Brighton GMB taxi rep wrote:
Additionally [Uber] runs a rating system for drivers used by
customers which is effectively a performance monitoring
system. This is very much on par with where an
employer carries out regular assessments on a member
of staff.
Oh, really?
So Uber runs a driver 'performance monitoring system', but most other circuits don't, including Mr Peters' operation?
Of course, everyone knows that's nonsense, as a quick look round his firm's website demonstrates. For example, their Contact page has a specific email address for its 'Customer Care Department'. What's that if it's not a 'performance monitoring system'? Of course, that can be about stuff other than drivers per se, but if you have any complaints about drivers then that's an obvious route to take.
Then there's the Feedback page, and this in particular, which requests feedback on 'your driver experience':
Note the questions about the driver's politeness, whether they were 'helpful' and 'followed specific instructions'
Which I'm guessing is slightly more in-depth than Uber's star rating system.
Of course, the obvious counter-argument is that the process here isn't about specific, identifiable drivers, therefore not at all comparable to Uber's process. But the form continues:
So it looks very like it's open to customers to provide information about specific trips and drivers, which presumably Streamline would follow up with the driver, if required, and dump them in extreme cases, presumably. What was that about only Uber having a 'performance monitoring system'?
On the other hand, many would argue that Uber's system is more accessible to the customer, so even if the average circuit has processes similar to Streamline's, these processes will only be used in extreme cases, while Uber customers will be much more inclined to 'rate your driver', or whatever it's called (I'm assuming it's not actually compulsory for Uber riders to use the star rating system).
Which is all very true, but surely that's simply about the advance of technology and making complaints procedures more accessible to customers rather than any change in the fundamental driver/operator relationship.
By the same token, maybe 40 years ago, if you wanted to complain about a Tesco store, I suspect it would be difficult to do anything other than go back to the store and ask to see the manager. But a few years later they maybe had the call centre complaints stuff (facilitated by advances in telephony), then complaints via email (no more snail mail to company HQ), now via Twitter etc. And, of course, there are other methods for assessing performance, such as the 20-point or so questionnaires Tesco have been emailing me recently to assess my 'shopping experience', which took long enough to complete in terms of simply box-ticking, but I could have easily spent an hour on typing out specific follow up points in the text boxes.
So 30 years ago, a complaint to Streamline would have very probably simply entailed a phone call to the office, but now there's the email options and online forms. And Uber's app-based ratings system is simply utilising the more accessible technology, as I'm sure other circuits using apps are adopting as well.
Indeed, if B&H Council was to say to Streamline that they needed to evidence their driver 'performance monitoring system' in order to demonstrate their fit and proper status for their operator's licence, you can bet your bottom dollar that Mr Peters would produce pages and pages of stuff to show that his firm does indeed closely monitor driver performance.
(And isn't it just slightly contradictory that those who say Uber's star ratings and thus micromanaging drivers to the nth degree demonstrates a high level of control also argue that Uber's drivers are the world's worst?
)
And even ignoring the technology, if you're arguing that Uber drivers are more micromanaged than rival firms, maybe this is more about different approaches to quality control than about the driver/operator relationship in terms of employment status.
For example, workers in Tesco stores all wear a company uniform of some sort. A worker in a corner shop/convenience store might well be allowed to wear anything they like. But I can't see how that would really impact on employment status in that scenario - it's more about different business approaches to quality control rather than whether the person is an employee, 'worker' or self-employed.
So Uber drivers are quite tightly managed by the star rating thing, but not in terms of company uniform (say), that *is* required by other circuits. In fact I'm not really sure if Uber has a dress code of any kind, but in the grand scheme of the Supreme Court judgement I'm not really sure it matters. But, of course, there's obviously a degree of overlap in that customer-oriented quality control stuff like dress codes and uniforms can be indicative of control and subordination and to that extent is a factor as regards employment status, but obviously there are many different aspects to consider, and lots of arguments either way, and the whole question has to be considered in the round.
For what it's worth, my own opinion on the Uber rating system is that it's just too crude, and always makes me think of people rating CDs on Amazon. You know, a band releases a new CD, and the fanboys (and girls) will roll up, and wouldn't dream of giving it anything other than a five-star rating, or maybe the odd four, even though the new album is a pile of pants.
Then there's the haters, who'll automatically give everything by the band a one-star rating (or maybe two, if they're feeling generous). I'm sure the average Uber customer isn't quite like that, but, you know, particularly if you've spent any time driving a cab...
Anyway, like so much else about Uber (and the terminology like 'riders, 'ride-hailing', the 'gig economy', 'peer-to-peer', blah, blah) it seems to me that people highlighting the star-rating system are simply trying to use advances in technology and communications, and the booking and despatch technology in particular, to make Uber sound like something totally new. Whereas in terms of trade substance and fundamentals, I've never really seen that, and people like Mr Toy and Mr Peters are just trying to hide the wood behind the trees, simply because it suits there purposes. Or other words like deflection and obfuscation might be appropriate - they're trying to make small differences seem like big ones (I'm sure there's a fancy word or phrase to describe this kind of thing), thus trying to hide the bigger picture and fundamentals, particularly when it comes to things like employment status.
Here's a wee analogy I keep thinking about, which may seem a bit daft, but there you go...
But maybe 40+ years ago I recall buying a few singles and LPs
via mail order, for stuff I couldn't get in our local record stores. Nowadays, I'd maybe buy the odd CD via Amazon.
So of course you could write thousands of words about how CDs (and now MP3s) differ from vinyl 45s and albums, and how Amazon is different to mail order. And how, for example, you can 'track' where your delivery driver is, while in the good old days you wouldn't have a clue if your order hadn't been despatched, whether your delivery was just a couple of streets away, or whether your order letter and cheque or postal order had maybe gotten lost in the post and the record store might never receive your order.
So the formats are different, and now I'm listening to albums on my phone via earpieces, or via a bluetooth speaker. No more cassettes cluttering up the car - I can put literally 1,000 albums on a USB stick or SD card, and play them through the car's stereo that way. Or bluetooth them from my phone.
So it all looks different, but in a more fundamental sense it's just the same as back in the 1970s. The bands are playing their guitars and drums in a recording studio, and I'm buying the end result. Similarly, the ordering and despatch process might be a whole lot different, but at the end of the day it's usually just someone rolling up in a van to deliver the CDs, just as happened with the vinyl back in the 1970s.
Which is a bit like how I see Uber and employment status - lots of relatively minor distinctions without real differences.
(Close observers might be wondering why I'm buying CDs, but listening to MP3s via Bluetooth in the car. Well, call me old fashioned, but I normally still buy the CDs, then rip them, then just store the CDs away. In fact they're not MP3s, they're ACC format, which is what iTunes uses, and the format iTunes uses to rip CDs. So, just like Uber, they're the same, but different.)
But that's another 1,500 words or so just to state the obvious - I mean, as if the vast majority of circuits don't have some form of driver monitoring system, or whatever it's called.