Certain drivers have been castigated somewhat for highlighting a number of concerns- concerns that can’t be addressed until drivers know the terms of the contract. I know of nowhere else where we would be so obliging. Although presented in a different way it seems not too dissimilar to NY drivers being offered a $100m ‘continuity fund’ for periods of hardship.
In the first instance, I’d like to know how an out of court settlement might legitimise Uber’s modus operandi and secondly, how a case might determine any future litigation filed against the company.
Surely, the underpinning of all FAQ’s is a company’s T&C?
It seems odd they made one so readily available, without the other as a point of reference. Written terms that refer to particular regulations is a must. The Provisions of Services Regulation that came into force in 2009 requires businesses to inform customers of certain information that are specific to this case,
Drivers should be concerned about what they are signing into. That’s not being a doom merchant, it’s defending ones own best interests, both as an individual and as a trade. After all, drivers have to register to be considered a potential claimant and in doing so, there are possible implications not just for ourselves, but for the way the industry moves forward, all things considered. Registering an interest at this point may not be binding, but how many drivers have been made aware of this?
Those that are set to benefit are naturally quite keen to get the process started, not least Mischon De Reya. Would it not have been good idea for the LTDA to have insisted the T&C be in place as a prerequisite of drivers signing up to the scheme.
That would serve in everyone’s best interests, no?
Sean Paul Day
from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2PfdvtU
via IFTTT https://ift.tt/2wo1WcA https://ift.tt/12cqxIH
