Uber drivers are workers, UK supreme court rules

[Admiral Yi]

God bless Uber.

[Jacob]

IMO, a company's competitive advantage should not come from circumventing the regulations its competitors have to follow.

[Barrister]

IMO, a company's competitive advantage should not come from circumventing the regulations its competitors have to follow.

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.

[Jacob]

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.

[Tamas]

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.

The cost of the drivers will be the 30 thousands Uber drivers who will have to figure out how to feed their families now.

I am admittedly not familiar with London taxi regulations, but in basically all places such regulations are in place to limit people who can enter the market. Some of that for good reason - some oversight is necessary since we are talking about people being driven around by strangers in their cars - but a lot of it is medieval guild practices.

The result of those regulations is lack of competition which is very bad for the consumer. And there are far more people who use taxis than those who drive them.

Plus, businesses get outcompeted and die every day. It's just that a lot of them don't happen to have the pull of the taxi lobby.

Finally, I'd recommend you read up on newspaper articles when automobiles started arriving as taxis in cities and started to put horse drawn carriages out of business. You could copy-paste the outrage from there to the anti-Uber articles. Well, at least the ones that were written in Hungary roughly a 100 years ago.

[garbon]

Not sure why you are attacking the pro-taxi stance with relation to Jacob when that's clearly not his position.

[Tamas]

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.

[garbon]

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.

Well, I'm not sure why we should be dazzled by your lack of imagination. I'm anti-Uber and yet still think taxis in London are terrible. I don't think I've used a black cab for non-business purpose for at least a year.  My anti-Uber stance is not because I want a taxi monopoly maintained, far from it.

I do think it should be possible to run a service though where you report crimes as they occur, you don't allow rampant sexual harassment to the point that when running a board meeting to discuss sexual harassment - you have a board member who you need to ask to step down because he made sexist statements at said meeting, you don't have high level executives obtaining and peering through the medical records of a woman who claims one of your driver's raped her, you don't have to sneak in code past Apple to keep track of former user's devices, you don't have to decide to invest in driverless cars and ignore state laws on signing up to be tester - only to withdraw your stance once your vehicles are caught violating traffic regulations, where you have better screening of your employees that you don't consider employees, etc.

I mean, I'm sure many corporations engage in shady behavior but Uber is rather blatant about it.

[DGuller]

Uber 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.

Sounds like the typical protectionist bullshit.  Safety first, blah blah.  All politically astute cartels cover protect themselves with unnecessary "quality guarantees".

[garbon]

I'm not really sure our current mayor is part of a cartel.

[DGuller]

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.

Uber is a super shady company, true, but collectively the taxi cartel is an order of magnitude higher in scumminess.  Maybe even two orders of magnitude.

[DGuller]

I'm not really sure our current mayor is part of a cartel.

No, he sounds like he's part of cartel's political cover.

[celedhring]

As usual there's a happy medium between a market artificially closed to new participants and a company that bases its value on circumventing safety and work regulations trough legal loopholes. We (in general, not languish in particular) seem to be unable to achieve that medium.

[Jacob]

Interesting and thorough (and somewhat long) article on Uber in London and the troubles they're having: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/understanding-uber-not-app/

[Jacob]

One of the regulations Uber failed to follow - and confirmed that they would continue failing to follow - is reporting sexual assaults by their drivers to the police (in spite of giving the victims who reported the assaults to Uber the impression that they would report it.

The reasons given for denying the license are:

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.