-
Well that's the other debate, I think the law is archaic on this, but untill that changes TFL are right to clamp down and not let Goldman Sachs and Boris's rich mates run rough shot over peoples employment contracts.
Its easy for us to be like "fuck black cabs" but if it was our contracts in breach I'd be pissed and that's what I think is important.
Still, would use an Uber over a black cab, but when push comes to shove Add Lee have always got my back (double flats, no spare tubes, bike in the back seat, 10/10 banter all the way home) but that's just from my personal experience.
Antidotes-
Still, would use an Uber over a black cab, but when push comes to shove Add Lee have always got my back (double flats, no spare tubes, bike in the back seat, 10/10 banter all the way home) but that's just from my personal experience.
Completely agree with this ^
Are uber actually breaking the law though? Are they not operating within a loophole?
Surely it's TFL's problem that the contracts that they drew up are in breach, not ubers?
sorethroat1
Listened to the same show. James O'Brien and the RMT bloke turned me fully against black cabs.
It's a vague law that uber are right flaunt. App is a control room etc. Aside from that it's an archaic law that I don't really understand, why does it even exist?