Uber Loses Legal Test Case Over Language (bbc.com) 139
Ride-hailing service Uber lost a court battle on Friday to stop a London regulator from forcing private hire drivers to prove their reading and writing skills in English, the latest setback for the firm in London which could now lose some workers. From a report: The ride-hailing app went to court after Transport for London (TfL) said that drivers should have to prove their ability to communicate in English. Uber argued that the standard of reading and writing required by the test was too high. The US firm said the test was "unfair and disproportionate" and it would appeal against the court's decision. The ruling will also apply to all minicab firms in London. "TfL are entitled to require private hire drivers to demonstrate English language compliance," said Judge John Mitting as he rejected Uber's claim. Tom de la Mare QC, for Uber and the drivers, told the judge that the language requirement would result in 70,000 applicants failing to obtain a licence over three years. The proposals would have a disproportionate impact on drivers from countries where English was not generally spoken and give rise to "indirect discrimination on grounds of race and nationality."
Who cares about the drivers, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We do. That's why so many are in India.
Where they were taught the Queens English (yay colonialism).
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with the sentiment, though it is a bit short-sighted. The U.S. does not have an official language to enable people to stay in touch with their heritage, let those from Mexico continue to speak Spanish. These people are trying to work *with* English speakers for their job, they took the initiative of learning our language to do so. I'm as annoyed as the next person by the list-readers that are not tech support, usually I'm more irritated with their lack of help than I am with their ability to speak.
Re:Who cares about the drivers, (Score:4, Insightful)
We even go so far as to visit a country like France, and if they don't speak English, we speak English slower and LOUDER until they get what we are saying.
I've found a sturdy smack on the temple helps as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The northern parts which are Dutch and Flemish culture largely speak Dutch
That's like saying a piss drunk Irish man speaks American English. Funny story, we were on a bus in Croatia sitting behind 3 girls, and I could make out like 1 in 100 words. Eventually I gave up and asked them what language they were speaking. They said Dutch, I said bullshit. They laughed. Apparently the entirety of their conversation on the bus so far was them complaining to each other that the Dutch couldn't understand them :-)
The divisions within a country are even more severe than you make out.
Re: Who cares about the drivers, (Score:3)
Learning another language also provides you with cultural information on other countries and is an alternate way to think about anything. It provides you with a second view of the world. This is usually helpful, especially when you live in Arizona or North Dakota.
Re: (Score:2)
Not it doesn't. Learning about the relevant country in your foreign language class does to some extent. However this information is pretty much universally ignored by American students based on the general ignorance level in the US.
France and languages (Score:2)
It's funny that you mention France, because inside Europe, they are known to be notoriously worse at languages (specially regarding English).
And it's probably because of the same reasons: it's a (relatively) big country (on the scale of Europe), you can easily get around using french in lots of places (oversea territories in south america, former colonies all over africa including from north, qebec in canada, etc.), and they are really proud of their unified culture.
Also in the specific case of english, it
Re: (Score:2)
I have found this is true in Germany as well. Overall, English proficiency is much worse than in other countries.
Re: (Score:1)
It's common for Europeans to be able to speak 3 or more languages. The U.S. doesn't reciprocate that idea, we seem to think that English should be the standard world-wide. We even go so far as to visit a country like France, and if they don't speak English, we speak English slower and LOUDER until they get what we are saying.
When I was learning a second language but wasn't very good at it, I sometimes had trouble understanding native speakers. This was because they spoke quickly and not always clearly.
You know what helped me understand them? When they spoke SLOWER and LOUDER.
So maybe you can stop repeating this false idea that speaking English slower and louder is just Americans being stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
So maybe you can stop repeating this false idea that speaking English slower and louder is just Americans being stupid.
The joke is that speaking louder would help when the listener knows not a single word of the language. Do you understand Korean when spoken slowly and loud?
Re:Who cares about the drivers, (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's useful to remember that in many cases, English is kind of the world's common language.
It's not so much that people from the US have some strange arrogance that the rest of the world doesn't exist. It's more so that first the British conquered a large amount of the world and then the US became the dominant country -- so English is a kind of standard.
That's why if you want to do international business and you're from France, you probably speak English as well. While it's not so necessary in reverse. It's more useful for those in other countries to learn English since it's so prolific.
Of course this can and most likely will change over the years. In a hundred years most of the world may speak Mandarin and it doesn't make sense for Chinese to spend their time learning some little country's language.
The point is, the water moves with the biggest boat. If you're on the biggest boat everything moves around you.
Re: (Score:2)
UK is the same. We speak English and the universal language of shouting.
This test isn't about speaking skills though. It's the written essay part that is contentious. The last one said "write a short essay about Mars." Not very relevant to diving a taxi.
Re: (Score:2)
UK is the same. We speak English and the universal language of shouting.
This. You can easily spot an Englishman overseas because he's the one who steadfastly believes that any language barrier can be broken simply by shouting loudly in English.
Re: (Score:2)
The last one said "write a short essay about Mars." Not very relevant to diving a taxi.
This test is run by Transport For London. It's not just for taxi drivers.
It's a test of literacy. Do you find it surprising that they don't discuss only transportation? lol.
Re: (Score:2)
Once here in the Deep South, I encountered a tourist from Germany who spoke no English. He spoke German slowly and loudly when I didn't appear to understand. Slowly and distinctly enough that I with my 1 year of German years before was able to get the gist of his question and direct him to the park he was looking for.
Re: (Score:3)
It's common for Europeans to be able to speak 3 or more languages.
And odds are one of them will be English. More than once I've heard someone from France say "Does anybody speak English? I need to find out how to get where I want to go." on a German bus. English (not American) is the de facto language of travellers (and air traffic controllers) because chances are the country you are in has been invaded by the English at some time in history.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you go to my country (and probably other countries that were occupied by the USSR), you will find that a lot of older people can speak Russian (it was mandatory to learn in the USSR), but younger people may not, but younger people are more likely to speak English (it is mandatory to learn a second language in school and most schools choose English) than older people.
Re: (Score:2)
"...because chances are the country you are in has been invaded by the English at some time in history."
Or will be invaded by the USA some time in the near future. :)
We're going to need to spend that increased military budget somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
While it is common for Europeans to be able to speak foreign languages, you cannot be sure which ones. For example, people in my country usually can speak at least one foreign language. But some speak Russian and others speak English as a second language. Some know both, some know some other languages.
However, I would be incredibly annoyed if I went into a store (or called a taxi) and the employee could not speak the national language well enough to be understood without me asking the same thing multiple ti
Re: (Score:2)
I want to talk to a human being!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Who cares about the drivers, (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
taxi company so do they have drivers with small 'topographical test' in order to obtain a 'Private Hire' Drivers Licence??
and anyone with the knowledge?
Re: (Score:1)
You don't need The Knowledge to be a private hire driver in London, so I expect not. Uber are, on the other hand, a licenced private hire operator in London, through their subsidiary Uber London Ltd.
I do think "ride-hailing" company is particularly inapposite in this case, though, given that private hire vehicles are expressly *not* allowed to be hailed in London (unlike taxis).
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Newspeak is real (Score:5, Informative)
taxi company so do they have drivers with small 'topographical test' in order to obtain a 'Private Hire' Drivers Licence??
Yes [tfl.gov.uk] private hire licenses require topographical assessment. Called the "The Knowledge" [theknowledgetaxi.co.uk] it is the most stringent test in world apparently.
You will need to undertake a topographical skills assessment from an accredited assessment centre
The requirements seem sensible:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Newspeak is real (Score:2)
Unlike the US, the U.K. has a wider range of work eligibility permits. In the US, there is only the H1-B program for immigrants who are not green card holders.
The U.K. allows for foreign nationals to work on temporary permits recognizing that people need to earn a living while not expecting to stay in the U.K. forever. For example, student visas allow them to work. Certain travel visas not only allow people to work but also require that they travel for a certain percentage of their stay.
These visas also ha
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"No, the taxi regulations don't apply to us. We're a ride-hailing company, not a taxi company."
"Oh. So, what's the difference?"
"Ride-hailing companies aren't regulated."
"Oh."
Re: (Score:2)
"No, the taxi regulations don't apply to us. We're a ride-hailing company, not a taxi company."
"Oh. So, what's the difference?"
"Ride-hailing companies aren't regulated."
"Oh."
Oh aren't they? Then why are they complaining about their drivers losing their private hire licenses?
Your example may be relevant in the USA where taxi monopolies design the regulations, but in many places in the EU (and the UK since we need to get used to addressing them separately) Uber are no different than many taxis other than they set their prices using a different method. Ever Uber I've ever called has the same blue license plate that indicates a car will carry 3rd parties as a taxi, or chartered lim
Re: Newspeak is real (Score:2)
Maybe in your country, but not in mine. Here a taxi is a legally a car that transports a customer to place of the customer's choice for a fee. Livery service is, hence, a subtype of a taxi
Re: (Score:2)
They seem similar, but they are VERY different legally. Don't confuse the terms. Thanks!
You're talking about legal definitions and you don't know what country the person you're replying to is in.
"Thanks" indeed.
Barf. (Score:1)
Uber against discrimination. But only when it justifies them exploiting people in precarious jobs.
Go broke, greedy assholes.
Re: (Score:1)
Uber does seem a fair bit worse than other companies. Most companies at least play lip service to the law. Uber openly flaunts it.
Re: (Score:1)
Did you mean "flout"?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you mean "flout"?
That's why Uber so obnoxious. Not only do they flout the law, they also flaunt it.
Re: (Score:2)
In US, discrimination is illegal UNLESS it is demonstrable that discrimination is directly related to one's job.
In the UK (according to ACAS http://www.acas.org.uk/index.a... [acas.org.uk]) "an employer [...] can insist on recruiting a job candidate who has skills in English necessary for the job, but it must not select based on assumptions about race, nationality, or ethnic or national origins."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But the kind of interesting thing here is that discriminating on things based on language skills (deemed to be directly related to the job here by the government), are usually limitations of the law *allowing* employer's to be discriminatory. In this case, the government is *requiring* the employer (Uber) to discriminate and apply these standards.
It would be interesting if there was some way to get a sense of what the baseline language expectations are? Is this just trying to stick it to Uber because they
Re: (Score:2)
But the kind of interesting thing here is that discriminating on things based on language skills (deemed to be directly related to the job here by the government), are usually limitations of the law *allowing* employer's to be discriminatory. In this case, the government is *requiring* the employer (Uber) to discriminate and apply these standards.
In this case, Uber states quite clearly that they are not an employer. And the "speak English" test is to determine whether you are allowed to drive people around in England. Uber is clearly allowed to hire someone who only speaks Indian, and put them on a plane to India where they can drive. Or hire them as a car washer. That person is just not allowed to drive people around.
Re: Long settled (at least in US) (Score:2)
...who only speaks Indian
Did your ignorant self mean to say"Hindi?" 'Cause I know fuckall languages by that name... ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. In fact, you kind of have it backwards.
In the US, the only things you cannot discriminate for are those in "protected categories". The protected category list currently includes race, age, religion, marital status, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, physical or mental disability, and veteran status. There might be a couple of other reasons in there, but to the best of my recollection, that's about it.
Notwithstanding, it *is* legal to discriminate against someone in the US for even one
Re: (Score:2)
This is the UK and basically if you can make the case that a certain level of language skills is required then you are entitled to discriminate on those grounds. Generally public facing roles fall into that category and the Judge has accepted Transport for London's argument that in an English speaking country it is reasonable that those offering services to the public have to be able to communicate adequately with them in the native language of the country.
If Uber's legal council told them they had a chance
What if Uber wins? (Score:1)
So, if Uber wins the appeal you have to hire people you cannot communicate with or you'll get sued for discrimination?
I'm surprised there hasn't been a widespread media campaign already, calling employers racist because they require language proficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if Uber wins the appeal you have to hire people you cannot communicate with or you'll get sued for discrimination?
This is about Transport For London.
I'm surprised there hasn't been a widespread media campaign already, calling employers racist because they require language proficiency.
You're really easily surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Uber's reaction (Score:2)
Super common sense. (Score:1)
As much as I'm a fan of Uber, I just can't even vaguely take their side on this one.
I've been in a number of taxis (of all sorts, from many different companies) and struggled communicating where I wanted to go with the driver, and it's the last thing you want to do - especially in a city you don't know. If the driver can't even fulfil the most basic obligation of their job, then it's not really the job for them.
I feel that the courts are basically just enforcing the very most 'basic customer service standar
I mean it's totally unfair. (Score:1)
I agree with Uber on this. Noone in London, Great Britain, should be required to speak English. It's a clear discrimination to require someone to speak English in England. I mean which stupid racist thought up this ridiculous requirement.
I have to wonder though. Given that terms of service and all information is in English how does Uber expect them to enter into valid contractual agreement if they cannot fucking understand English? Oh right.
Re:I mean it's totally unfair. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they are welcome too..
If you cant comminicqte in the common tongue..ENGLISH for
That's either a cracking troll or an idiot attempting to punch a hole in reality with sheer irony.
If you can't mandate English in England.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone really have a problem with requiring public hire drivers speak the local language? I mean, it is a place called "England" and presumably it's called "English" because it is the indigenous language of the people of England.
Re:If you can't mandate English in England.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Uber cabs are not public hire (that would be black cabs in London), they're private hire. You can't flag them on the street. But I have no problem with the ruling. You need to be able to talk to your taxi driver. You might have a preferred route, or need to give instructions round a one-way system, or tell them to let you out at the shops. It's a customer-facing position and it demands a certain level of communication skills, in this case an acceptable standard in the nation's official language.
And it's not like Uber are sticking up for the hard-working, hard-done-by drivers here. They just need warm bodies to keep accruing marketshare until the Johnnycabs are certified and they can ditch the lot of them.
Re: (Score:2)
We need a a "-5 Insightful, but ad-hominem attack" moderation for posts like the above. [slashdot.org] A way of saying "I see you are smart and posted something that could have added to the discussion, but then you blew it."
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps he comes from one of those parts of the country where "fucking moron" is a standard address.
oh_my_080980980: Fucking moron!
Mom: Hello, son.
Re: (Score:1)
UK law has definitions of "taxi" and "private hire", and the grandparent meant "private hire" as defined in UK law.
"Private hire" is when a vehicle picks up someone who has *pre-booked* and takes them somewhere, for money. Note that phoning or using an app and saying "I want to go now" still counts as pre-booked for the purpose of the law. So Uber is actually doing "private hire". (There's an exception in the law for genuine ride-sharing where you only pay petrol money).
Only a "taxi" can be hailed on the
Re: (Score:2)
Do you even know what private hire means? Uber is a PUBLIC business that serves the PUBLIC.
He may. You... I'm pretty certain you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This ruling applies to all private-hire drivers, but I think that it has become necessary because of Uber.
In the pre-Uber days, a private hire driver was dispatched by an office that could communicate with the driver. This means that the driver always had a translation service available to him/her (the dispatch office).
With Uber, the driver has no such resource available for translations. Perhaps as translation apps on cellphones get better, English proficiency won't be required.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But that's the thing, Uber already has a pretty good system for weeding out non-English speakers. And if only the taxi system in the US actually copied the Uber rating system, the US taxi system would quickly get rid of its non-English speakers.
Disclaimer: I am an Uber driver in the US and I would actually financially benefit if the US copied the UK, but honestly, I believe this is a solved problem for Uber and this complaint is just a pretext. The real issue is that many people hate Uber (many Uber drivers
Re: (Score:2)
But that's the thing, Uber already has a pretty good system for weeding out non-English speakers.[...] The real issue is that many people hate Uber (many Uber drivers included) and this supposed test is just a way to stick it to Uber in the UK and reduce its workforce.
That makes no sense.
If Uber already weeds out non-English speakers, Uber will not be affected by this ruling, so the Uber workforce will not be reduced.
If the Uber fworkforce is being reduced due to this ruling, it means that a substancial part of the Uber workfoce doesn't speak English well enough, which means that Uber does not have a 'pretty good system' to weed out non-English speakers.
Tourist-level english ? Or university litterature (Score:3)
A far as I've understood, the complain of Uber is that the official level imposed to cab driver is much more strict than uber asks from its driver.
Because of this uber is going to lose lots of driver who know enough bits of english to be functional in communicating with the client (e.g understand where to drive them), but who don't have advanced written/oral comprehension.
I.e.: Uber needs and selects people with A1 levels of language proficiency,
London imposes B2 levels on cab drivers.(*)
Or in other words,
Re: (Score:2)
Then Northern Ireland and Wales will also demand to get in on the action by demanding that a similar test in Gaelic and in Welsh be used in their area for at least a certain percentage of Uber drivers.
Sometimes, the 'thin end of the wedge' type argument is a fallacy. This is one of those times.
Re: (Score:3)
Does anyone really have a problem with requiring public hire drivers speak the local language? I mean, it is a place called "England" and presumably it's called "English" because it is the indigenous language of the people of England.
I know that where I live, the Peoples Republic of California, any rules about English only are viewed by many as tools of oppression against "undocumented immigrants" and the brown man in general. Of course this is also a state where the citizens can't figure out which bathroom to use and are spending billions on a bullet train to nowhere while actually used infrastructure rots so I have low expectations on common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm some kind of fascist, but I think making English the official language of the US makes a bunch of sense. Obviously not forcing anyone to speak it privately, but I think it would go a long way towards ensuring a cultural assimilation and stamping out the kind of cultural ghettos that Europe seems to have problems with. And really, it's probably a softer technique than banning mosques and other more heavy-handed techniques.
My parents' neighbor (elderly) was the child of Polish immigrants. She sai
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Which specific interpretation should be the official one?
Atheism, obviously. It's the natural evolution of Christianity when you add education.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"English" because it is the indigenous language of the people of England.
English is the language of the Anglo-Saxon invaders, later bastardized by Norman French invaders.
Common Britannic (which developed into Welsh and Cornish) is the indigenous language of England...
Re: (Score:2)
It's the level of skill required that is at issue. Speaking English is one thing, but the requirement here is to pass a written exam with essay section that school kids study two years for.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a little like saying that the North American "Indian" languages aren't really indigenous because they brought with them languages when they crossed the Bering Straits.
Re: If you can't mandate English in England.. (Score:3)
...them languages
They picked that up when they got to Arkansas.
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped reading at "liberals." The fact that you people have spent so many years using that word as a term of abuse is one of the reasons we have such a polarized society at this point. Conservatives need to let go of their hatred before it's too late.
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest problem with liberalism is liberals.
That would be people that are driven by what "feels right" versus what "makes sense". They will happily ignore important legal principles that protect us from tyranny so long as they happen to be getting their way. They give no thought to the future or potential consequences.
They only fixate on getting the free rainbow unicorn. They give no consideration to how much the stable fees will be.
Modern liberals also have also abandoned classical liberal values. They
Re: (Score:2)
Well you just proved the parent's point.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem with liberalism is liberals.
They only fixate on getting the free rainbow unicorn.
Thanks, I needed a lol. What the fuck are you on about anyway? You don't like liberals, is that it? I daresay what counts as a 'liberal' to you all boils down to how you feel at that particuar moment, no?
If not, go ahead and define liberal please.
Re: (Score:2)
Why wasn't this in the Firehose? (Score:2)
https://slashdot.org/recent [slashdot.org] doesn't list this story. If it had, I'd have voted it down. The constant flood of Uber stories is getting annoying.
When will judges finally serve them giant fines? (Score:2)
This company deserves to get fined for all it's worth for its rampant trampling of regulations, consumer protection laws, and poisonous work culture.
It boggles the mind that they're still attracting drivers and customers after so many years of being openly obnoxious.
Re: (Score:2)
The value of clear communication (Score:3)
I once got into a taxi at an airport in Chicago. Before we set off the driver pointed at the meter talking in thick Pidgin English that I could barely understand. The only word I could pick out was "meter." I just nodded politely and said yes because I wanted to get to my hotel for a meeting. When I got to the hotel he started wrangling with me to about paying more than was on the meter, apparently he had turned it off at some stage of the journey for some unfathomable reason. He got really belligerent about it too. The hotel was reimbursing me for the trip and after about five minutes of him, the hotel concierge and me trying to discuss it I just asked the manager to reimburse him what he wanted because I hadn't a clue what was going on and it was only another $20 or so.
I know that some people like apps like Uber because they minimize human communication, but it's still a vital skill. As long as you're not asking drivers to write a book report on Ulysses by Joyce, expecting them to communicate clearly in the local language is not too much to ask for.
Re: (Score:2)
Ulysses...English. I think you haven't read it.
It is more coherent than _Finnigan's_Wake_. But that is saying very little.
Re: The value of clear communication (Score:2)
Ulysses by Joyce
To be fair to the parent, Ulysses by Joyce' would indeed be challen'ging to write a report on...
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly.... I don't call for an Uber because I'm looking forward to a long chat with the driver. But it's terrible service when they can't even communicate well enough to figure out where I want to go, or how to pick us up.
I had that experience in Rockville, MD recently when a group of us got tired of waiting on a MARC commuter train that had major delays. I called for an Uber but the driver who accepted it was unable to locate us. I could see him circling the vicinity on the map in the app, but he wasn't t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame the liberals want to allow anyone to just walk into the country
What's an even bigger shame is an apparently grown man unable to argue against peoples' real position, and instead having to strawman and put words in others' mouths.
Shame? Deeply pathetic really.