Good fair decision protecting the worker

Reasonably serious discussion
1

and the relentless onslaught of cheap labour taxi drivers on terrible working conditions

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-uber-britain-idUKKBN16A16N

2

So what is your actual gripe with this then Barry?

as your statement means nothing .

3

It means I agree with it, do you?

4

How does potentially putting 33,000 people out of work, protect the worker?

I don’t disagree with the court ruling, but find the thread title confusing.

5

Good man I agree with the decision as well. The upstarts undercutting the workers.

6

You haven’t answered my question. How does this ruling protect the 33,000 workers that could end up out of work?

Are they making uber pay for language lessons and giving a legal guarantee there will be no people layed off because uber don’t want to cover the cost?

And why am i now typing in a box. You’re fucking with my head @pap

7

To me they’re not workers, they’re hawks and the company they represent is also.

Thats answered you’re question, radio cabs will take them on. how are the jobs lost if they’re casual workers? Scabbing.

8

Shame for the workers and their families that will now be out of work but probably the correct decision.

9

Do you know how many people work under these kind of conditions in Britain? You’ve just put millions of British people out of work. How can radio cabs take them on without having to pay for ubers already earned profit? Someone will have to pay for it. Uber have made a fortune from these workers, let it be them.

10

Bollocks to Uber, scabbing employment firm, don’t keep something which is poor practice just because Saint, thats simply wrong.

11

It’s a difficult situation.

You’ve got 2 options:

  1. Allow Uber to continue, and keep Uber drivers in work on low wages, and reducing the wages of normal cabbies.

  2. Or the BS way of thinking - fuck the company and their drivers, let the poor get poorer. They’re probably dirty foreigners anyway.

12

Here’s a crazy idea.

If you are going to recruit people for a public facing role how about only hiring them if they have an acceptable level of the local language in the first place…or am I missing something here?

2 Likes
13

i don’t spose many of the customers speak english do they? Prob mandarin or arabic would be more Useful.

14

I wholeheartedly agree, so do the courts it would appear, Sotonians have always been pedantic though and will find some obscure bizarre viewpoint.

1 Like
15

I’m way ahead of you

16

You miss understand. Uber can Fuck off as far as i’m concerned(and all like them). I’d still like to make them pay for it, as i would all firms that follow these kind of practices. If they happen to go bankrupt, all the better. This would hopefully give a bit of time for other firms to start up knowing they have a market and that they are legally obliged to treat and train workers like the vital component they are. Just concerned about the possible instant mass unemployment this will cause. Remember your talking about families that are living hand to mouth, no savings and a benefit system that will drag it’s heals and sanction at every opportunity. How many would end up homeless.

17

So we can all agree Uber can go, excellent lets move on.

18

I use the ubers tbh i find it a v.useful service

3 Likes
19

Never used them and wouldn’t.

3 Likes
20

I’d really prefer if we made them pay for the training. Then they can do one.