Taxi Driver Online

Had a slightly closer read of the Brighton GMB rep's article on the Uber case earlier, and here's a few points that may be of interest. Just a few things that stood out, particularly after looking at some stuff on his firm's website. So by no means covers all the bases, but it would be pointless spending hours and hours going over everything with a fine tooth comb.

Anway, it's split over several posts so it's not one big splurge:

Indeed there are many such firms, but surely the operator's business structure isn't really relevant to the question of employment status?

Of course, if you're a member of the association or co-op, then that obviously changes things. I mean, in the extreme, if you're the sole proprietor of a circuit, but also a driver on that circuit, then it's a bit of a stretch to think that that circuit might in any way control you with regard to employment status.

So unless you're actually a member of the co-op or association, or whatever, then if you're a grassroots driver paying a fee it's irrelevant how the operator is structured in business terms. Was it relevant that Uber was initially privately owned, and that it's now publicly owned (after the IPO)?

Would it have mattered if when Uber was privately owned the shareholders were just two people, or hundreds of people? Or does it matter now that it's publicly owned (in UK terms it's gone from being a limited company (Ltd) to a public limited company (plc))? Or if it's publicly owned, does it matter if it's a few huge shareholders who own it, or thousands of 'Sids' (remember them?) owning a handful of shares each?

The simple answer is no - none of that is at all relevant to your employment status if you're a grassroots driver paying a fee or commission. Who precisely owns the business you're working for, and how that business is owned and structured, isn't really relevant.

By the same token, does it matter if the circuit you work for in Manchester or Liverpool is owned by a sole proprietor, a partnership, a co-op or association, a limited company or plc? Can't see that it does, but if anyone can see anything in the Supreme Court judgement that indicates that any of that sort of stuff does matter, then please put it up.

So whether your circuit is owned by Dave Chancer in Dundee or shareholders in Wall Street, it doesn't make a jot of difference as far as I can see.

('Dave Chancer' was a character in a TV ad run by a PH startup in Dundee, and he was supposed to be representative of the HC trade )

Just as if you're working on the tills for a family-owned corner shop then it should make no difference to your employment status if you're working for Tesco plc owned by thousands of people like your or me, or owned by huge shareholders in Tesco plc like pension funds and insurance companies. In either case, if you're working the tills then you'll almost certainly be a PAYE employee.

So the Brighton co-op stuff seems just the usual trick of trying to make things seems different to Uber when the reality is that business structure and ownership isn't really relevant and is a red herring.

Ah, so fares from app bookings and account work are funneled via the operator before being redirected back to the drivers (the blue lettering). Who knew?

But Mr Peters seems to think that Uber is different because there's no commission deducted. But we've been over this quite a few times in the weeks since the Supreme Court ruling, so there's no point revisting the %age model versus the flat fee. I think it's irrelevant to the issue, as do others. Obviously many disagree with that, but no real point rehashing all that again, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Mr Peters' first point (the mauve coloured text, which I assume is about cash fares) also seems to be trying to distinguish Uber from more traditional setups. But again I can't see that that's relevant. If Uber had started using payment methods like the traditional firms, would that have made any difference to the judgement? Can't see it, somehow.

And I'm not sure if Uber is now taking cash payments (in other 'jurisdictions', if not the UK), but would that make any difference? Can't see that it would.

By the same token, can't see that it would make any difference to employment status if twenty years ago a driver on ABC Cars was doing mainly cash or mainly account work.

(One journeyman driver here is [or was ] often complaining that his most of his total for the night would come from an airport account run, which was a pain in terms of getting the cash. [I think he was supposed to be paid cash at the end of the shift, so the fact that it was an account payment wasn't *his* problem in terms of the payment being made weeks later, it was having the cash in *his* pocket at the end of the night, which was his entitlement but was a problem if he'd done little cash work that night, obviously.])

But the point is that whether all his runs were cash, or all were account work, can't see how it would impact on his employment status position.

A related point is in turn relevant to a point made on here a couple of weeks ago about how Uber was different because it held customer details that wasn't available to drivers. Again, what's different about that? Of course, no two firms will likely hold precisely the same customer details (unless perhaps they're using the same software, obviously), and they'll tend to record less details for cash work than for app or account work.

But below is the application form for a personal credit account with Brighton Streamline (which is in the public domain via their website). I mean, how does this differ from Uber, and how much of this info is held by the operator and not available to the drivers, thus just like Uber?

And, in fact, I'd put money on Streamline requiring *more* information than Uber requires for an account. I mean, details of the applicant's employer (business address and phone number), whether they're maybe living with parents, whether they're perhaps a housewife (the feminists would cry 'misogyny' for that alone these days, and of course misogyny may soon be a crime ), whether you have an account with another *taxi company* (not a private hire firm run by a partnership, say ), and you're required to name any other taxi company you have an account with, and state the balance on your account with them...

(Interesting too that the form is titled 'Brighton & Hove Streamline Taxis Limited'. I thought only limited companies were allowed to use the term Limited after their name. So how does that square with the claim that it's a co-op, which is a different ownership structure?

To be fair, a quick Google suggests that, loosely speaking, a co-op could be a limited company. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, that would mean the *company* would be owned by *shareholders*, which doesn't sound quite the same as that portrayed by Mr Peters.

But, as regards employment status, it all looks irrelevant anyway, which goes back to what I said initially about the co-op stuff being just an attempt to deflect from the similarities with Uber.)

Anyway, for the record here's the form:

38 years?

Must be even older than me

Anyway, as regards the text in blue, again Mr Peters seems to be distinguishing his operation from Uber on the basis that they charge the council-regulated fares (both HCs and PHVs use the same meters in Brighton, as far as I know, which seems to be the point he's making.)

I'd argue otherwise, but have already spent a lot longer on this than anticipated, so will leave that till another time.

However, what about this on Brighton Streamline's website? The page is called Fare Deals, and I'm assuming it's fixed-price, below-meter runs. Which is of course pretty bog standard in the trade, but as regards comparisons with Uber, who decides these deals, and what happens if drivers charge a different fare?

https://www.streamlinetaxis.org/fare-deals

Then there's the - you've guessed it - 'transport to all major airports at competitive rates'. You mean drivers don't decide their own rates to the airport?

https://www.streamlinetaxis.org/airport-transfers

(As an aside, and with regard to another thread, interesting that the standard Gatwick drop in a saloon is £50, while the pick up there is £67. That's 34% dearer for the pick-up. Or are these old prices and the drop is now dearer? )

Not really sure what his point here is at all, except lots of irrelevant information designed to deflect from the fundamental similarities ('obfuscation' is a word that's been used quite often recently in relation to the Salmond inquiry).

There's the repeated stuff about HC fares, payment methods, fixed or commission fees for drivers. But the main point seems to be about how PH-only firms using 'soft meters' are somehow a bit different to the average PH-only operator, and of course different to Mr Peters' mixed fleet charging mainly the council tariff.

But I can't really sees the relevance of the 'soft meter' at all. I mean, compare a PH operator with a soft-meter to a more old-fashined one using mileage charts handed to drivers, say. What difference does that make to the drivers' employment status?

Absolutely none, I'd guess

And again, if anyone's actually read the Supreme Court judgement and can point to anything that might suggest the soft meter thing is relevant, then go ahead

Ever had all of the likes of that stuff above in *one* message window, and you accidentally close the tab, and it all disappears permanently, and you feel like your whole world is collapsing

Not today, fortunately, but have certainly lost hundreds of words that way in the past.

Anyway, had another wee bit I'd intended doing, but run out of time, so will do that tonight or tomorrow.

And anyone annoyed in any way by the stuff above, you don't have to read it, you know

That's why every post includes the author's name in the corner, surprise, surprise.

And, in case anyone hasn't inspected all of the TDO innards, you can set your account so that you don't have to read posts by those you don't like. Go into 'User Control Panel' in the top right of the screen. On the left there's an option called 'Friends & Foes'. From there, click on 'Manage Foes'.

From there, just enter the names of anyone whose posts you don't want to read. My username is:

StuartW

Very interesting point that I hadn't considered.

I agree the amount of owners is a point that has no basis on the control a firm has over all drivers, be they shareholders, non shareholder drivers, or journeymen. Especially when some vehicles are controlled by the firm on behalf of non working owners.

_________________
IDFIMH

He gets disciplined and the excess fare is refunded.

_________________
IDFIMH

I think that's part of the problem, not enough people writing articles in the trade's press have actually read the full judgement.

And if they have read it in full they most certainly haven't understood it.

_________________
IDFIMH

Maybe something along the lines of this Canadian taxi law might help matters over here.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/empl ... ction-37-1

_________________
IDFIMH

Yes, and I think the basic point is that how the operation is owned and structured is irrelevant to a grassroots driver.

Take a 500-car circuit in a big city, for example.

Without investigation it's not immediately obvious whether it's set up as a:

- sole trader
- partnership
- limited company
- plc

From the customer's or driver's perspective it wouldn't really matter. Which is why in the driver's case it's not really relevant to his employment status.

In the list above, as businesses they're roughly listed in order of size - sole traders tend to be smaller, limited companies a bit bigger, and obviousy plcs bigger still.

But you could have a limited company running a 20-car circuit, say, while a sole trade could run a 200-car operation. Apparently Sports Direct was run as a sole trader setup owned by Mike Ashley even when he had 100 stores and 1,000s of *employees*. But if ye or me went into a Sports Direct store, we wouldn't know whether it's owned by a sole trader, or a plc. But either way those working in the store would almost certainly be employees, because the ownership of the firm isn't relevant to their employment status.

Of course, plcs would be unusual in the trade, but I think Addison Lee was maybe a plc when it was involved in the employment status case? But the point is that whether it was owned by John Griffin as a sole trade, or as a limited company with Griffin as a major shareholder, or as a plc, none of that would be relevant.

[And I don't think setting up a plc is as difficult and dramatic as it sounds - the basic difference between a limited company (Ltd) and a public limited company (plc) is simply that shares in the latter can be sold to the public. So I think you could set up a plc fairly straightforwardly without actually selling shares to the public on a stock exchange, which is the more difficult bit, and is basically the same process as Uber went through with its IPO.])

Of course, a co-op is a bit different, but again if a driver isn't part of the ownership structure then I can't see that it's any different to working for a sole trade, partnership, or limited company, blah blah.

(And I don't know precisely how Streamline is owned and structured, but unless all drivers are equal members of the co-op then the fact it's a co-op is irrelevant, as is Mr Peters' wider point about co-ops and associations (like TOAs that run circuits, presumably)).

Likewise, if Uber Technologies Inc was owned solely by Wall Street investors that may seem like a whole different ball game to Dave Chancer's circuit in Dundee, but from the driver's perspective I can't see that it matters.


Yes, and that's another complication that's fairly common in the trade, but wouldn't be evident in the Uber case - drivers in cars that aren't owned by them but don't belong to the circuit either

Which in fact was what I should have mentioned earlier in relation to my pal here with his big account runs. So he's got £100 in fares for his shift, thus he's due £40. But his shift consisted £20 cash runs around town, and an £80 run to the airport. So he's got £20 cash, but he's due £40 for his shift (and ignore any fuelling up that's required). And the car's owner isn't the office, in fact he's at home in bed

But whether the driver's night had been all cash runs, or all account runs, I can't see the relevance to employment status.

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.

'Sole trader' is maybe a bit confusing, because it suggests a one-man band, sort of thing. Which a lot of sole traders are, obviously, like an independent HC driver like me.

However, I could buy a fleet of cars, open an office, take on drivers (even on PAYE) and I'd still be a sole trader.

The 'sole' bit refers to ownership of the business, basically, which has nothing to do with whether it's a one-man band, or a business employing thousands.

A partnership, crudely speaking, is just two or more sole traders stuck together. They may own the business and share profits equally, or the division could be unequal. One gets 20% of the profits, others get 30% or 40%, say.

However, a sole trader or partnership could move their business into a limited company. This means that the company would own the assets (like a cab office's vehicles, most obviously) rather than the individuals. Instead, they would own the company in the form of shares. The shareholders might also be appointed directors (although a director doesn't have to be a shareholder), and they'd be an employee of the company.

('Limited' simply means that only the company is responsible for the business's debts, which could be important if the business loses a big legal case, say In such circumstances a sole trader could lose their house and personal savings, investments etc to pay any debts, but in a limited company the shareholders' personal assets would be protected and only assets owned by the company would be at risk - 'limited' is short for limited liability.)

Most companies are *private* limited companies, strictly speaking, although the word 'private' isn't generally used. Limited companies use the designation 'Ltd' after their name.

A smaller number of companies are *public* limited companies, and the word 'public' is more generally used than in the case of private limited companies. 'PLC' or 'plc' is used after the company's name.

But the main difference is that public limited companies can sell their shares to the general public, and these can be bought and sold, rather that being privately held.

Anyway, that's the very basics, but the point is that I can't really see how any of that is relevant to the average driver and whether they are a 'worker' or self-employed as per the Supreme Court judgement. It could be a sole-trader with a ten-car circuit, or Uber plc (or the US equivalent like Inc) with thousands of cars, but I'm not really sure it's all that relevant. Things like the control, subordination and dependency outlined in the Supreme Court judgement aren't strictly related to the business's size or ownership structure.

And although sole trader operations are generally smaller, and limited companies bigger, that's not a hard and fast rule, since some limited companies can be quite small, yet sole trader operations a lot bigger.

So as regards size, there are no hard and fast rules regarding business ownership and structure.

On the other hand, one distinction in the trade, again with no hard and fast rules, is that bigger operations may tend to have written contracts and the like (as per the Supreme Court judgement) while unwritten/verbal/implied contracts are obviously quite common in the trade. However, again I'm not sure if this is really that relevant, since an operator without written contracts could well be more controlling (with uniforms and shift rotas, say) than the likes of Uber, which no doubt has pages and pages of a contract which all drivers will sign, but the vast majority will never actually read.

Having said all that, small operations without formal written agreements do tend to be more flexible, so that could be a factor if push comes to shove. I'm sure a lot of us are aware, for example, of offices where some drivers seem to be more self-employed than other drivers, shall we say

A private hire vehicle proprietor/driver cannot be self employed unless they hold a private hire operators license.

It is that simple.