New Tarif Update : Changes Due To Come Into Effect Saturday 6 October 2018

Tariff Update today:

Tariff email from Darren Crowson (TFL) 

Dear All,

Changes to the taxi fares and tariffs have now been approved and the changes are due to come into effect on Saturday 6 October 2018.

The changes approved were:

 *   Increasing the minimum fare from £2.60 to £3.00

 *   Increasing Tariff 1 by 0.6 per cent

 *   Increasing Tariff 2 by 0.6 per cent

 *   Extending the fuel charge arrangements until the next taxi fares and tariffs update

 *   Increasing by 50 pence the fixed fares for shared taxis from Euston Station (with the exception of the Euston Station to Lords Cricket Ground fare)

 *   Increasing the soiling charge from £40.00 to £60.00

The following were also approved:

 *   Freezing Tariff 3

 *   Freezing the tariff rate for journeys over six miles (sometimes referred to as Tariff 4)

 *   Further work and research being conducted to look at fixed and capped fare schemes to and from Heathrow Airport

 *   Adding fares for six passengers sharing to the shared taxi conversion table

·        Requiring all card payment devices approved for use in taxis to accept American Express as well as Visa and MasterCard

Some items discussed when we met or which were included in the consultation document were not taken forward and I'll run through what changed, what wasn't approved or consulted on, and the details of the new tariffs when we meet on Thursday 30 August 2018.

Information for the taximeter companies is now being finalised and I'll send you a copy of this as soon as it is ready.

If you have any questions let me know and I'll either respond by email or collate these and then run through them when we meet.

Regards

Darren Crowson

Policy Manager

Transport for London - Taxi and Private Hire

3rd Floor (3G2), 230 Blackfriars Road

London

SE1 8NW

Tel: 020 3054 2945 (internal 82945)

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2PcpdGs
via IFTTT https://ift.tt/2OD5COi https://ift.tt/12cqxIH

More Good News As It Looks like the gig is up for Uber in California

The California Supreme Court has issued a decision with major implications for Uber, the gig economy, and the question of worker classification more broadly. 

In Dynamex Operations West, Inc., the court holds – for purposes of California wage orders (which govern minimum wages, maximum hours, and meal and rest breaks) – that the appropriate test for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor is the so-called ABC test. 

Under that test, a hiring entity that wants to classify workers as independent contractors has the burden of establishing each of the following three things:

(A) that the worker is free from control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact;

(B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and

(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity.

All three factors are difficult for a firm like Uber to establish (my view is that they lose on all three), but the second prong ought to be impossible for Uber to satisfy. Meeting prong (B) requires Uber to prove that its drivers are performing work outside the usual course of Uber’s business. Since Uber’s business is all about providing transportation services to passengers, driving people is in the usual course of Uber’s business. Indeed, the only way Uber can win on prong (B) is to convince a judge that it is not in the transportation business, but is instead a technology company. Uber has been making this argument, but the appropriate response to it has already been offered. The U.K Uber tribunal, for example, called the idea “faintly ridiculous.” Judge Chen deemed it “fatally flawed.” As Chen put it:

Uber is no more a “technology company” than Yellow Cab is a “technology company” because it uses CB radios to dispatch taxi cabs, John Deere is a “technology company” because it uses computers and robots to manufacture lawn mowers, or Domino Sugar is a “technology company” because it uses modern irrigation techniques to grow its sugar cane. Indeed, very few (if any) firms are not technology companies if one focuses solely on how they create or distribute their products. If, however, the focus is on the substance of what the firm actually does (e.g., sells cab rides, lawn mowers, or sugar), it is clear that Uber is most certainly a transportation company.

Being a transportation company, Uber will fail to satisfy prong (B). 

That means under the California Supreme Court’s test, Uber drivers are employees

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2w19l3K
via IFTTT https://ift.tt/eA8V8J https://ift.tt/12cqxIH