10
|
Views
thegryphon.co.uk
An Uber desperate plea to students The U.S taxi-hailing service Uber has been found to have been using secret programs to hide their existence from official regulators, in order to avoid potential charges. Regularly featuring in the news, and not for charitable donations, Uber is the Marmite of transport companies; it’s loathed by local minicab firms, but loved by students everywhere. Its popularity is another symptom of unconcerned student attitudes across the UK. Although it must be conceded that Uber is both easy and convenient to use, I urge students to look at the history of Uber’s policies, and to realise that we should not be supporting such a franchise. Cases of sexism, regulation-avoidance and lawsuits against TfL are only a handful of instances where Uber has displayed lawless behaviour. This article highlights the actions of the multinational corporation, as its repeated offences stand out against other transport firms. However, it must be noted that whilst Uber does indeed lack moral fibre, it’s transgressions should not paint other local transport firms, such as Amber, in a saintly light. There are also reported cases of unlawful acts committed by local firms, however I believe in this case that the bigger fish needs to be fried. On 3 March 2017, it was reported by The New York Times that Uber uses a secret program on their apps called ‘Greyball’. This program is used in order to
deceive and bypass authorities around the world, in countries such as Australia, South Korea and the United States. This suspicious and unsavoury activity is synchronous with recent reports concerning the company’s in-house workplace environment, which states that employees are asked to be ‘obsessed’
“
talking-to’ because of his good work in the past. This shocking response, or lack of, was made worse by the fact that only a month later, company boss Travis Kalanick was filmed swearing at one of Uber’s own drivers. Kalanick has since publicly declared his need to ‘grow up’ after the debacle. I believe that these incidents cannot be ignored, as ignorance only serves to benefit the offender, allowing them to go unpunished. A myriad of accusations against the company have been made, with only a handful making it to mainstream national media. These few include the refusal to offer a ride to a blind man and his dog, illegal testing of self-drive cars in California, and refusal to disclose information concerning their employee diversity. The latter, when taken together with the multitude of sexual harassment claims made against Uber, leads us to the conclusion that the Silicon Valley company is not only deceiving the public and authorities, but exudes sexist values whilst doing so. Moreover, Uber’s use of the ‘gig’ economy puts their employees at a disadvantage in financial terms. Uber, amongst others like Deliveroo, does not offer National Insurance, National Minimum wage or holiday pay to employees. In a modernised society like ours, this is not only an issue which undermines our socio-political progress, but a burden which the taxpayer will have to bear.
“
George Mason BA International History and Politics
Regularly featuring in the news, and not for charitable donations, Uber is the Marmite of transport companies; it’s loathed by local minicab firms, but loved by students everywhere.
with the customer and encourage ‘hustlin’. These values are not a new phenomenon within the £48 billion firm, as its history is heavily blotched with misdemeanours. In February 2017, former Uber engineer Susan Fowler spoke out against the conglomerate, outlining details of sexual harassment committed by a fellow employee. Remarkably, Uber did little to rectify the situation, and only issued a ‘warning and a stern
Britain’s w(age) gap Aiden Alexander Wynn BA English LIterature At a time when higher education costs are not so much steadily increasing but being skyrocketed way into the skies, it has seemed like a sensible option for many students to seek out employment for a bit of extra income. However, it is a ridiculous reality in our society that, for many young adults to earn a decent amount of money in a part-time, low-income job, they either have to work an excessive number of hours, or simply age a few months or years. For students who have gained employment, it becomes evident very quickly that they are in a catch-22 situation. Does the under-21-year-old sacrifice hours that could go towards their degree, to avoid having to descend into their overdraft or turn to the family for financial support? Or do they work few hours – if any at all – and have to retain all of their anxieties surrounding lifelong debt, and defer any hopes of financial independence until their 25th birthday? For under-21s who are not in higher education, there is an equally troubling issue at play, and one which bears the additional burden of the current state of the housing market. Growing house prices have meant increasing numbers of young people being forced to live with their parents until their mid-30s, and many holding out no hopes of ever being able to own a home. Taking all of this into consideration, I struggle to understand how it can possibly seem logical to start
young people off at a lower wage than their elders who are doing the exact same job, and for the exact same number of hours. When the economy is already set up in a way that prevents young people from getting on the property ladder, it only seems right to give them a fighting chance through equal pay. There must be some sort of considered reasoning behind unequal wage rates. It is hard to find one though, because if it’s there, it isn’t well thought out. The idea seems to be that older individuals are entitled to a higher minimum wage because their life is expected to be more firmly established, perhaps with a family on the scene, by age 25. This argument is flawed in a number of ways, from its presumptuous nature, to the fact that this wage rate is still a world away from living wage. The main flaw though lies in the idea that employers won’t take advantage of the unequal rates of pay. With cheap labour comes the possibility of greater profits. This is an opportunity that is inevitably seized by employers, who will cut the hours of their most expensive employees, in order to open up more hours for their cheaper assets. Clearly then, the idea
of granting older individuals more money to sustain what is expected to be an already well-established, independent life, is flawed from the outset. With unequal pay, there are no winners except exploitative employers. And so, if you are ever being served by a minimum wage worker and think it is justifiable that they are making £5.55 an hour, then just take a moment to look over to the employee one cash machine over. Here, putting all other views on minimum wage aside for a moment, we need to question how exactly it can be fair to pay two people two vastly different amounts for doing the same job, just because one’s birthday was six months before the other’s. I have thought long and hard about this question, and I’ve come up with an answer: it isn’t.
Image: HSE.gov