UBERK SEATTLE

Late last month, Uber sued the city of Seattle, challenging the city’s authority to implement a landmark law allowing drivers in the gig economy to unionize. It was an opening shot in what is likely to be a long and costly legal battle.

Uber’s legal challenge comes at an awkward time for the ride-hailing juggernaut. The company recently named 2017 “the year of the driver” and has said it will devote energy and resources to improving its relationship with the hundreds of thousands of people who drive on its platform. But the company’s bungled response to a taxi strike during the recent JFK protests led to a grassroots #DeleteUber campaign that saw 200,000 riders canceling their accounts. This latest situation in Seattle may further complicate Uber’s attempts to reverse the negative effects of that campaign.

The law in Seattle, passed by the city council in a 9–0 vote, was a first of its kind. It allows drivers for ride-hailing apps like Uber and Lyft to unionize and collectively bargain for better working conditions, earnings, and other benefits. The bill was a victory for the App-Based Drivers Association, which had lobbied with the local Teamsters union on behalf of freelance contractors.

After its passage in December 2015, Uber and Lyft declined to challenge it outright, instead supporting a lawsuit brought by the pro-business, anti-union US Chamber of Commerce. But then in August, a judge tossed the chamber’s lawsuit, calling it premature until the city moved forward with implementation.

That implementation began in December, when Seattle’s department of Finance and Administrative Services published rules online that cover issues like which drivers get to unionize, working conditions subject to bargaining, and how an organization gets certified to represent drivers exclusively.

http://bit.ly/2lhOuA0
----------------------------------------

UBERK UK

 Uber driver tells MPs: I work 90 hours but still need to claim benefits

Drivers tell select committee investigating the gig economy they earn less than the minimum wage after they pay their costs

Uber drivers have told MPs they felt trapped in a job that forced them to work long hours just to cover costs including the purchase of their cars.

The drivers told the Commons work and pensions select committee they were locked into their jobs after paying for expensive cars in order to get higher-paying customers.

“I made an investment in this business on the promise I would make good money,” said David Dunn, who works for Uber in Glasgow. But he said he was forced to work more than 60 hours a week to make money after Uber’s commission, insurance and other costs.

“It’s expensive for us and cheap for the public and those two don’t match very well,” Dunn said.

Syed Khalil, who drives for Uber in London, said it was usual practice for drivers to work as long as 100 hours a week and claimed the company did not prevent drivers from logging on to do so. After paying about £500 a month on insurance and towards the purchase of his car, Khalil said he was still on such a low income that he needed to claim housing benefit.

He said after a “honeymoon period” when he was first employed, Uber had upped the amount of commission it was taking from each fare and had brought in lots more drivers so it was difficult to get enough work.

Asked if they earn the equivalent of the national living wage of £7.20 an hour, Khalil and Dunn both said they did not after costs. Uber said on Monday that on average in the UK, drivers using its app make about £16 an hour after Uber’s fee and are logged in for about 27 hours a week.

“Tens of thousands of people in the UK drive with Uber precisely because they want to be self-employed and their own boss. The overwhelming majority of drivers who use the Uber app want to keep the freedom and flexibility of being able to drive when and where they want,” the company said in a statement.

 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/06/uber-driver-mps-select-committee-minimum-wage
----------------------------------

UBERK AUSTRALIA

 An Uber driver who allegedly raped a 22-year-old tourist says she called him handsome and asked him to have sex in the back seat of his car.

Muhammad Naveed, 41, pleaded not guilty to having sexual intercourse without consent with a heavily intoxicated woman after picking her up outside a Kings Cross nightclub in 2015.

Mr Naveed broke down in court while giving evidence on Monday, repeatedly sobbing 'she trapped me,' according to The Sydney Morning Herald.

'My hand was on top of my car gear stick and then she put her hand on top of my hand and she kept it there... She said ''thanks for giving me a ride you're a handsome man'',' Mr Naveed said.

'I said ''thank you very much you're also a beautiful girl''. She said ''no one has ever said to me that I'm a beautiful girl, thank you for that'' and then she came closer to me and tried kissing me.'

At the opening of the District Court trial last month, crown prosecutor James Trevallion said the woman thought she was getting into a cab.

He said that en route to Sydney's eastern suburbs, where the woman lived, Naveed pulled into a service station and bought condoms and a bottle of water, saying to her: 'I've just got these.'

'She became confused...and did not really understand why the accused was showing her this packet of condoms,' Mr Trevallion said.

Mr Naveed then drove in the opposite direction to the woman's home, stopped in a side street and asked if she wanted to move to the back seat, the prosecutor said.

'The complainant will tell you at this point she could not keep her eyes open and she was falling asleep,' he told the jury.

'She did not have the strength to be able to push him off,' Mr Trevallion said.

The next thing the woman remembers is waking up to find Naveed on top of her.

Mr Naveed told the court he never had sex with the woman because he couldn't get an erection.

The trial continues.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4196176/Uber-driver-accused-raping-British-passenger.html
---------------------------------------------
 
 WHEELCHAIRS

 Taxi drivers who refuse to pick up wheelchair users or attempt to charge more for transporting them could be fined up to £1,000 under new laws tackling discrimination.

The penalties will come into force from 6 April and will oblige taxi and private hire cars to take wheelchair users in their wheelchair if their vehicles are able to, as well as providing appropriate assistance. It will be an offence to charge any additional fare for the service.

The rules will apply across Britain for taxis and private hire vehicles designated as wheelchair accessible – including all black cabs in London and taxis in many other c

Drivers discriminating against wheelchair users face fines of up to £1,000 and could lose their licence, unless they have an exemption for medical reasons.

Announcing the legislation, the transport minister, Andrew Jones, said: “We want to build a country that works for everyone, and part of that is ensuring disabled people have the same access to services and opportunities as anyone else – including when it comes to travel.

“People who use wheelchairs are often heavily reliant on taxis and private hire vehicles and this change to the law will mean fair and equal treatment for all.”

Disability charities, which have long campaigned on the issue, welcomed the move. Robert Meadowcroft, the chief executive of Muscular Dystrophy UK, said it was “a victory for all people with disabilities who experience daily struggles with accessible transport”.

http://bit.ly/2klO4Kz
----------------------------------------
 CAMBRIDGESHIRE

Taxi drivers in Cambridgeshire have convictions for violence, drug offences and fraud, a BBC investigation has found.

Under Freedom of Information laws, South Cambridgeshire District Council refused to say how many drivers had criminal convictions.

But it did release a list of 22 different offences committed by drivers.

The council said it carried out "the most thorough checks available".

The offences include being drunk and disorderly, battery, common assault, possession of an offensive weapon, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, possession of cannabis, aggravated vehicle taking and affray.

Government legislation introduced in 2011 allows Hackney carriage drivers to operate anywhere in the country as private hire drivers.

Cambridge MP and shadow transport minister Daniel Zeichner said he was "really concerned" for people's safety.

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-38802838
-----------------------------------
GLASGOW

A taxi driver who charged visitors to Glasgow £80 for a journey of less than three miles to a Beyonce concert has had his licence suspended.

Dharminder Singh was banned from operating for three months after Glasgow Council's licensing committee upheld the findings of an inquiry.

It was also claimed he allowed eight passengers into the taxi - even though he was only permitted to carry six.
Mr Singh disputed the claims and said he had charged £11.20 and was paid £18.

In a statement, he said the group had been rowdy and one passenger had called him "Taliban" more than once.
"The girl took my photo and accused me of taking a long route and overcharging," he said.
The committee was shown a statement from the complainant.

It said: "The driver asked for £80 upfront and gave us the option to pay it or get out of the taxi.
"We asked how the fare was so expensive and he couldn't give us an explanation.

"Luckily, we had the money to pay it or we could have been left in Glasgow, lost and in a vulnerable situation."

The passenger also said Mr Singh had dropped them about a mile away from Hampden, despite other taxi passengers being dropped off closer to the venue.
The committee heard that seven witness statements from the other passengers had been read to Mr Singh, which he described as lies.

Following the committee's decision, councillor Frank Docherty said Mr Singh had deliberately attempted to exploit people desperate to get to a concert on time.
"By overloading his cab, the driver also put passenger safety at risk and people who use taxis in Glasgow have a right to expect higher standards than this.

"The committee will always take action against those who fail to meet the standards expected of them."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38882511
-------------------------------------