Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:36 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 8:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 39104
Location: 1066 Country
toots wrote:
It's strange how everybody thinks it's a new way of working and suddenly needs fixing. It'd been going on for decades before the 'gig' gang joined in

It's not a case of fixing, akin to something that isn't broke, and no one I hear or see is saying self-employment should no longer be possible. What is being addressed is the responsibilities that organisations have who supply significant, if not all, employment opportunities to those self-employed people.

Why should they not have requirements that protect and support those that carry out their work, in the same way as those businesses who employ people do?

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 8:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:47 pm
Posts: 9951
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
Sussex wrote:
toots wrote:
It's strange how everybody thinks it's a new way of working and suddenly needs fixing. It'd been going on for decades before the 'gig' gang joined in

It's not a case of fixing, akin to something that isn't broke, and no one I hear or see is saying self-employment should no longer be possible. What is being addressed is the responsibilities that organisations have who supply significant, if not all, employment opportunities to those self-employed people.

Why should they not have requirements that protect and support those that carry out their work, in the same way as those businesses who employ people do?



the nature of self employment means you only receive money from the business/organisation that pays you everything else is YOUR OWN responsibility but the problem with the likes of Uber,Hermes Al etc. is that they forget that they do not have the right to CONTROL the self employed. What is needed is good swift kick up the jaxi for these businesses and make them FULLY AWARE that self employed people need holidays,breaks from work etc some times and should have the right to take work from where ever it is offered not Exclusively from them. Or if they want to be controlling and exclusive employ the staff directly

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 8:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 39104
Location: 1066 Country
edders23 wrote:
the nature of self employment means you only receive money from the business/organisation that pays you everything else is YOUR OWN responsibility but the problem with the likes of Uber,Hermes Al etc. is that they forget that they do not have the right to CONTROL the self employed. What is needed is good swift kick up the jaxi for these businesses and make them FULLY AWARE that self employed people need holidays,breaks from work etc some times and should have the right to take work from where ever it is offered not Exclusively from them. Or if they want to be controlling and exclusive employ the staff directly

If the above was true, then both Uber and City Sprint would have won their cases.

When I read the Uber Tribunal decision I was sort of blown away by how much responsibility an organisation has to someone who does work for them. It seems quite clear that there is little difference between someone who does work for someone (self-employed) and someone who works for someone (employed). Both are entitled to working benefits, be that sick or holiday pay, or other work type benefits.

If a driver chooses to work in the way most of us do, a pseudo self-employed, then there is nothing stopping that happening, just that in future we will have a few more protections.

That might cause a few bosses a few headaches, but as the Tribunal judge stated, without drivers there isn't a firm.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 9:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 14134
Location: On the move
Sussex wrote:
toots wrote:
It's strange how everybody thinks it's a new way of working and suddenly needs fixing. It'd been going on for decades before the 'gig' gang joined in

It's not a case of fixing, akin to something that isn't broke, and no one I hear or see is saying self-employment should no longer be possible. What is being addressed is the responsibilities that organisations have who supply significant, if not all, employment opportunities to those self-employed people.

Why should they not have requirements that protect and support those that carry out their work, in the same way as those businesses who employ people do?


I clearly didn't make myself clear. My point is there is nothing new about this but it's strange that now there are 'gig' guys doing it there needs to be responsibilities from these organisations as you call them. I call them private hire operators and don't really see much difference. I get that this case isn't specifically taxi related, but, it is hot on the heels of the Uber case.

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 39104
Location: 1066 Country
What is new is the way the likes of Uber and City Sprint are trying to bypasss their responsibilities and legal requirements.

It's as clear as night follows day that Uber have no chance of repaying their investors if they have the same outgoings and responsibilities as normal organisations.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 7:24 pm
Posts: 6587
AS USUAL YOU PHILISTINES KEEP AVOIDING THE "WORKER" DEFINITION WHICH IS OF COURSE WHAT UBER AND CITY SPRINT ARE UP AGAINST IN THESE CASES #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o FFS

_________________
All posts by this contributor are made in a strictly personal capacity and as such should not be associated with any organisation whatsoever!

I AM PROUD TO BE A CITIZEN NOBODY'S SUBJECT http://www.republic.org.uK

VOTE CORBYN!!

JOIN A UNION


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 14134
Location: On the move
Sussex wrote:
What is new is the way the likes of Uber and City Sprint are trying to bypasss their responsibilities and legal requirements.

It's as clear as night follows day that Uber have no chance of repaying their investors if they have the same outgoings and responsibilities as normal organisations.


I agree they are trying to bypass these things but lets be honest here what responsibilities do regular operators have towards drivers?

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm
Posts: 976
The same as UBER and CITY SPRINT and they are c******* themselves over it as they know they have been found wanting also.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 7:24 pm
Posts: 6587
heathcote wrote:
The same as UBER and CITY SPRINT and they are c******* themselves over it as they know they have been found wanting also.


YES THE ENTIRE PH AND COURIER INDUSTRY WILL GET SHAGGED BY THIS AND PERSONALLY I AM DELIGHTED =D> =D> =D>

_________________
All posts by this contributor are made in a strictly personal capacity and as such should not be associated with any organisation whatsoever!

I AM PROUD TO BE A CITIZEN NOBODY'S SUBJECT http://www.republic.org.uK

VOTE CORBYN!!

JOIN A UNION


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:47 pm
Posts: 9951
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
trotskys twin wrote:
heathcote wrote:
The same as UBER and CITY SPRINT and they are c******* themselves over it as they know they have been found wanting also.


YES THE ENTIRE PH AND COURIER INDUSTRY WILL GET SHAGGED BY THIS AND PERSONALLY I AM DELIGHTED =D> =D> =D>



wait and see this is just the early skirmishes I think this will be a loooooong campaign before either "side" can claim victory

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 39104
Location: 1066 Country
toots wrote:
Sussex wrote:
What is new is the way the likes of Uber and City Sprint are trying to bypasss their responsibilities and legal requirements.

It's as clear as night follows day that Uber have no chance of repaying their investors if they have the same outgoings and responsibilities as normal organisations.


I agree they are trying to bypass these things but lets be honest here what responsibilities do regular operators have towards drivers?

Well it appears the Tribunal is saying they have significant responsibilities, and should Uber lose their appeals (which I believe they will lose) then it will be down to everyone to ensure operator's do do what the law says they should.

If not then councils should review their 'fit and proper' status.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group