Claim's Cabbies Corner. Repo Revenge.

[mercrocker]

Glad to hear.....!

[Warren t claim]

Right then! A customer looked at my badge earlier and congratulated me on my anniversary! Has it really been six years since I got my badge back? Tempus Fugit!

Anyway back to the decline of Frank.

Having a company boss who works the road can be a mixed blessing. Half of the lads resented him working and taking jobs off them and thought that when it was quiet were pissed off that he was going job for job with them. Another problem was caused by his bit on the side operating and handing out the bookings, it was assumed that she was feeding him the cream of the bookings. Now there may be some truth in those rumours but not for reasons you might expect. In most small firms where the boss drives as well, it is a given that he cuffs the best jobs, a couple of examples in other firms are one where the boss always seemed to get the weekly run down to Harley Street to drop a surgeon off and another was a company run by Len Cross, a man I'll talk about at length later, who took plenty of old ladies all over the country while his lads were doing minimum fare supermarket runs.

Sadly the reason that Frank was cuffing jobs was just to keep the firm afloat. The absolute bare minimum required to keep a small taxi firm afloat is £1750 a week. Frank was down to maybe eight drivers each paying £80 a week and he needed to shark work and do six 18 hour shifts a week just to keep the lights on. Other small firms cut corners like shutting the office and diverting the phones to a dedicated night driver's mobile between midnight and six am but Frank refused to do that.

Times were getting hard.

I'll post more later.

[Warren t claim]

Having a company boss who works the road can be a mixed blessing. Half of the lads resented him working and taking jobs off them and thought that when it was quiet were pissed off that he was going job for job with them. Another problem was caused by his bit on the side operating and handing out the bookings, it was assumed that she was feeding him the cream of the bookings. Now there may be some truth in those rumours but not for reasons you might expect. In most small firms where the boss drives as well, it is a given that he cuffs the best jobs, a couple of examples in other firms are one where the boss always seemed to get the weekly run down to Harley Street to drop a surgeon off and another was a company run by Len Cross, a man I'll talk about at length later, who took plenty of old ladies all over the country while his lads were doing minimum fare supermarket runs.

OK, let's talk about Len Cross for a while.

Len worked until he was well into his 80s courtesy of medical backhanders. His office was based in an affluent area and he had the local pensioner market sewn up well. I moved into that area back in 1989 and then he drove a Princess which was replaced with a blue Mk3 Cavalier 2.0CD which was then followed by his last car, a Mercedes 190 2.0.

Len had one big quirk, he drove everywhere at 20mph totally oblivious of the road rage he was causing! The only exception was on his cuffed distance jobs dropping the old dears off at the cruise terminal in Southampton when he would floor his 190 all the way home due to him not wanting to drive at night because of his eyesight! His drivers were also OAPs making a few extra quid and the client base was mainly wealthy widows.

BRB x

[mercrocker]

That begs the question I've been wanting answered....How the hell did operators get on with 190Es? There was always fuckall rear leg room in mine and I'm not Twizzle but always had the seat well forward if folk were in the back.

[Warren t claim]

That begs the question I've been wanting answered....How the hell did operators get on with 190Es? There was always fuckall rear leg room in mine and I'm not Twizzle but always had the seat well forward if folk were in the back.

Len was a shortarse!

[Warren t claim]

As my career seems to have been overtaken by events recently regarding the High Court ruling on whether Uber drivers are employed or not I thought I'd throw my opinions into the ring.


This is a nice brief explanation of the Uber judgment. Make of it what you will
Reasons for the Judgment
Is a driver a "worker"?
Uber argued that Uber BV acted solely as a technology provider with its subsidiary (Uber London in this case) acting as a booking agent for drivers who are approved by Uber London to use the Uber app. Uber argued that, when a ride is booked through the Uber app, a contract is thereby made directly between the driver and the passenger whereby the driver agrees to provide transportation services to the passenger [1, 43]. The fare is calculated by the Uber app and paid by the passenger to Uber BV, which deducts part (20% in these cases) and pays the balance to the driver. Uber characterises this process as collecting payment on behalf of the driver and charging a "service fee" to the driver for the use of its technology and other services. To support its case, Uber relied on the wording of its standard written contracts between Uber BV and drivers and between the Uber companies and passengers (summarised at [22 - 29]). Uber also emphasised that drivers are free to work when they want and as much or as little as they want. In summary, Uber argued that drivers are independent contractors who work under contracts made with customers and do not work for Uber.
The Supreme Court disagrees. As on the facts there was no written contract between the drivers and Uber London, the nature of their legal relationship had to be inferred from the parties’ conduct [45 - 46] and there was no factual basis for asserting that Uber London acted as an agent for drivers [50 - 56]. The correct inference was that Uber London contracts with passengers and engages drivers to carry out bookings for it [54 - 56]. In any event, it is wrong in principle to treat the written agreements as a starting point in deciding whether an individual is a "worker" [57, 76]. The Supreme Court considers and explains its previous decision in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 [68 - 69 ]. The correct approach is to consider the purpose of the relevant employment legislation [70]. That purpose is to give protection to vulnerable individuals who have little or no say over their pay and working conditions because they are in a subordinate and dependent position in relation to a person or organisation which exercises control over their work [71 - 76]. The legislation also precludes employers, frequently in a stronger bargaining position, from contracting out of these protections [79 - 82].
The judgment emphasises five aspects of the findings made by the employment tribunal which justified its conclusion that the claimants were working for and under contracts with Uber [93].
First, where a ride is booked through the Uber app, it is Uber that sets the fare and drivers are not permitted to charge more than the fare calculated by the Uber app. It is therefore Uber which dictates how much drivers are paid for the work they do [94]. Second, the contract terms on which drivers perform their services are imposed by Uber and drivers have no say in them [95]. Third, once a driver has logged onto the Uber app, the driver’s choice about whether to accept requests for rides is constrained by Uber [96]. One way in which this is done is by monitoring the driver’s rate of acceptance (and cancellation) of trip requests and imposing what amounts to a penalty if too many trip requests are declined or cancelled by automatically logging the driver off the Uber app for ten minutes, thereby preventing the driver from working until allowed to log back on [97]. Fourth, Uber also exercises significant control over the way in which drivers deliver their services. One of several methods mentioned in the judgment is the use of a ratings system whereby passengers are asked to rate the driver on a scale of 1 to 5 after each trip. Any driver who fails to maintain a required average rating will receive a series of warnings and, if their average rating does not improve, eventually have their relationship with Uber terminated [98 - 99]. A fifth significant factor is that Uber restricts communications between passenger and driver to the minimum necessary to perform the particular trip and takes active steps to prevent drivers from establishing any relationship with a passenger capable of extending beyond an individual ride [100].
Taking these factors together, the transportation service performed by drivers and offered to passengers through the Uber app is very tightly defined and controlled by Uber. Drivers are in a position of subordination and dependency in relation to Uber such that they have little or no ability to improve their economic position through professional or entrepreneurial skill. In practice the only way in which they can increase their earnings is by working longer hours while constantly meeting Uber’s measures of performance [101]. The Supreme Court considers that comparisons made by Uber with digital platforms which act as booking agents for hotels and other accommodation [103 - 108] and with minicab drivers [109 - 117] do not advance its case. The drivers were rightly found to be "workers" [119].
When are the drivers "working" for Uber?
The Supreme Court also holds that the employment tribunal was entitled to find that time spent by the claimants working for Uber was not limited (as Uber argued) to periods when they were actually driving passengers to their destinations, but included any period when the driver was logged into the Uber app within the territory in which the driver was licensed to operate and was ready and willing to accept trips. [136 - 137].
References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment

[Eddie Honda]

Where's the opinions?

[Warren t claim]

Here's my opinion.

Although I do very little work with Uber this judgement does have far reaching implications for the private hire industry. I have absolutely no desire to become a paid employee and lose the freedoms that I currently enjoy but what I DO want is my current firm to respect my self employed status regarding my rights to return jobs I don't want to do without penalty and allow me to work another circuit, like Uber, without being blacklisted as they consider this a conflict of interest.

The recent ruling does open a can of worms for all PH/minicab companies because one of the main criteria for being classed as self employed was the ability of the individual to set his or her own prices. Now, my fellow PH driver here, NorfolkNweigh would not fall under this ruling because he has his own operators ticket and is free to set his own prices at what the market locally to him will stand. Myself on the other hand, who pays to work for a base, has no say in the fares structure I charge my passengers.

I've already been added to a secret FB group populated with litigious drivers working alongside me at the same firm eager to screw the base for thousands in unpaid holiday and sick pay. Unsurprisingly they've already consulted a firm of solicitors and want to crowd fund a claim.

I really don't have a fucking clue where I stand!

[Warren t claim]

For what it's worth here's my opinion of Uber.

As a driver who's worked on the Uber platform, I can say in all fairness that they aren't the enfant terrible of the gig economy that they are portrayed as in the media. A driver can expect four weeks of sick pay courtesy of their complimentary insurance scheme along with paid paternity leave if necessary. Absolutely no fucking chance of getting that from any normal minicab firm! The only real drawback of Uber is entitled Millenials rating a driver badly to get a free ride next time, Uber will ALWAYS believe the passenger over the driver. I'll agree that the rates Uber charge are utterly shite but that can be boosted by surge pricing that can pay a driver usually 2.3x normal fare, remember Uber charge the driver a % and therefore it's in their interest to screw as much money as they can out of the passenger! Regardless about what you've read about Uber drivers working without the correct paperwork in the press, I can assure you that isn't true. They are fucking paranoid about badges, plates and insurance being bang up to date!

[Eddie Honda]

I can see the problem of this halfway house of being a "worker". Employment legislation hasn't really caught up with reality.

In the olden days, my first self-employed stint was with a franchise of Apollo Despatch in Glasgow. I had to supply then vehicle, etc. and they dished out the work AND set the rates (min/mileage) AND took a cut of ALL the jobs, charged £4 p/w radio AND insisted livery/company items.

A fair few either were blagging on the insurance usage and/or signing on.

I was also taxi driving. I supplied the drivers' badge, they supplied the vehicle, etc. The council set the tariff/fares and at the end of a shift 60% of what was taken on the meter was weighed in, leaving me the rest without the hassle.

Both gigs were more self-employed for the convenience of the business as opposed to the worker.

One difference I noticed about despatching in/around London was that if a customer didn't have an account, the rider pocketed the lot - obviously helping the business distance the relationship and demonstrating that the rider had more than one supplier. Also some companies paid livery of £20pw or didn't insist on it, again due to being leant on by HMRC hunting around for some hidden employment where businesses were dictating too many things to the sub-contractor.

There does need to be a middle category between employed / self-employed so employment legislation fits better together with tax legislation.