Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: Confessions of an Uber Driver…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
They already were pretty much compliant when i signed up in December. In April they inexplicably canned that. We can't be sure of the reason, because the model was working fine. I speculate that it was because it was working fine that they canned it. Their disruptive model was not really disrupting anything.
I believe that this is about establishing dominance. It is their way of showing that the government is their bitch. It is working. It is hilarious to hear the Minister of Transport whine like he isn't the most powerful official in charge of our transport industry, that he's "disappointed" with Uber. FFS, do something about it then. Bring the power of the government to bear. It's not even a hard case, the level of piss taking is so extreme.
-
Speaker: Confessions of an Uber Driver…, in reply to RaggedJoe,
Yes the model is for it to be untenable for a full timer. Part timers will accept far worse conditions and pay. And the hours flexibility is a big thing. For me it certainly is. But some people are just happy with it anyway. People who don't really need the money. People who are otherwise unemployable, might not even have the legal right work at all. People who just like the work. These people definitely exist, and with a signup machine at work they can rapidly drown out any dissenters. The number of people who can't legally work is much bigger than all the Uber drivers.
-
Speaker: Confessions of an Uber Driver…, in reply to izogi,
Note that the NZTA has a published prosecution policy.
Cheers. Conditions for prosecution:
Key factors and non-compliant behaviours will include:
•where there is strong evidence of non-compliance
•where the loss or harm (or risk thereof) caused by the non-compliance is significant
•where the non-compliance is intentional or calculated
•where there is a history or pattern of non-compliance
•where there are no proper alternatives to prosecutionAs concerns Uber itself, every box here is checked.
*They openly admit non-compliance.
*The risk of harms is very significant - drivers are not vetted for health, total criminal history (particularly overseas), and are not having any work-time restrictions upheld. No reliable account of how much time the drivers are driving is being kept at all. This is the most dangerous aspect by far.
*The non-compliance is absolutely intentional. Particularly in light of them having actually reduced themselves from a much more compliant situation.
*The pattern of behaviour like this is well established internationally. In fact, it's so far a 100% pattern. This is the ONLY way they have EVER behaved ANYWHERE.
*There are certainly no alternatives to prosecution, because the NZTA's powers to revoke licenses does not affect a body that does not, and has never, operated under a transport license. But it is certainly running a transport operation. Nothing could be clearer, both from their actual practice, and even their legal contract that drivers are meant to have undertaken.Further to the above, which are the evidential requirements, we have:
Prosecutions will be initiated only if:
•the evidence that can be submitted as evidence in Court is sufficient to give a reasonable prospect of conviction; and
•prosecution is required for the public interest.The second part here is the only bit that is not prima facie, so far as I can see. It is the only possible reason that the NZTA could have for not prosecuting.
So here we are, debating the public interest in prosecuting. I do not know anything about the Crown Law Prosecution Guidelines, which must be satisfied, but I'm yet to hear of any case ever in this country where any organization so blatantly decided to incite the breaking of transport laws. It's being done on a staggering scale. There are literally thousands of drivers, doing literally millions of trips, and Uber's openly available online documentation clearly states their complete lack of compliance in the sign up process. The many, many people that the NZTA have now caught should bolster the evidence that their openly stated policy of non-compliance is indeed also what they are, in fact, doing. It would take no effort beyond half a day's work for an enforcement officer to sign up to drive for Uber, if the testimony of hundreds of people is not sufficient documentation of their processes.
The case against the public interest in a prosecution?
-That Uber provides a unique service? Not true at all. There are a number of competitors already operating in NZ.
-That customers love it? Customers also love cannabis, but that doesn't make it legal to import it from Australia in huge quantities.
-That it provides work to people? It also takes work away from people. People who have actually followed the rules. The work that it does provide is very poorly paid (now) and the lack of independent oversight puts the public safety at risk. Also, the ability to remove the right to work is completely arbitrary and held exclusively by Uber, and it is frequently used. Essentially no due process at all is followed that ensures this is an employment situation that is in any way up to NZ standards.
-That it has increased the safety of the public due to unique features? In this, they have a point. However, there is a due process for removal of the other safety features that the compliance process is for. This due process was entered into, and the results are simply being ignored by Uber. -
Speaker: Confessions of an Uber Driver…, in reply to goforit,
I don't think ideologues even need to be bribed. They just need to not be called on it by anyone.
-
Speaker: Confessions of an Uber Driver…, in reply to izogi,
is there some reason why Uber in NZ couldn’t be directly liable for prosecution under 66(1)(d) of the Crimes Act?
So far the only reason I've heard is that "It's expensive". Yes, it can be expensive to enforce the law. But it can be even more expensive to not enforce the law. The cost is socialized, big time. The passenger laws were made in response to many years of public experiences of what can go wrong when people in charge of a dangerous machine that their customers literally get inside are not well checked.
Sure, Uber has safety features of its own. Good on them. It was a big reason to go with them myself. But they don't replace the law. They augment it. What was broken about their model before, other than it wasn't quite doing it for their massive levels of corporate greed? They were getting a pretty steady stream of drivers signing up. The quality was high, the customer base growing. It was a cool service delivering something unique. Now it's a very uncool service delivering something that is easily replicable. The only protection left to their operation against a local solution is that a local solution simply can't get away with breaking the law. So ironically, they are currently hiding beyond the borders of the country preventing others from getting to the market internally, by dominating market share, and poised to price war anything local.
The question I don't know the answer to is who it is that is responsible to bring such a prosecution? Is it NZTA? Or does it go beyond them? They would appear to have no stomach for the fight. I don't know if it's bureaucratic cowardice, budget cuts, or a directive from above to give Uber this free pass. But I would like to know.
-
Speaker: Confessions of an Uber Driver…, in reply to goforit,
Neither of those answers is good enough.
a) They seem to have plenty enough resources to issue thousands of notices and start a big crackdown which involves paying endless staff hours, and also puts lots of cases before the courts.
b) The review process does not give people the right to make up the law until it's finished. Indeed the stepped up enforcement would seem to directly contradict this claim. Surely if it's OK to wait for the review process then the drivers themselves who are being done could use that in court as a defence. More to the point, why have a crackdown in the first place if they are essentially saying there is no wrongdoing going because it's under review? Also, in the meantime, is it now OK for all taxi drivers to just drop their compliance too? Then they might be able to compete with Uber on a level playing field. -
Speaker: Confessions of an Uber Driver…, in reply to BenWilson,
or a random collision
This has already happened to at least one non-compliant driver now. Their insurers have refused to pay out on collisions, because they are driving professionally, and only took out a standard non-commercial policy. Fortunately in the case of the driver I heard about, the collision was the fault of the other party and they were covered there, but his own insurer was not going to supply him a courtesy vehicle to cover all the time while his smashed up car is off the road, like my insurer has undertaken to. Of course, some guy signed up in a day by Uber doesn't realize any of this. We're just waiting for the first person to come in who is up for tens of thousands, and has to invoke the Uber insurance slush fund that they openly claim to operate. Which strikes me as incitement to commit insurance fraud. One for the insurance companies themselves to go for.
-
Speaker: Confessions of an Uber Driver…, in reply to BenWilson,
The future of work for Uber drivers is one with no rights, poor remuneration, no responsibility held by the employer, and constant fear of being harshly punished by authorities.
Actually, I should probably say that this is also the Present of Work for Uber drivers.
-
Speaker: Confessions of an Uber Driver…, in reply to Stephen R,
Wicked, thanks.
-
What I really want to know now, is whether Uber has private and personal assurances from anyone in the government that they are getting special treatment. I know no one will ever admit to that, but if the question and answer are on public record, then when the truth really does come out, it’s a big story. And questions asked in Parliament hit an entirely different level of hurt for people making secret deals, if they mislead Parliament in their responses. This is one for whichever Opposition politicians feel like a free shot would be nice.
As I see it, what’s going on here really does go to the “Future of Work”. We’re staring down the barrel of it right now, as drivers. The future of work for Uber drivers is one with no rights, poor remuneration, no responsibility held by the employer, and constant fear of being harshly punished by authorities. This setup is entirely on them to bankroll too, their whole operation, with many random and often extreme costs could bankrupt them at the break of a cambelt or a random collision. For all of this, Uber drivers continue to supply a 5 star service, a high quality, low cost experience. That’s what the future holds, if good people won’t act.