Online industry news site TaxiPoint does a great job in some respects, and its copy is certainly professional and well-written (and as a rank amateur [excuse pun…] I’m allowed to say that). On the other hand, its analysis can be too London-centric, despite claiming to cover the UK trade. The nuance of some of its analysis also reflects this non-provincial bias and there are some very obvious exclusions and clangers. It can sometimes read like some sort of self-regarding PR source for the London black cab trade too, albeit that casual readers might perceive the whole UK trade as basking in the reflected glory.
A recent piece on part-time working in the trade maybe reflects some of the metropolitan bias, with a couple of obvious omissions from the analysis (whether deliberate or otherwise).
The article makes some compelling points, such as the fact that emissions-inspired and increasingly stringent taxi vehicle specifications mean the likes of more economically marginal part-time drivers simply can’t afford the new vehicles required to make working financially viable. Likewise, the Covid lockdown no-doubt saw the back of drivers more peripheral to the trade, obviously including part-timers. But then there’s the likes of this: “…the expansion of the gig economy…[has] …accelerated the reduction in part-time drivers.”
What? Googling ‘gig economy’ provides this definition as the top answer:
What Is a Gig Economy?
A gig economy is a labor market that relies heavily on temporary and part-time positions filled by independent contractors and freelancers rather than full-time permanent employees. Gig workers gain flexibility and independence but little or no job security.
So, to paraphrase TaxiPoint, the expansion of the gig economy has accelerated the reduction in gig economy drivers. Or something like that. Of course, what TaxiPoint presumably means is that Uber and similar providers have been detrimental to part-time working in the taxi trade. And which is probably symptomatic of the crude Uber v taxis binary, whereas with respect to part-time working it’s probably better to compare the similarities rather than the differences – in what way do the conventional taxi/private hire/minicab trades differ from the definition above? But the gig economy thing is one reason why Uber surely isn’t that different from the conventional industry, which is often characterised by part-time/short-term working, most obviously to supplement the driver’s main source of income, or until the driver manages to find a ‘proper job’.
To be fair, the prevalence of the gig economy in a particular location is probably due to several factors, most obviously the barriers to entry attaching to local licensing conditions. Thus the ‘iconic’ Knowledge of London for London taxi drivers will militate against the gig economy, whereas minimal standards for the grant of a driver’s badge elsewhere will encourage it. To that extent, TaxiPoint’s implication that the taxi trade isn’t part of the gig economy is consistent with its London-centric bias.
Another factor that varies with location and licensing regimes is the prevalence of multi-driver cars, and the extent to which this accommodates part-time drivers without the requirement for vehicle ownership. To that degree the more stringent vehicle specifications won’t have the same effect on part-timers, because it’s very often not them who are bearing the cost of buying and maintaining the vehicle.
A related point is the extent to which part-time drivers are able to work ‘on the side’, particularly if they have another significant source of income to declare to HMRC and/or they don’t own a vehicle, which many in the trade regard as meaning that drivers can get away without declaring their income from taxi driving. However, in relation to the card payments debate, TaxiPoint has also recently said this, which are very probably significant factors as regards deterring part-time work:
Concerns over tax avoidance are diminishing, thanks to new HMRC checks introduced, requiring cabbies to register with HMRC to renew their licence (1). All revenue earned on digital booking apps must also be accounted for directly with HMRC now.
So TaxiPoint’s analysis is no doubt compelling enough with regard to its main target audience, but not so much when considering the UK more generally.
(1) ‘Requiring cabbies to register with HMRC to renew their licences’ is maybe not the most robust portrayal of the requirement. Renewing drivers are required to contact HMRC to obtain a tax check reference number. If the driver’s tax history is in order, HMRC will issue the driver with the reference number. This is then forwarded to the licensing authority to demonstrate that the driver’s tax affairs are up to date, and without that the licence will not be renewed.
The ‘digital booking apps’ requirement is currently being implemented and is more likely to be a future deterrent to part-time working, and will probably have more of an effect in the private hire sector rather than taxi trade. Moreover, ‘digital booking apps’ is probably another crudity deriving from the Uber v taxis dichotomy – it seems more about electronic booking and payment systems, and at this point in time its precise scope is unclear.
(2) TaxiPoint seems to link part-time working to older drivers, while in my experience such drivers tend to be perhaps younger than those working full-time. But again this may be related to geography and particular licensing areas. Likewise, it may depend how ‘part-time’ is defined. I tend to think of it more in terms of someone doing a 20-hour per week (say) taxi driving job in addition to their main occupation, or other full-time activity like university or college. On the other hand, I tend not to think of a (semi-) retiree doing 20-hours per week in terms of representing a part-time job.