search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
...GMB PERSPECTIVE...


employees with that liability being taken on by those individual cab companies, although that is dependent on each cab companies operating model as previously explained.


drivers. Where this system is used the driver is then paid at the end of the week/month minus the commission if applicable. Set fares may also be used instead of using the soft meter.


I consider that how the Uber Employment case will now affect the local cab companies is based on the working model of each company. If it is an association or co-operative then nothing changes. If it is a private company but run in a similar way of an association or co-operative then nothing changes. But if it is the same as the Uber model then there is a high chance that drivers on those companies may no longer be classed as self-employed and will now be employees of the company.


UBER CONTINGENCY PLAN


However, something that has not been mentioned in the media but certainly within the cab trade is that Uber had already made contingency plans to change its business model pre-empting the employment court ruling going against them.


A few months ago it bought a dispatch company called Autocab which is a cab dispatch system that many individual cab companies use up and down the country; there are several similar systems used such as iCabbi, Cordic and others.


By buying Autocab and remodelling as an Aggregator it can then use that network of individual cab companies that use Autocab to move away from dispatching work directly and instead pass Uber work through these companies. By doing this it then relinquishes all responsibility of having drivers as


MARCH 2021


In essence if you have a cab company called Joe’s Cabs which uses the Autocab system then with your own company customer app there will be a choice to book an Uber car or a car from Joe’s Cabs. This is how it was explained to those individual cab companies at the time although by now there maybe changes to the initial concept of the intended set-up. I understand that such cab companies that use the Autocab dispatch system are not obliged to be tied in with Uber but I expect that the established dominance of Uber will be the deciding factor.


My own personal opinion on what will actually happen is that Uber will eventually end up selling back the same work that Joe’s Cabs originally had built up.


However, since then, the Competition and Markets Authority has launched a formal probe into the deal and would consider its “possible effect on competition, including in the supply of booking and dispatch software to taxi companies in the UK, and any potential impact upon consumers” and has delayed the Uber/Autocab project.


There is also the question of the VAT liability of backdated VAT hanging over Uber and now it is classed as an employer, then implications of VAT could be huge.


Unfortunately the knock-on effect of Uber trying to dominate the world in the taxi/private higher sector whilst trying to revolutionise the so called ‘Gig Economy’ may be to the cost of the viability of some local cab companies that do not have the resources to employ drivers.


Uber the disrupting ‘Technology Company’ that landed in the UK in 2012 has left what only can be described as a disrupting skid-mark in the taxi and private hire trade.


Andy Peters Secretary GMB Brighton & Hove Taxi Section andy.peters@gmbtaxis.org.uk


81


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96