Friday, September 14, 2018
Joint Founder Of The Fellowship of Hackney Carriage Drivers, To Send Back His Freedom Of The City Certificate.
Thursday, September 13, 2018
The Danish supreme court on Thursday ratified fines given to four Uber drivers for operating illegally, paving the way for similar fines on a further 1,500 drivers.
The four taxi drivers, one of whom was fined 486,500 Danish crowns ($78,060), were charged with failing to have permits and for violating a law introduced to combat Uber which imposed extra rules on taxis operating in Denmark.
After launching its service in Denmark in 2014, Uber Technologies Inc was criticized by taxi driver unions, companies and politicians who said the company posed unfair competition by not meeting legal standards required for established taxi firms.
"We are very disappointed for the drivers involved and our top priority is to support them during this difficult time," an Uber spokeswoman said.
"We are changing the way we do business and are operating in line with local laws across Europe, connecting with professionally licensed drivers," she said.
The landmark case means the police can issue a fine for each individual ride made by Uber's more than 1,500 drivers in the country between 2014 and 2017.
A spokesman for the Copenhagen police said it would assess the verdict and decide next week how to proceed.
Parliament passed a law in February 2017 that introduced more stringent requirements on taxis, such as mandatory fare meters and seat sensors. The new rules prompted Uber's withdrawal.
The company has previously said it would pay any fine given to its drivers, according to Danish newspaper Berlingske
Source : Rueters
TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT:
Meanwhile here in London, our largest org’s General Secretary Steve McNamara says they, the LTDA will not be contesting the Uber verdict from conflict of interest Judge Emma Arbuthnot.
Even though Uber admitted in court they were operating illegally, there are no plans to take the responsible TfL directors to court for knowingly allowing Yber to operate illegally for 6 years .... (the proof is available)
Drivers are now wondering if Steve McNamara is actually representing the best interests of his membership, or the best interests of TfL?
Points must have reason, and the runs connected between two points clearly demonstrate a knowledge students ability to travel in a direct and positive way, so the examiners deliberately 'pinging' points of stupidity to a nervous student serves no point at all and wastes an examination of 'Knowledge' which is precisely the point everyone is attending on the day.
I remember getting the 'odd' red herring point to put me in my place and served as a reminder to current day a passengers awkwardness and understand why a random shop in a random high street occasionally arises, but looking at some of the points being asked and even getting both the points the examiner excludes one or two important roads necessary to complete the run,....and again I understand the necessity to do this due to the roadwork madness we all have to circumnavigate, but looking at the points and excluded routes particularly given that specific candidates have been doing the knowledge for some time demonstrates to me a deliberate attempt to hinder progression particularly 'older' students who are subjected to a change in career but find the going 'complicatedly' difficult for no real reason.
The knowledge is not easy, it never was, but The Mr Millers, Mr Shoens, Mr Mayhews and others to many to name, would never have conducted the trivial point exercises currently being used which are preventing knowledge progression and dampening the enthusiasm of candidates who clearly share their blights with outsiders who might have been considering starting the world famous knowledge but are being put off by a created absurdity!
Maybe that is the official point to kill the interest off?
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
Sunday, September 09, 2018
Why We Should All Support Chris Johnson’s Tribunal Case Against Taxi Hailing App- MyTaxi... by Sean Paul Day
There are those, especially newer drivers who didn’t experience a time before apps existed, who don’t feel they (as service providers) are being taken advantage of or that the apps are acting in any way that is remotely predatorial? If you are one such person, then it’s only natural you’d like it to stay that way?
Taxi driver Chris Johnson’s tribunal claim against MyTaxi is not about taking away how we currently use the app, or doing away with the apps altogether, far from it, Chris Johnson’s case is about the accountability of the app companies themselves.
Chris personally feels he was unfairly deactivated, or at the very least, not offered an explanation as to why he was deactivated. The closest he got was to be told that MyTaxi ‘didn’t need a reason’ to deactivate drivers. It was only after several unsuccessful attempts at getting a satisfactory answer that he decided to take matters further.
To be clear, this is not a debate over whether he was or wasn’t unfairly dismissed, its about his right to contest the dismissal, the same as he would in any other work place. For MyTaxi to win, they will have to argue drivers act independently on the app, and MyTaxi is merely an agent and the app a proviso for the driver to accept jobs- to ply for hire if you will. This alone would strengthen our trade immeasurably.
In theory, it also heaps pressure on Uber to apply conditions so their drivers unequivocally do not ply4hire- the province of licensed taxis only- which solidifies The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling that Uber drivers should be classified as workers, entitled to basic employment rights. And if that is so, the pending court battle over claims uber has failed to pay (what could amount to) hundreds of millions of pounds in VAT is also strengthened. So all those who want PH to pay the congestion charge? Well if Uber has to pay VAT then costs to use an Über will also rise, no,
Conversely, if Über is entitled to pay Taxi drivers compensation for loss of earning and the intention to cause harm,, then why isn’t MyTaxi also entitled to pay compensation if (1) a driver’s income is detrimentally effected by a dismissal and (2) the driver has been unfairly dismissed?
At the very least, the case should stop the app companies from thinking they can do want they want, when they want, and get away with it. And if MyTaxi flatly refuse to declare their hand as a plying app, then maybe they too should be subjected to the same responsibilities as others who’re engaged in an employment relationship.
There is simply no argument for not supporting this case. If tomorrow MyTaxi says you have to stand in the middle of Piccadilly Circus with your thumb in your ass and pirouette 3 times, and if you refuse you’re deactivated? What recourse would there be? Couple that with fewer and fewer jobs on the street, and…? Think seriously about protecting what you’re enjoying now.
It’s time to disambiguate. Incertitude only serves those who hold the controlling capacity, and the trade has been left in limbo for long enough. No doubt, a regulatory framework will be formatted at some point down the line, and personally, I’d rather that formatting be influenced by drivers than be left to those whose end game involves the demise of the taxi trade
We have a two year window to make the trade attractive enough to encourage potential drivers into undertaking the KOL. As it stands, I don’t think the apps provide enough distinction to entice drivers to commit four years of their life to studying when they could be driving for Über within 28 days. If the KOL draws to a natural end, then what are we left with? A vehicle that’s not allowed into certain roads? If this doesn’t get the trade thinking they need to do whatever it takes to defend what we have left to defend, then nothing will.
Chris Johnson is looking to raise £18,000 to fund a legal challenge against MyTaxi.