly has a bunch of laws to point to, to prove it - I'm not a Spanish lawyer, but I assume that the constitution is as others say it is).

This is why referendums and the like tend to only "work" if their legitimacy is widely acknowledged in advance of the vote ("work" as in confer democratic legitimacy to the winner's position).

Quote from: frunk on October 02, 2017, 09:57:52 AM

Quote from: Malthus on October 02, 2017, 09:37:51 AM
Yes, but there is a lot more legitimate reason to assume that in a case where one side has declared that the referendum is essentially illegal (and allegedly has a bunch of laws to point to, to prove it - I'm not a Spanish lawyer, but I assume that the constitution is as others say it is).

This is why referendums and the like tend to only "work" if their legitimacy is widely acknowledged in advance of the vote ("work" as in confer democratic legitimacy to the winner's position).

Brexit had a higher turnout percentage, which means there's less "play" available in the numbers.  It also had a bias in favor of those who wanted out were more likely to go vote than the potential status quo voter, particularly since the polling numbers didn't get tight (and still favored staying in) until fairly close to the referendum.

Let's say the stay at homes for Brexit were 66/33 against (which this article (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/10/24/brexit-is-not-the-will-of-the-british-people-it-never-has-been/) mentions), while Catalonia it is 90/10 against.  That'll put you at:
Brexit: 46.7% pro Brexit
Catalonia: 43.9% pro Separation

Less than 3% difference between the two, which isn't much considering.

QuoteUber loses appeal in UK employment rights case

The ride-hailing firm Uber has lost an appeal against a ruling that its drivers be classed as workers with minimum-wage rights rather than as self-employed.

The landmark Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling could have major ramifications for labour rights in Britain's growing gig economy. The US company said it would launch a further appeal against the EAT decision.

Drivers James Farrar and Yaseen Aslam, backed by the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain (IWGB), won an employment tribunal case last year after arguing they should be classified as workers with rights such as minimum wage and holiday pay, rather than self-employed as Uber claimed.

Uber challenged the ruling at the EAT in central London, saying it could deprive drivers of the "personal flexibility they value".

The IWGB said the decision showed that firms were choosing to deprive workers of their rights.

Aslam said: "I have been campaigning against Uber since 2014 and, although I always knew I was on the right side, it has always been a struggle that has brought enormous pressure on us.

"I am glad that the judge today confirmed what I and thousands of drivers have known all along: that Uber is not only exploiting drivers, but also acting unlawfully."

Farrar said: "Uber cannot go on flouting UK law with impunity and depriving people of their minimum-wage rights. We have done everything we can, now it is time for the mayor of London, Transport for London and the transport secretary to step up and use their leverage to defend worker rights rather than turn a blind eye to sweatshop conditions."

The IWGB general secretary, Jason Moyer-Lee, said: "Today's victory is further proof, as if any more was needed, that the law is clear and these companies are simply choosing to deprive workers of their rights. These companies are making a mockery of supposed employment rights.

"The government needs to properly enforce the law and they need to do it now."

Frances O'Grady, the TUC general secretary, said: "Uber should throw in the towel and accept today's judgment. No company, however big or well-connected, is above the law. Uber must play by the rules and stop denying its drivers basic rights at work.

"This ruling should put gig economy employers on notice. Unions will expose nasty schemes that try and cheat workers out of the minimum wage and holiday pay. Sham self-employment exploits people and scams the taxman."

Tom Elvidge, Uber UK's acting general manager, said: "Almost all taxi and private hire drivers have been self-employed for decades, long before our app existed.

"The tribunal relies on the assertion that drivers are required to take 80% of trips sent to them when logged into the app. As drivers who use Uber know, this has never been the case in the UK.

"Over the last year we have made a number of changes to our app to give drivers even more control. We've also invested in things like access to illness and injury cover and we'll keep introducing changes to make driving with Uber even better."

Quote from: Grey Fox on November 10, 2017, 08:06:03 AM
It reflects reality.

Quote from: Grey Fox on November 10, 2017, 08:17:38 AM
It seems complicated & no easy solutions comes to mind, I agree, mainly because we are so brainwashed by Uber's marketing bullshit about driver flexibility.

How should they do it? How do regular taxi do it? Do that. Uber is a taxi company, respect those rules.

How would I do it?

I would do it by outlawing Uber & all app-based "ride sharing" company unless the cars are owned by the company.

Quote from: HVC on November 10, 2017, 09:08:20 AM
the medallion system (or whatever the term might be in your country) makes the barrier for entry into the taxi business stupidly expensive. Get rid of that, and make it that every vehicle used in public transit is insured and have background checks and it's all good.

Quote from: Tamas on November 10, 2017, 08:35:14 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on November 10, 2017, 08:17:38 AM
It seems complicated & no easy solutions comes to mind, I agree, mainly because we are so brainwashed by Uber's marketing bullshit about driver flexibility.

How should they do it? How do regular taxi do it? Do that. Uber is a taxi company, respect those rules.

How would I do it?

I would do it by outlawing Uber & all app-based "ride sharing" company unless the cars are owned by the company.

Tell me why don't the Uber drivers seek employment with the taxi companies?

Quote from: Tamas on November 10, 2017, 08:35:14 AM
Tell me why don't the Uber drivers seek employment with the taxi companies?

QuoteAlso, what about other self-employed people who enter into contracts with businesses that favour the business and fail to give the contractor the same protections as employees? Why nobody has been up in arms about them since, IDK ever?

Quote from: Tamas on November 10, 2017, 02:04:48 PM
Yes the public interest is engaged: public interest is to remove medieval guild practices from the taxi industry.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2017, 04:35:12 PM
I wonder how they measure their kilometers  :hmm:

Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2017, 04:47:13 PM
I don't understand what we are supposed to see in that photo - apart from a fat guy in shades with two other dudes.

Quote from: Jacob on November 14, 2017, 04:48:34 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2017, 04:47:13 PM
I don't understand what we are supposed to see in that photo - apart from a fat guy in shades with two other dudes.

Tamas believes that fat dudes in shades are clearly morally dubious and assumes we share that opinion.

Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2017, 04:47:13 PM
I don't understand what we are supposed to see in that photo - apart from a fat guy in shades with two other dudes.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2017, 04:52:06 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2017, 04:47:13 PM
I don't understand what we are supposed to see in that photo - apart from a fat guy in shades with two other dudes.

Expression, demeanor, bearing, body language, etc.

Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2017, 04:56:57 PM
Body language? :huh: We can see his lips and double chin. :D

Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 14, 2017, 06:47:04 PM
I don't think still photographs reveal much about a person's character. The presumption that they do makes for ok gags though.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 14, 2017, 06:47:04 PM
I don't think still photographs reveal much about a person's character. The presumption that they do makes for ok gags though.

Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2017, 04:47:13 PM
I don't understand what we are supposed to see in that photo - apart from a fat guy in shades with two other dudes.

QuoteUber concealed a massive global breach of the personal information of 57 million customers and drivers in October 2016, failing to notify the individuals and regulators, the company acknowledged on Tuesday.

Uber also confirmed it had paid the hackers responsible $100,000 to delete the data and keep the breach quiet, which was first reported by Bloomberg.

"None of this should have happened, and I will not make excuses for it," Uber chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi said in a statement acknowledging the breach and cover-up. "While I can't erase the past, I can commit on behalf of every Uber employee that we will learn from our mistakes."

Quote from: Tamas on November 14, 2017, 04:17:54 PM
I have bumped into the picture that I wanted to post here earlier, so I do it now.

The leader of taxi drivers' union/organisation, when he held a press conference during their anti-Uber protests (which did win and the government chased Uber out):

(https://4cdn.hu/kraken/image/upload/s--mMPDj-kT--/h_191,w_340/6v5GhELDYhC6EW8As.png)

Bunch of defenders of the downtrodden, clearly  :lol:

QuoteColorado fines Uber $8.9M for allowing dozens of unauthorized drivers
Colorado found many drivers with "suspended, revoked, or cancelled driver's licenses."
Cyrus Farivar - 11/21/2017, 1:25 PM
Ars Technica

Colorado authorities have issued an $8.9 million fine against Uber for authorizing drivers who had prior disqualifying criminal or vehicle-related offenses.

According to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, Uber allowed 57 drivers over the last 18 months to drive who should not have been permitted to drive for the company.

The agency wrote in a Monday statement that its staff "launched an investigation earlier this year after a referral from the Vail Police Department about an Uber driver accused of assaulting a passenger."

The PUC then cross-checked Uber's provided records with state criminal and court records.

"PUC staff found that Uber allowed individuals to drive with previous felony convictions, major moving violations (DUI, DWI, reckless driving, driving under restraint), and numerous instances of individuals driving with suspended, revoked or cancelled driver's licenses," the agency continued.

Following its investigation, the PUC found 12 Uber drivers had felony convictions, and one even had escaped from prison and nevertheless was allowed to drive with Uber.

According to the Denver Post, the PUC ran a similar check on Lyft drivers and found no such violations.

"We recently discovered a process error that was inconsistent with Colorado's ridesharing regulations and proactively notified the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)," Uber said in a statement provided by Stephanie Sedlak, a spokeswoman.

"This error affected a small number of drivers and we immediately took corrective action. Per Uber safety policies and Colorado state regulations, drivers with access to the Uber app must undergo a nationally accredited third-party background screening. We will continue to work closely with the CPUC to enable access to safe, reliable transportation options for all Coloradans."

QuoteUber loses London licence after TfL finds drivers faked identity

Uber has lost its licence to operate private hire vehicles in London after authorities found that more than 14,000 trips were taken with more than 40 drivers who had faked their identity on the Uber app.

Transport for London announced the decision not to renew the ride-hailing firm's licence at the end of a two-month probationary extension granted in September. Uber was told then it needed to address issues with checks on drivers, insurance and safety, but has failed to satisfy the capital's transport authorities.

TfL said on Monday it had identified a "pattern of failures" by Uber, including several breaches that placed passengers and their safety at risk.

In a statement, TfL said: "Despite addressing some of these issues, TfL does not have confidence that similar issues will not reoccur in the future, which has led it to conclude that the company is not fit and proper at this time."

The decision will not see Uber cars disappear from London immediately, as the firm has said it would appeal and could continue to operate pending the outcome provided it launched official proceedings within 21 days.

When TfL first rejected Uber's licence renewal, in September 2017, the firm eventually persuaded judges to award it a 15-month licence to continue.

While TfL said Uber had since made positive improvements, reservations remained – including a change to systems that allowed unauthorised drivers to upload their photos to other drivers' accounts. This security lapse resulted in at least 14,000 trips where someone other than the booked driver picked up passengers, TfL said.

The latest offence reported was less than three weeks ago. Some 43 fraudulent drivers have been discovered, including some whose licences had been revoked, one driver who had been cautioned for distributing indecent images of children.

Uber said it first notified TfL about the issue in May 2019 and had since implemented technical fixes to resolve it. A spokeswoman said an audit of all London drivers had demonstrated the fix was effective.

Jamie Heywood, Uber's regional general manager, said: "TfL's decision not to renew Uber's licence in London is extraordinary and wrong, and we will appeal.

"We have fundamentally changed our business over the last two years and are setting the standard on safety.

"On behalf of the 3.5 million riders and 45,000 licensed drivers who depend on Uber in London, we will continue to operate as normal and will do everything we can to work with TfL to resolve this situation."

London remains one of Uber's biggest worldwide markets. Shares in the firm fell almost 6% in pre-market trading in New York.

...

Quote from: DGuller on November 25, 2019, 12:05:43 PM
Old schools cartels are not just going to roll over when new tech assholes come for their racket.

Quote from: DGuller on November 25, 2019, 12:05:43 PM
Old schools cartels are not just going to roll over when new tech assholes come for their racket.

QuoteBet you'd find a lot of drivers of conventional cabs using fake IDs if you look hard enough.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2019, 03:56:48 PM
Uber is a minicab firm with an app.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2019, 04:22:21 PM
What I mean is there's nothing special or magical about the actual tech/platform. Which is why there are so many alternatives that do broadly the same.

I don't know what you mean by minicab firms having fixed number of drivers or pricing though.

QuoteThe dude who played Churchill in The King's Speech.

Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2019, 07:25:34 PM
Do minicab drivers have to pass that ridiculous memorization test as well, or is it only the black cab drivers?

QuoteUber to get London licence as court rules it 'no longer poses a risk'

Uber has been granted a further 18-month licence in London after an appeal found it was a "fit and proper" company to run private hire car services.

Westminster magistrates court ruled in favour of Uber almost a year after Transport for London (TfL) refused the ride-hailing firm a licence extension over safety concerns.

The deputy chief magistrate Tan Ikram said he had "sufficient confidence that Uber London Ltd [ULL] no longer poses a risk to public safety ... despite historical failings," after hearing three days of arguments this month.

He said Uber had tightened up review processes to tackle document and insurance fraud and it now "seems to be at the forefront of tackling an industry-wide challenge".

One of TfL's key safety concerns when refusing the licence last November was that up to 14,000 Uber trips had been served by non-licensed drivers fraudulently logging on to the app using other people's IDs.

The judge noted that TfL had since uncovered further areas of concern, including delays by Uber in removing three drivers who committed sexual assaults against passengers.

However, Ikram said: "ULL does not have a perfect record but it has been an improving picture ... I am satisfied that they are doing what a reasonable business in their sector could be expected to do, perhaps even more."

The new 18-month licence will come with 21 conditions, proposed jointly by TfL and Uber, which Uber argues should be a baseline for all similar services in London.

The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said: "I am pleased that Uber have admitted that their response to very real concerns about passenger safety was inadequate, and since then Uber has made improvements. I can assure Londoners that TfL will continue to closely monitor Uber and will not hesitate to take swift action should they fail to meet the strict standards required to protect passengers."

The ruling is a significant victory for Uber in one its biggest markets worldwide, where it has more than 40,000 drivers and faces challenges from a host of recent competitors.

Jamie Heywood, Uber's regional general manager, said: "This decision is a recognition of Uber's commitment to safety and we will continue to work constructively with TfL. There is nothing more important than the safety of the people who use the Uber app as we work together to keep London moving."

The firm argued that it had fundamentally changed in the three years since TfL first refused it a licence, in September 2017, when the transport company deemed it not "fit or proper" to operate in the capital. On that occasion Uber won a provisional extension on appeal, but it was again refused a licence last November over the identity concerns.

...

Quote from: Syt on September 28, 2020, 07:26:46 AM
Taxi companies are experimenting with using apps for ordering cabs, too.

Quote from: The Brain on September 28, 2020, 07:29:15 AM

Quote from: Syt on September 28, 2020, 07:26:46 AM
Taxi companies are experimenting with using apps for ordering cabs, too.

That's not standard? :unsure:

Quote from: Syt on September 28, 2020, 07:32:16 AM

Quote from: The Brain on September 28, 2020, 07:29:15 AM

Quote from: Syt on September 28, 2020, 07:26:46 AM
Taxi companies are experimenting with using apps for ordering cabs, too.

That's not standard? :unsure:

The framework for fares hasn't been extensively overhauled for Vienna (except raising prices) since 1954, so I would say they're a bit behind the times. Though when I call them on my cell they're quick to send me  confirmation via SMS. :)

QuoteUber drivers are workers, UK supreme court rules

The UK supreme court has dismissed Uber's appeal against a landmark employment tribunal ruling that its drivers should be classed as workers with access to the minimum wage and paid holidays.

Six justices handed down a unanimous decision backing the October 2016 employment tribunal ruling that could affect millions of workers in the gig economy.

The supreme court said any attempt by organisations to draft artificial contracts intended to side-step basic protections were void and unenforceable.

Judges criticised the controversial contracts Uber asked their drivers to sign, saying they "can be seen to have as their object precluding a driver from claiming rights conferred on workers by the applicable legislation".

In the judgment, Lord Leggatt said he was not convinced that the contractual arrangements Uber conducted with drivers were compliant with the regulatory regime supervised by Transport for London.

James Farrar, the co-lead claimant and general secretary of the App Drivers and Couriers union, said: "This ruling will fundamentally reorder the gig economy and bring an end to rife exploitation of workers by means of algorithmic and contract trickery. Uber drivers are cruelly sold a false dream of endless flexibility and entrepreneurial freedom.

"The reality has been illegally low pay, dangerously long hours and intense digital surveillance. I am delighted that workers at last have some remedy because of this ruling, but the government must urgently strengthen the law so that gig workers may also have access to sick pay and protection from unfair dismissal."

Frances O'Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, said: "No company is above the law. Uber must play by the rules and stop denying its drivers basic rights at work.

"This ruling is an important win for gig economy workers and for common decency. Sham self-employment exploits people and lets companies dodge paying their fair share of tax."

Uber will not be able to launch further appeals against the ruling.

The case will return to the employment tribunal, which will determine the level of compensation for the workers. Leigh Day, the law firm representing more than 2,000 workers with claims linked to the case, said they could each be due up to £12,000.

Uber has argued that the ruling applies to only a small number of workers involved directly in the case and that it is not obliged to apply its findings to its other drivers.

Jamie Heywood, Uber's regional general manager for northern and eastern Europe, said: "We respect the court's decision which focused on a small number of drivers who used the Uber app in 2016. Since then we have made some significant changes to our business, guided by drivers every step of the way. These include giving even more control over how they earn and providing new protections like free insurance in case of sickness or injury.

"We are committed to doing more and will now consult with every active driver across the UK to understand the changes they want to see."

The case began when two Uber drivers, Farrar and Yaseen Aslam, took Uber to court on behalf of a group of about 20 others who argued they were employed by the San Francisco-based company, rather than working for themselves.

It is one of a string of cases challenging the self-employed status of gig-economy workers, including action against the minicab firm Addison Lee and the delivery groups CitySprint, Excel and eCourier.

QuoteAmazon could owe drivers £140m in rights claim, says UK law firm
Leigh Day launches group action for drivers classed as self-employed and not entitled to employee rights
Joanna Partridge
Wed 13 Oct 2021 10.18 BST

Amazon could owe compensation totalling £140m to thousands of drivers delivering its parcels, according to a law firm that is launching a group claim on their behalf.

Drivers who deliver for Amazon through its "delivery service partners" are classed as self-employed, meaning they are not entitled to employee rights such as holiday pay and the minimum wage, while they also do not have an employment contract.

The law firm Leigh Day believes at least 3,000 drivers are affected, and could be entitled to an average of £10,500 in compensation for each year they have delivered for the online retail giant. It believes Amazon could owe drivers a total of £140m in compensation.

Leigh Day argues that the drivers' work and how they fit into the business is dictated by Amazon, and as a result believes that they should have more rights.

Drivers described to the law firm how the app gives them estimated travel times between deliveries, which they have to meet. They are also not able to return parcels to the Amazon depot, so have to use extra fuel to redeliver them at the end of the day.

After paying vehicle rental and insurance, drivers say they are often left with meagre earnings.

Leigh Day said it had launched a group claim on behalf of two delivery drivers and was looking for more to join the legal action.

Kate Robinson, a solicitor in the employment team at the firm, said: "Amazon is short-changing drivers making deliveries on their behalf. This is disgraceful behaviour from a company that makes billions of pounds a year.

"Drivers delivering for Amazon have to work set shifts and book time off, yet Amazon claim they are self-employed.

"For drivers, earning at least national minimum wage, getting holiday pay and being under a proper employment contract could be life changing."

Amazon said it was committed to ensuring drivers were fairly compensated by the delivery companies they worked with.

It added: "We're hugely proud of the drivers who work with our partners across the country, getting our customers what they want, when they want, wherever they are."

Leigh Day brought and won a landmark employment rights case for Uber drivers who had demanded basic workers' rights including minimum wage and paid holidays, which was expected to lead to better terms for millions of gig economy workers.

The legal firm represented more than 2,000 Uber drivers with claims linked to the case, who were victorious in February when the UK supreme court dismissed Uber's appeal against a previous employment tribunal ruling.

Uber, like many other delivery and courier companies, had argued that its drivers were self-employed and not entitled to the rights enjoyed by workers.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 13, 2021, 05:39:56 AM
"Drivers delivering for Amazon have to work set shifts and book time off, yet Amazon claim they are self-employed.