Re: English-speaking taxi number?
Andrej Shadura writes ("Re: English-speaking taxi number?"):
> Uber has many (and in the past had even more) different issues (e.g.
> company culture and their attitude towards certain issues), but fake
> contractorship is not one of them.
This is simply false, at leaast as far as English law is concerned.
Why do you say things like this that are so easily contradicted from
completely authoritative sources ?
The original Employmennt Tribunal juudgement (upheld by the courts
above) can be found here:
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/Misc/2016/B68.html
(click on "REASONS FOR THE RESERVED JUDGMENT")
If that is too dense for you,
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/10/uber-loses-appeal-employment-rights-workers
Read paragraph 67 of the ET judgement if you want to see what the
Tribunal thought of some of Uber's claims. I particularly like;
| To our considerable surprise, Ms Bertram attempted before us to
| dismiss this as a typographical error
(para 69) and
| ... our scepticism is not diminished when we are reminded of the
| many things said and written in the name of Uber in unguarded
| moments ... We are not at all persuaded ...b
(para 88) etc.
Uber have also had their licence revoked by Transport for London, for
entirely unrelated misdeeds including deliberate subversion of
regulatory oversight. These licence revocations do not take effect
immediately; they are subject to appeal. Uber's legal tactic in the
appeal is to say that Tfl were *right* to revoke the licence but that
that was in the past and Uber is much better now. Really.
Also, frankly, if you agree that Uber e vile, defending them on some
technical point like this is very dubious, even if you were right,
which you are plainly not.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: