the negotiator

If your face doesn’t fit…

Ihave written many times about uber’s treatment of its drivers – the people who make the money that pays their executives’ fat salaries. I know that a number of these Uber executives, as well as a few Professional Driver readers, have asked why I am always “whinging”.

Earlier this year my trade union, the GMB, along with others, won a historic Supreme Court victory. This decided that drivers working for Uber, and presumably other private hire drivers, enjoyed the minimum benefits under employment law, a decision fought against by Uber over several years. After that, Uber signed a historic recognition agreement with the GMB that appeared to pave the way towards better treatment for all drivers.

So why did drivers picket Uber’s London HQ on Wednesday, October 6? Fellow trade unionists, the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain’s United Private Hire Drivers (UPHD), called the protest over the drivers and couriers who have been deactivated (terminated/dismissed/sacked) following automatic checks on their identity via the app.

Research has shown that a huge number of drivers have been terminated this way after years of service because the app failed to recognise their faces. Earlier versions of the software used by Uber was found to have a failure rate of 21% for non-white female faces, 6% for non-white males, but falling to zero percent for white men. Drivers presenting themselves at the UBER hub are turned away even when they can prove that they are the person the app claims they are not.

The UPHD claims that more than 200 workers were affected this way or summarily terminated. From my experience as a “workplace representative” for GMB member/drivers I believe these figures to be an underestimate. What is the situation affecting such workers and what is their position regarding workplace security?

How app-based transport companies work is as follows. They apply a device-based app that allows customers to call on the service of workers, normally via a mobile phone, be they couriers, private hire drivers, cleaners and so on. The companies claim that this is all “new and shiny” and the workers are all independent contractors.

The claim of the companies that these were “gig” workers doing their thing while engaged in something more serious has now been dropped and it is accepted that the majority of those providing services are engaged full time in their work.

These various apps are not “new or shiny” but are just a new way to put customers in touch with workers in existing industries. The app companies make their money not on the basis of innovation but on good old fashioned low wages paid to the workers and taking, at the same time, a slice of their workers earnings as commission. So, why do these companies treat their bread-earners this way?

These companies’ business models are based on low fixed overheads. That includes the cost of humans that are needed many times to resolve problems that the “new and shiny” computers and apps can’t solve. The private hire and courier companies have invented a solution to resolving personnel management, complaints and customer queries.

Namely, the “Kleenex” approach to people management and relationships: if there are any problems, discard and get a new one.

The app companies cannot manage the volume of personnel management issues and customer complaints generated by their success. It would cost

too much in terms of people and will create a huge layer of bureaucracy. Such a development will add to their existing negative earnings. The Kleenex approach (other tissues are available) is underpinned by a simple algorithm. A driver who has any negative comments made against him is given the boot. No lengthy hearing, no need for statements, no appeal procedures, no nothing! But, I hear you say, this paints the app based company bosses as worse than 19th century mill owners, who also Dennot Nyack sent children up chimneys. I’ve seen the photos of Jaimie Heywood and he is clean shaven, nary a whisker on his face, The union view no top hat and he does not wear a frock coat. BTW, he does from our GMB not send children up chimneys. representative Ah, I’ll reply, that is true but when you were kicked out of your work as a weaver you did not end up owing thousands of pounds for your car, insurance, medicals, licences, etc. However, termination of drivers from the app still occurs on a regular basis. I know because I have personally written emails to one of the major private hire companies for more than a hundred member/drivers asking that their drivers be told what it is they have done; when, where and at what time it occurred and who has made the complaint. Not one response have I received. I have had drivers terminated for not allowing their passengers to play drum n’ bass through the car’s speakers; apparently executing a U-turn on the Westway flyover; supposedly leering after female, and male passengers, etc. As I said in my previous article, I and the GMB are supportive of all measures that get rid of drivers who act criminally, put passengers in danger or are just bad people. However, the use of an algorithm to sack drivers and then fail to give them an opportunity to address the charges that led to their dismissal is wrong. I don’t agree with some that say such action is criminal, but it is very poor corporate behaviour and certainly against the corporate social responsibility charter of these companies. So what should Uber and others do? I agree with our colleagues in the UPHD. All drivers and couriers demand a fair process for dismissals in line with Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) guidelines and the reinstatement of their sacked colleagues. The companies have stated that they are taking firm action against bad drivers. If that is the case, then there appear to be an awful lot of bad drivers working across the profession. I don’t think that is the case. What I believe is happening is, as I have said previously, the companies are using computer-based decision-making in order to manage their staff. This is something that I believe is against the law but I will need to check this. Every worker subject to a process that would lead to their dismissal must have the opportunity to hear the case against them and then present their defence. So companies, adopt the ACAS guidelines and, where necessary, increase your fares. Do the right thing. —Dennot Nyack n Dennot is a AGM trade union member and was a former representative of the GMB’s professional drivers. He is also an author and broadcaster with a strong knowledge of the private hire industry and an equality and diversity specialist. email: dennotnyack@yahoo.com — mobile: +44 0740 625 276