Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The answer Kate Styles gave to Suzie asking why NZTA aren't going for Uber is exactly the same one I got in April from NZTA. It's a consistent and very inadequate answer. "The options with Uber are still being explored" and "we wouldn't talk about individual actions that we are taking with any company, whether they are a passenger service operator or not". This line was very effective when used with me 3 months ago, especially since it was followed up with a veiled threat "Just as we wouldn't tell Uber about the conversation you and I are having now". At that point I was not sure whether I was OK to have my name out there, such is the culture of fear in the early days of organizing worker resistance. I'm well past that now, I welcome them telling Uber everything about my conversation with them, and most certainly want to know from NZTA what their options for directly prosecuting Uber are. I want to know if there even ARE any options, or if we should be moving directly past NZTA as a completely toothless organization and confronting the government itself.
I already think we should be doing that, that the window for the government to act has now passed, and a partisan political approach has become necessary. The ministers have evaded all responsibility, flopping it on NZTA to uphold the law so far. If the NZTA is unable to uphold the law when it comes to what Uber themselves are doing, and it limited to the piss weak and morally questionable approach of stepping up enforcement on one of the main victims in all of this, the drivers who are being tricked into working for Uber, then it is on bodies with more muscle to do something about. There is no question that the government could reign Uber in with little more than a stern word from the minister. There are multiple homegrown alternatives to Uber already sitting well placed to fill the hole, if Uber decides to go through with its threat of pulling out of NZ completely. This is a bluff that needs to be called, or the government itself is being made a laughing stock by Uber.
-
Can anyone tell me what the interviewer Suzie's last name is? Big, big ups to her.
-
Nice!! Radio Live interview in which the interviewer really puts Kate Styles on the spot about why they don't go after Uber themselves. Love it!
I feel the floodgates of a media storm opening here. Bring it on!
-
Since Menzies openly admitted that they are breaking the law now, without any reservations, without even contesting that (which is quite an interesting change) I think it would be good if interviewers, from now on, used language that reflected that. Is there some need for kid gloves (apart from the fact that they always employ kids in these roles) on someone who openly admits to fronting an organization that profits from crime????????????? Seriously????
-
Correction: The guy being interviewed is Richard Menzies. Operations Lead for Uber in NZ, whose background is in corporate finance. Why am I not surprised that the person charged with being the NZ lead has law and commerce degrees? Nothing to do with engineering, transport, or software. No wonder he’s so carefully cagey about not incriminating himself or Uber by saying in which ways they will “Stand by their drivers 100%”.
Advice to interviewers in future: Instead of asking if Uber will pay fines (since we already have refusal answer the question repeatedly), ask “In what way will Uber stand by its drivers?”. Follow up with “Will you provide legal assistance?”, “Will you give any kind of written undertaking to help drivers?”, “So drivers are supposed to just trust Uber, having suddenly found themselves in violation of multiple laws, while earning money for Uber?”. “What LEGAL argument could drivers provide in court that they are not violating the law?”. “Could your disruptive model be applied to other areas of industry – for example the sale of cannabis? What line do you think the government should take with a multinational corporation that decides to just sell cannabis via independent contractors in NZ?”. “Are you, as a man with legal training, afraid that you personally could end up facing jail time for massive incitement to criminal activity?”. “Who told you that this was OK in NZ? Do you have assurances from anyone at all representing the government in any way, that Uber has a free pass to break the law?”.
-
Gawd, I also forgot to mention that the P Endorsement also involved the 2 days of testing, in which we learn:
-The law about P endorsements
-The laws that govern the particular services that require P Endorsement
-How to fill out log books, and why we should
-What the rights passengers have, particularly disabled passengers
-What rights and recourses we haveObviously, since Uber simply doesn’t believe in following the law they think these tests as counterproductive. Definitely they do not replicate of it in the induction program, according to the now enormous number of drivers who have been through it. 1700 illegal drivers! WTF! This has long since gone past the point where the government should be pressing charges directly on the instigators. A judge is not going to allow persistent evasion of questions put straightforwardly to executives.
-
Guyon Espiner presses Richard Menzies from Uber hard. Listen to him carefully slither around being caught inciting criminal activity on air.
The persistent refusal to answer questions about paying fines can only be about that. The question is asked dead straight repeatedly, and repeatedly evaded.
The idea that they hold drivers to a higher standard is a joke. The NZTA representative forgot to also mention that P Endorsement involves (amongst the things she does say) a medical check, and we have to resit our practical license test.
This line of “we are showing the government a better way and are happy to engage with them” is simply a lie. The engagement process began along time ago and was done properly in the Small Passenger Services Review. Uber just does not like the result which is that the regulatory body insists it’s right to regulate, and will be retaining some aspects of the current laws after due consideration and multiple submissions from invited parties.
-
Speaker: The Government you Deserve, in reply to nzlemming,
Leaving his mess for some hapless spooge wrangler to clean up.
-
Speaker: Confessions of an Uber Driver…, in reply to goforit,
Do you have a link for those prices anywhere goforit?
-
Speaker: Confessions of an Uber Driver…, in reply to goforit,
Now even taxis are having second thoughts over the viabiltiy of working the airport.
Classic. I think the airports have a cheek, really. There's nothing about a job from the airport that makes it special. By and large, it's actually a very undesirable place to wait, because it has low volumes. I'd only be there because a previous customer took me all the way there and it's remote and thus a PITA on that account alone. Also, airport customers are among the lowest quality. It's very common for them to not have an idea where they want to go, how to communicate it, and they will rate you using standards from another country. They will want to fill the car with luggage, and will cram as many passengers in as possible. For a taxi it might be a good place to rip people off who don't know how things work here, but Ubers can't do that. Also, given the way Uber riders expect you to come to them, it's a hell of lot of trouble just getting the buggers into the car.
It's really a place that's set up for taxis, and they can have it.