Like Hamlet, the scene is set before the audience and the world – Its a murderess case,
As we join the supreme court ladies and gentleman -The advocate picks up the argument for Uber Slaves by, addressing the court, in response to Uber’s Player Queen for legal argument in this appeal case, now in the highest court of appeal on English soil, ma ladies and ma lords
The Uber murderess Queen Gertrude’s business is at hand, as justice comes calling, opposition lawyers working for free, to rid this slavery and this queen from the realm, as we know it. in the year of 2020, in the month of July, near 4 years or so since judged as slavery in 2016 on sovereign soil
Despite Gertrude’s gift for making shrewd observations she appears content not to act upon them, and instead submits to the schemes of her husband and his councellors
In Act -III, Scene-II of the play, The murderess Queen Gertrude says, when speaking to her son,
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
She a the lady queen character of the play, she is insincere, as she repeats dramatically that she would never marry again because of her undying love
Like a scene from Pirates of the Caribbean, we take you to the supreme courts virtual court chambers for your imagination to explore, disruptive technology, come to the end of their play on sovereign soil, as would be pirates from the Caribbean
Arrrr the verdict – We set the scene, as if a gang called the Uber Pirates traveled from the America’s, and plundered the Queen’s sovereign land for supremacy, and gold bullion,
Arrrr me buccaneers, they finally came to court,
Be seated ladies and gentleman and call yourself a member of the Jury, as you continue on
Uber pirates v British slaves before the crown’s only justice system
Case background – Charged with
- Trading unlawfully using concrete contracts, with ready mix cement
- Came to our shores to trade with unique control over slaves, and rides
- Avoided the crown taxes with contractual ingenuity, is one of the submissions before the court today
- Parties in the matter have been sworn in, please take your seats
Ist mate Cock n Bull off the pirate ship Supreme Uber is accused with his outfit, of being masters at avoiding customs eventualities, if you look at previous cases in the law books, with the Queens taxation system factored in, including statute law, including sham contract inventions amounting to slavery, using clauses of “Control” Ma lords and Ma Lady, that is but a few submissions today before the supreme court, including members of the public jury that come before you in this session
Cabbie app sparrow off the Leigh-day flag ship. and others who were Uber slaves, were now anxious to see these pirates schemes buried with 1st mate Cock n Bull, once and for all, me cockers, Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, arrrrrr me ship mates, let them walk the plank
The Uber pirates of San Fransisco with their ready mix concrete contractual terms, ladies and gentleman, were much to be desired under the scrutiny of statute law , in a controlled employment environment when you looked at other cases that had come before her Majesty’s courts
The slave’s advocate’s submissions had, good foundation, like a solid concrete building of law and case law spanning centuries, when he directed the court to the facts in law, rendering the Uber pirates that had sailed the Caribbean seas to become slave masters on British sovereign soil, slave masters in law in their trading of rides
The advocates for the Uber slaves were actually damning with their submissions to Ma Lord’s and Lady of the Supreme court that Wednesday, that you can rely on, ladies and gentleman of the Jury when you look close
Ironic as it maybe if you look at the ready mix cement case, where controls were in place, and therefore the workers were not contractors, as the Uber Pirates would have you believe, as the submission is that these Uber pirate contracts are a sham, ladies and gentleman of the public Jury, and therefore much is owed or to be calculated
If we apply statute law when we look at that case, the contract was not concrete and did not fit statute law, as the contract must fit statute law to be legally compliant if you want to mix concrete contracts and law, when taking on workers of any kind, subject to statute law on her Majesty’s soil if there are work related controls in place by the trader
Leigh day solicitors currently are reviewing the situation on a no win no fee basis if you are an Uber slave with a ready mix concrete contract which, you an Uber driver agreed to, with talk of much gold when you join the app, just like other ship mates recorded as slaves on the app that also agreed the terms of business as an Uber so called partner
Whilst we await the Supreme court’s verdict, it could be said – if you work for Uber at this moment they are paying your time in money,
should you fall below the minimum wage on your current shift, at any time in the near future, if not at this moment, with your app turned on, built by pirates for slaves who, have ready mix concrete contracts agreed by way of using the Uber app
These slave traders take many a mindful soul with their ready mix concrete contractual practices, on British land today effecting, even the self employed cabbie on the street today in the industry working for Uber who, has effectively signed up for wages if he or she stands still or meets untidy payments that, do not meet the minimum wage level set in statute law or employment law today
Long live the Queen and her Majesty’s customs officers always on the job
These Uber slaves appear to be fine upstanding tax paying subjects, like all Cabbies throughout the Queen’s land, respecting her majesty’s sovereignty and customs, and the Prince of Wales, and of course statute law, especially if they should wish to employ someone and call them self employed
with her Majesty’s control protections put in place in statue law, should anyone write up a contract that does not fit her Majesty’s concrete laws or EU laws when they are in tandem with the realm, it would be a costly exercise over time for even a Uber agency should they try and beat sovereign enactment
one must ask the public, and you the jury to, consider the seriousness of the charges before the courts and employment tribunal in waiting, on the supreme court’s final decision on these San Francisco would be slaver traders, if the Uber slaves bro bono advocate’s submissions are deemed accurate again, in this final court of appeal process
The advocate for the slaves had shown many concrete case law cases for, many examples to follow, all of which was brought to her majesty’s supreme court’s attention for ma Lord and Lady to be sure, and in doing so worthy of the best parlay on sovereign soil that historic Wednesday, 22 July, of the year 2020, an event worthy for any horn blower or Ma Lord Admiral Nelson in attendance or the treasury
Arrrr, a great day for any slave traders to be hung by their own controls they put in place, Ma lady, arrrr, shiver me timbers, a landing in sight for these pirate buggers, as history was in the making ma lords and Lady and people of the public jury
A shipping disaster for the Queens Lords to consider ladies and gentleman as the slaves rebel and seek knowledge from the queens customs officers, Statute law, and case law, employment statute law, including cases and laws in Spain and France,and all the goings on, back hundreds of years Ma Lords and Ladies, oooowwww arrrrrr, it was quite a sight for even me ship mates
A Pirate crew that had already plundered France and Spain with their slave ready mix concrete control formula, which has allowed the Uber pirate gang to, disrupt the workers rights set out by enactment, and turn the nations people and me ship mates, into slaves for gold, ladies and gentleman people of the public jury here today
Arrrr a practice many fellow buccaneers feel they should hang for, if you pardon me ship mates, arrrrrrrr, they is pirate beasts that came across the dark seas in the Black pearl, looking with their dead souls from Davy’s locker for a treasure on our Island in the name of slavery and rides
Ist mate Cock an Bull had a steady hand and a tint of rose coloured head of hair, as the Uber Queen explained Uber’s practices in slavery, that are no different to other cab firms across her Majesty Queen Elizabeth’s British Island,
The Uber slave trader’s had 3 pieces to their business plan triangle, for gold, using their disruptive crew, contracts for slavery with built in control clauses, a contract that the advocate for the Uber slaves said, resembled a Landlord of the 18 hundreds that thought his contract was concrete too, until he met her majesty’s statute laws head on, always improved or upgraded over the years and centuries
Contracts that in many cases fooled you, if you are self employed or looking to rent from a Landlord using but two examples used in the Supreme court this Wednesday hearing
Originating out of San Francisco dock, an unusual gang that were forever over looking customs and the Queens law and sovereignty, and always shooting off when you read witness statements from the slaves, including the pirates own ship log, and written replies back to customers, drivers, or licensing authorities such as TFL
Supreme flagship Uber docked, courting the Queen and got caught by an employment act ma Lord, with a pirate from a dodgy agency set up, now running from customs officers also, said the advocate on behalf of the British cabbie’s turned contractual slaves, if Cabbie App Sparrow was anything to go by with his report on what went on, and in court that day
The witness statements reports many facts, ma Lords and ladies of the public jury here today, as the advocate for the slaves, looked at what is normal in the cab industry, which is not what these Uber pirates do, if you look at Statute law in place, and what the law says when ready mix concrete slavery contracts are drawn up to fool the nation or Islanders of this sovereign soil
The Lords were told the Queen of England, and her parliament have, been putting in laws to stop controls written into app contracts, that workers are not being paid for, when they should be under statute law, especially if they are ever labelled self employed contractors at the same time
The Advocate for Uber slaves submission was, there is evidence of controls being used by the Pirates of San Francisco, especasilly when one examines their business communications to workers and customers
Something that 1st mate Cock an Bull off the Uber ship, seemed to over look in various cases, in her law book submissions, where contracts were found to be a sham as, they did not meet the legal standard passed by parliament, with many case law examples to show 1st mate Cock an Bull hasn’t checked enough case law, or got themselves out the stench wafting down her Majesty s streets and highways into the Supreme court of appeal
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
The case broadcasting the fact that her majesty’s vat tax collectors could well be taking note of this partner of Uber called the London agency, set up in the name of Uber, in London Town, as the Uber advocate tells Ma Lord’s and Lady. that they are a private hire minicab operator just like the others in town or in your village, and therefore they are not slave masters, but an Agency with no control of the customer, as they merely provide a means for drivers to earn
The agency is just that, and not a collector of funds for themselves directly, it is the driver that is in control, just like other private hire operators, including ratings to ensure drivers are justifiably working for Uber, as every other cab firm would have – you know ratings for workers, with controls and does and don’ts etc, as every Uber has total control as a self employed contractor, even over fares carried out awaiting the correct fare to be paid directly from the passenger, and not from Uber or it’s agency.
If the reader is confused then most definitely you should have been there to hear the fantasy being projected as their arguments as clear submissions for the Lord’s and lady to deliberate over, were ridiculous and shameful under the circumstances
The game looks like its up for the pirates of San Francisco, as, as usual they keep moving the goal posts to dodge the taxing eventualities for pirates landing in the Queen’s realm, where Uber state effectively that Uber drivers (slaves) are effectively their workers on the record in writing for all to see, should you wish to use it as evidence in court, which it was
Previous correspondence shows Uber referring to drivers as workers. The evidence is before the courts now members of the public jury
Ist Mate Cock and Bull sticks to his ready mix concrete argument as a minicab private hire operator who only takes a commission, and its all the same as any private hire firm. Just an agency with a principle called Uber too, plus the worker contract with “Controls” drawn up like a ready mix concrete outfit who, put controls on staff which did not meet workers rights in workers rights law or statute law that passed through the parliamentary processes to make statute
In short ladies and gentleman of the jury, there is not one Uber driver out there today that is not a worker for uber, if you look at Statute law, and Uber’s business practices financial and controlling, mixed in ready mix concrete app contracts, to agree, or, no slave work will be provided to them from the pirates app. Slaves are lured by clever contracts that do not meet the statute requirements even if they call you self employed in their contract terms
It is no wonder that these pirates from the America’s have been appealing every judgement they get on employment law that, shows them to be outside statute law or more importantly employment law for workers, who have gained protections for minimal wages and financial rights to pay and holiday on the job before Uber were even born
UK Uber drivers are taking the algorithm to court
A group of U.K. Uber drivers has launched a legal challenge against the company’s subsidiary in the Netherlands. The complaints relate to access to personal data and algorithmic accountability.
Uber drivers and Uber Eats couriers are being invited to join the challenge, which targets Uber’s use of profiling and data-fueled algorithms to manage gig workers in Europe. Platform workers involved in the case are also seeking to exercise a broader suite of data access rights baked into EU data protection law.
It looks like a fascinating test of how far existing legal protections wrap around automated decisions at a time when regional lawmakers are busy drawing up a risk-based framework for regulating applications of artificial intelligence.
Many uses of AI technology look set to remain subject only to protections baked into the existing General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). So determining how far existing protections extend in the context of modern data-driven platforms is important.
The European Commission is also working on rebooting liability rules for platforms, with a proposal for a Digital Services Act due by year’s end. As part of that work it’s actively consulting on related issues such as data portability and platform worker rights — so the case looks very timely.
Via the lawsuit, which has been filed in Amsterdam’s district court today, the group of Uber drivers from London, Birmingham, Nottingham and Glasgow will argue the tech giant is failing to comply with the GDPR and will ask the court to order immediate compliance — urging it be fined €10,000 for each day it fails to comply.
They will also ask the court to order Uber to comply with a request to enable them to port personal data held in the platform to a data trust they want to establish, administered by a union.
For its part, Uber U.K. said it works hard to comply with data access requests, further claiming it provides explanations when it’s unable to provide data.
Data rights to crack open an AI blackbox?
The GDPR gives EU citizens data access rights over personal information held on them, including a right to obtain a copy of data they have provided so that it can be reused elsewhere.
The regulation also provides some additional access rights for individuals who are subject to wholly automated decision making processes where there is a substantial legal or similar impact — which looks relevant here because Uber’s algorithms essentially determine the earning potential of a driver or courier based on how the platforms assigns (or withholds) jobs from the available pool.
As we wrote two years ago, Article 22 of the GDPR offers a potential route to put a check on the power of AI blackboxes to determine the trajectory of humankind — because it requires that data controllers provide some information about the logic of the processing to affected individuals. Although it’s unclear how much detail they have to give, hence the suit looks set to test the boundaries of Article 22, as well as making reference to more general transparency and data access rights baked into the regulation.
James Farrar, an Uber driver who is supporting the action — and who was also one of the lead claimants in a landmark U.K. tribunal action over Uber driver employment rights (which is, in related news, due to reach the U.K. Supreme Court tomorrow, as Uber has continued appealing the 2016 ruling) — confirmed the latest challenge is “full spectrum” in the GDPR rights regard.
The drivers made subject access requests to Uber last year, asking the company for detailed data about how its algorithm profiles and performance manages them. “Multiple drivers have been provided access to little or no data despite making a comprehensive request and providing clear detail on the data requested,” they write in a press release today.
Farrar confirmed that Uber provided him with some data last year, after what he called “multiple and continuous requests,” but he flagged multiple gaps in the information — such as GPS data only being provided for a month out of two years of work; no information on the trip rating assigned to him by passengers; and no information on his profile nor the tags assigned to it.
“I know Uber maintain a profile on me but they have never revealed it,” he told TechCrunch, adding that the same is true of performance tags.
“Under GDPR Uber must explain the logic of processing, it never really has explained management algorithms and how they work to drivers. Uber has never explained to me how they process the electronic performance tags attached to my profile for instance.
“Many drivers have been deactivated with bogus claims of ‘fraudulent use’ being detected by Uber systems. This is another area of transparency required by law but which Uber does not uphold.”
The legal challenge is being supported by the App Drivers & Couriers Union (ADCU), which says it will argue Uber drivers are subject to performance monitoring at work.
It also says it will present evidence of how Uber has attached performance-related electronic tags to driver profiles with categories including: Late arrival/missed ETAs; Cancelled on rider; Attitude; Inappropriate behaviour.
“This runs contrary to Uber’s insistence in many employment misclassification legal challenges across multiple jurisdictions worldwide that drivers are self-employed and not subject to management control,” the drivers further note in their press release.
Commenting in a statement, their attorney, Anton Ekker of Ekker Advocatuur, added: “With Uber BV based in the Netherlands as operator of the Uber platform, the Dutch courts now have an important role to play in ensuring Uber’s compliance with the GDPR. This is a landmark case in the gig economy with workers asserting their digital rights for the purposes of advancing their worker rights.”
The legal action is being further supported by the International Alliance of App-based Transport (IAATW) workers in what the ADCU dubs an “unprecedented international collaboration.”
Reached for comment on the challenge, Uber emailed us the following statement:
Our privacy team works hard to provide any requested personal data that individuals are entitled to. We will give explanations when we cannot provide certain data, such as when it doesn’t exist or disclosing it would infringe on the rights of another person under GDPR. Under the law, individuals have the right to escalate their concerns by contacting Uber’s Data Protection Officer or their national data protection authority for additional review.
The company also told us it responded to the drivers’ subject access requests last year, saying it had not received any further correspondence since.
It added that it’s waiting to see the substance of the claims in court.
The unions backing the case are pushing for Uber to hand over driver data to a trust they want to administer.
Farrar’s not-for-profit, Worker Info Exchange (WIE), wants to establish a data trust for drivers for the purposes of collective bargaining.
“Our union wants to establish a data trust but we are blocked in doing so long as Uber do not disclose in a consistent way and not obstruct the process. API would be best,” he said on that, adding: “But the big issue here is that 99.99% of drivers are fobbed off with little or no proper access to data or explanation of algorithm.”
In a note about WIE on the drivers’ attorney’s website the law firm says other Uber drivers can participate by providing their permission for the not-for-profit to put in a data request on their behalf, writing:
Worker Info Exchange aims to tilt the balance away from big platforms in favour of the people who make these companies so successful every day – the workers.
Uber drivers can participate by giving Worker Info Exchange their mandate to send a GDPR-request on their behalf.
The drivers have also launched a Crowdjustice campaign to help raise £30,000 to fund the case.
Discussing the legal challenge and its implications for Uber, Newcastle University law professor Lilian Edwards suggested the tech giant will have to show it has “suitable safeguards” in place around its algorithm, assuming the challenge focuses on Article 22