Thousands of Uber drivers set to get $75, before lawyers’ fees, in settlement

Lawyers representing over 4,500 Uber drivers who claim they were consistently underpaid by the company have now asked a federal judge to approve a settlement.

If US District Judge William Alsup agrees, Uber will pay out $345,622. When divided amongst the group, that will result in approximately $75 per person, before attorneys' fees are calculated.

The suit, Dulberg v. Uber, was filed in February 2017 in federal court in San Francisco. The suit alleges that Martin Dulberg and other drivers like him are consistently underpaid based on the company's own formula.

Since nearly the beginning, Uber has paid its drivers 80 percent of a given fare. However, in the lawsuit, lead plaintiff Martin Dulberg claims that the company has now changed the way it calculates what that fare is. The result is that the company consistently pays between 70 and 80 percent—but not the full 80 percent—of what the fare should be.

This, plaintiffs claimed, is in violation of the December 2015 work agreement (known as the Technology Services Agreement, or "TSA") that they and many other drivers signed. As they opted out of arbitration, they can sue and band together as a class.

The case largely turned on a difference of interpretation in the work contract.

As the motion for settlement approval, which was submitted on Friday, states:

According to Dulberg, the TSA contemplates only one Fare: the Fare determined by the Fare Calculation. It ties both drivers' payments and Uber's Service Fee to that Fare. Dulberg contends that Uber performed one Fare Calculation based on actual inputs for time/distance at the end of each ride until it implemented upfront pricing. Passengers paid that Fare, Uber calculated its Service Fee based on that Fare, and class members received the remainder of that Fare. When Uber implemented upfront pricing, its practices changed. It began doing two separate Fare Calculations, one upfront to charge passengers (with estimated inputs for time/distance) and another after the ride (with actual inputs for time/distance) to determine class members' compensation. Dulberg claims that practice breached the TSA.

On the other hand, Uber asserts that it "introduced upfront pricing to create more certainty for riders to enable better informed choices that fit their needs—not to undermine driver payments or earnings." (Dkt. No. 71 at 6.) Uber maintains that, regardless of upfront pricing for riders, a driver's Fare Calculation remained constant under the TSA. (Id.) Moreover, as discussed above, most drivers benefited financially from Uber's practice.

Because of this realization, the final number in the affected class was cut from around 9,000 to around 4,500.

To be clear, the alleged violations of the TSA are the only issue at hand: the case does not turn on whether Dulberg and the other drivers were properly classified as contractors or employees, as numerous other cases have.

Uber did not immediately respond to Ars' request for comment. The two sides are set to meet before Judge Alsup on October 29

Source :  Arstechnica

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2olaE7j
via IFTTT https://ift.tt/2MVH8mh https://ift.tt/12cqxIH

The London Electrical Cab made its debut more than 120 years ago.

In August 2017, London’s first hybrid black cabs hit the streets ahead of new legislation that came into effect this year, requiring all new cabs to be ‘zero emissions capable’. The TX can operate for around 70 miles on battery power alone, with a petrol range extender allowing it to clock up around 400 miles before refuelling. But London’s very first electric cabs actually came into service exactly 120 years earlier.

"Mr W H Preece inaugurated a service of electrical cabs which are to ply for hire in the streets of London in competition with the ordinary hackney carriages," wrote The Engineer in August 1897. "Thirteen of these cabs are now ready for work, and a staff of drivers have been instructed in the use of them. 

The cabs will be let out by the proprietors, the London Electrical Cab Company, Limited, just at the same rate and in the same manner as the London cabs. The ‘cabbies’ are, we are informed, quite enthusiastic about the new vehicle."

The London Electrical Cab – also commonly known as the ‘Hummingbird’ due to its sound, or the ‘Bersey Taxi’ after its young designer – first took to the streets of the capital on August 19 1897. Inventor Walter Charles Bersey was just 23 at the time, but had been designing and patenting electric vehicles for several years already. According to our predecessors, his creation was intended to mimic the appearance of the horse-drawn taxis of the day.

"The vehicle resembles very closely a horseless and shaftless coupé. It is carried on four wooden solid rubber-tired wheels. There is ample space for the coachmen. The accommodation within is luxurious. The propelling machinery consists of a 8-horse power Johnson-Lundell motor, with double wound armature and fields, so that by the use of a suitable switch or controller a variety of speeds can be obtained."

"The current is supplied by 40 EPS traction type cells, having a capacity of 170 ampere hours when discharged at a rate of 30 amperes. The cabs can thus travel between thirty and thirty-five miles per charge."

The vehicle had speed settings of three, seven and nine miles per hour, controlled by a lever at the side of the driver’s box. A powerful footbrake that broke the electrical circuit could also be applied, halting the vehicle in short order. This was one of four key conditions under which taxis were granted licenses by Scotland Yard, with carriages also required to be capable of turning in small spaces and climbing central London’s steepest ascent of the time, Savoy Hill.

The batteries, which weighed some 14 cwt (over 700 kg), were hung from springs underneath the vehicle and could be swapped out at Bersey’s Lambeth station using a system of hydraulic lifts. This was undoubtedly restrictive, and it was planned at the time to introduce other stations throughout London where the batteries could be charged and swapped. Though Bersey’s company claimed cab drivers welcomed the vehicle, it appears its introduction was not received as warmly from all quarters, as the following passage from a September 1897 edition of The Engineer illustrates.

"Mr. Walter C Bersey, the general manager of the London Electrical Cab Company, Ltd., has written to the general secretary of the London Cab Trade Council, saying that he fails to see how it can be contended that the introduction of electrical cabs can be against the interests of the cabdrivers. He says he has spoken to hundreds of cabmen on the subject, and has always understood they were most anxious for the change, as it would shorten their hours by saving the time wasted in changing horses, and also save them the unpleasantness of frequently having to drive tired and undesirable horses."

Despite Bersey’s protestations, the vehicle never really took off, with the fleet only reaching a peak of around 75 units. The cab’s two-tonne weight caused huge wear on the tyres which led to noise and vibrations escalating significantly after six months of use. Bersey’s company lost £6,200 in the first year of operation, and the business was forced to close in 1899, the vehicles disappearing from London’s streets just two years after making their debut.

Source : the engineer.co.uk

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2KJw6vt
via IFTTT https://ift.tt/2MkHVNp https://ift.tt/12cqxIH

News From Unite Union Cab Section... Uber Illegally Granted A Booking Office Licence In Glasgow.

Yesterday at the Burgh Court, Uber Scot Ltd was illegally granted a Booking Office Licence, in breach of the The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Booking Offices) Order 2009. 

In an assault on the democratic process, the Licensing and Regulatory Committee, advised by Licensing Solicitor, Mairi Millar, refused to hear three objections from Unite the Union Cab Section, Glasgow Taxis Ltd, and Greater Glasgow Private Hire Association. Objections were late as the statutory notice was only viewable on the door of 69 Buchanan St for 21 days. The notice was not in the print media, not on the GCC website, in fact it had no online presence anywhere. It was preposterous to expect anyone to notice an A4 sheet on the door of an inconspicuous office building on a pedestrianised shopping thoroughfare.

Despite objections being late, Glasgow City Council Licensing & Regulatory Committee has at its discretion the power to hear late submissions. All three objectors were only allowed to give the reasons why the objections were late, but forbidden from mentioning reasons for objecting. Glasgow Taxis Ltd Solicitor, Tom McIntaggart, put up an extremely convincing argument for hearing the objections, citing examples where GCC Licensing had accepted late objections in the past. 

Councillors who voted against hearing our objections and denied us the right to be heard were as follows:

Baillie John Kane, Scottish Labour Party, Govan (5)

Baillie Hanif Raja, Scottish Labour Party, Pollokshields (6)

Cllr Aileen McKenzie, Scottish Labour Party, Springburn/Robroyston (17)

Cllr Robert Connelly, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Calton.

Those councillors that believed in the democratic process and wanted to hear our objections were as follows:

Cllr Rhiannon Spear, Scottish National Party, Greater Pollok (3).

Cllr Graham Campbell, Scottish National Party, Springburn/Robroyston (17).

Gary Gray, Scottish Labour Party, Canal (16).

Special mention to Cllr Rhiannon Spear who made clear her concerns over aspects of Uber’s operation and was clearly unhappy with what transpired.

Just to recap, all traditional taxi and private hire companies in Glasgow are registered at their respective licensed premises in Glasgow for the booking, dispatch and payment of fares. This means that they are within the jurisdiction of Scottish law enforcement and the Scottish legal system. It also means that they are subject to UK tax and VAT.

Uber is the exception. Glasgow work is dispatched from Uber BV in the Netherlands, trip data is recorded by Uber BV in the Netherlands, payment is taken by Uber BV in the Netherlands, and a receipt is issued by Uber BV in the Netherlands. Glasgow City Council yesterday licensed a sham booking office that attempts to legitimise dispatch of work from an unlicensed foreign company, Uber BV. 

Yesterday Uber’s Solicitor pointed to 4 million trips taken in Glasgow since it started. Some crude arithmetic based on an average of £5 per trip:

4M x £5 = £20M

Uber’s cut (25%) after drs are paid =£5M

UK Corporation tax @21% on £5M ~£1M+

UK VAT @20% on £20M = £4M

So, with what we admit are very crude workings, Uber has avoided UK tax and VAT in the region of £5M in Glasgow alone, in the 30 months it has been operating. That is starving the public purse of much needed revenue for schools, hospitals, housing etc. Glasgow City Council Licensing not only had solid legal grounds to reject Uber’s application, it also had a strong moral case to reject it. 

Don’t take our word for Uber’s illegal operation in Glasgow. At the November, 2017, Joint Taxi and Private Hire Trade Meeting, GCC Licensing Solicitor, Mairi Millar, stated that Uber Britannia Ltd did not satisfy the criteria to hold a Booking Office licence. Well the Licensing Solicitor can now make that two illegal booking offices ‘operational’ in Glasgow now.

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2Hd5SED
via IFTTT https://ift.tt/eA8V8J https://ift.tt/12cqxIH