Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36071793)

Businesses adapt all the time. If British businesses get undercut by competition, they just respond and get better. That’s progress.

Of course businesses need to work within the law. It is unfortunate that the law is an ass.

The law is continually being tested, novel ways found to get around unintended consequences, etc.

As for workers’ rights, the right to seek the flexibility that many gig workers find useful is being compromised. Both Uber and their drivers considered the drivers to be self employed. There was no need for the courts to interfere and amend the contracts that had been drawn up with joint agreement.

As I said, this is not good news for consumers either, who will now have to pay more for the same service. This will lead to fewer people using the service, which will mean less work for the newly designated ‘employees’. Lose/lose.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36071799)

Strange how you go on and espouse about market forces but as per usual you contradict yourself.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36071793)

Businesses adapt all the time. If British businesses get undercut by competition, they just respond and get better. That’s progress.

Of course businesses need to work within the law. It is unfortunate that the law is an ass.

The law is continually being tested, novel ways found to get around unintended consequences, etc.

As for workers’ rights, the right to seek the flexibility that many gig workers find useful is being compromised. Both Uber and their drivers considered the drivers to be self employed. There was no need for the courts to interfere and amend the contracts that had been drawn up with joint agreement.

As I said, this is not good news for consumers either, who will now have to pay more for the same service. This will lead to fewer people using the service, which will mean less work for the newly designated ‘employees’. Lose/lose.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36071803)

Well, since Uber's aim is to move to driverless cars, that will be a moot point.

And if you believe that the contracts were drawn up jointly between Uber's corporate employment lawyers and the individual drivers, I've got a bridge you might be interested in... ;)

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36071841)

Driverless cars are not imminent.
https://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/20...iverless-cars/

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36071841)

Driverless cars are not imminent.
https://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/20...iverless-cars/

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36071845)

I’ve said it on here in other threads many times, Driverless cars will not happen until the question of liability is resolved.

If there is an accident who is responsible? The driver, the car manufacturer, the software manufacturer, the GPS or 5G provider................

Until that is all sorted, which will be never....well not within the next 10-20-30 years, who knows........there will not be autonomous vehicles.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36071841)

Driverless cars are not imminent.
https://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/20...iverless-cars/

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36071845)

I’ve said it on here in other threads many times, Driverless cars will not happen until the question of liability is resolved.

If there is an accident who is responsible? The driver, the car manufacturer, the software manufacturer, the GPS or 5G provider................

Until that is all sorted, which will be never....well not within the next 10-20-30 years, who knows........there will not be autonomous vehicles.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36071857)

Notable exceptions will be made for politicians, their friends, families, Premiership footballers and X factor no marks. They’ll be blameless accidents of course. :D

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36074516)

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36074517)

It will pay at least the National Living Wage for over-25s, irrespective of a driver's age, after accepting a trip request and after expenses

hmm