Uber are getting shirty

[7795]

el stovey said:

When are these driverless ubers coming?

I suspect before we get the driver less tube in London; what a farce.

As to your question, i have no idea but i would estimate it to be a while away.

[Oakey]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

This still goes on and it's not just to get rid of crap reps, it's so they don't have to pay employers contributions, sick pay, holiday pay and all the rest. These people are employees in all but name only. They don't set their hours, or set their rate or whatever. The same usually applies to any telesales the company may employ too.

[Police State]

Eric Mc said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I'm really surprised that HMRC has not been all over Uber like a rash.

Perhaps their mate George Osborne told them to 'lay off uber' like he instructed Boris Johnson to. Or maybe their other mate David Cameron sent them a missive.

[markcoznottz]

Police State said:

Perhaps their mate George Osborne told them to 'lay off uber' like he instructed Boris Johnson to. Or maybe their other mate David Cameron sent them a missive.

No doubt the private equity goons who fronted the dollar for Uber went to school with CamBourneClegg. There may be disguised employment issues present, or it is possible the drivers are using magnetic signage for several companies which is much more in the spirit of the law.

[98elise]

markcoznottz said:

Police State said:

Perhaps their mate George Osborne told them to 'lay off uber' like he instructed Boris Johnson to. Or maybe their other mate David Cameron sent them a missive.

No doubt the private equity goons who fronted the dollar for Uber went to school with CamBourneClegg. There may be disguised employment issues present, or it is possible the drivers are using magnetic signage for several companies which is much more in the spirit of the law.

IIRC they are an american company and the majority of their funding is from google ventures.

One post above has said that drivers can and do work for other companies, and the first uber cab I took the driver said the same thing. He didn't just work for uber.

If thats true of all the drivers and they are free to pick and choose when they work for uber, then they are self employed.

[BlackLabel]

"Uber drivers in the UK have won an employment tribunal case which ruled they are workers rather than self-employed.
The decision means drivers will be entitled to holiday pay, paid rest breaks and the National Minimum Wage."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37802386

[SplatSpeed]

bugger thin edge of the wedge to stop people being self employed.

had this with IR35, they try again ill leave again!

[K12beano]

SplatSpeed said:

.... thin edge of the wedge to stop people being self employed...

Abso-bloody-lutely!

Heard it described by one person that Uber works for the driver by aiding them find customers. Turning this on its head means that - in all types of business - there's no sense in contracting with resources other than in an employer/employee relationship even if it's true B2B.

Madness!!

[edh]

K12beano said:

SplatSpeed said:

.... thin edge of the wedge to stop people being self employed...

Abso-bloody-lutely!

Heard it described by one person that Uber works for the driver by aiding them find customers. Turning this on its head means that - in all types of business - there's no sense in contracting with resources other than in an employer/employee relationship even if it's true B2B.

Madness!!

It's stopping employers falsely claiming their staff are self employed so they can avoid their responsibilities (and costs) as employers. Not just Uber, Hermes are under investigation & it's a widespread practice in some sectors, along with the agency worker scam.

[K12beano]

edh said:

K12beano said:

SplatSpeed said:

.... thin edge of the wedge to stop people being self employed...

Abso-bloody-lutely!

Heard it described by one person that Uber works for the driver by aiding them find customers. Turning this on its head means that - in all types of business - there's no sense in contracting with resources other than in an employer/employee relationship even if it's true B2B.

Madness!!

It's stopping employers falsely claiming their staff are self employed so they can avoid their responsibilities (and costs) as employers. Not just Uber, Hermes are under investigation & it's a widespread practice in some sectors, along with the agency worker scam.

Yes, but there's a difference between employers making false claims and scams which should be stopped and the approach of taking contracts for services and changing them into contracts of service.

[SplatSpeed]

edh said:

K12beano said:

SplatSpeed said:

.... thin edge of the wedge to stop people being self employed...

Abso-bloody-lutely!

Heard it described by one person that Uber works for the driver by aiding them find customers. Turning this on its head means that - in all types of business - there's no sense in contracting with resources other than in an employer/employee relationship even if it's true B2B.

Madness!!

It's stopping employers falsely claiming their staff are self employed so they can avoid their responsibilities (and costs) as employers. Not just Uber, Hermes are under investigation & it's a widespread practice in some sectors, along with the agency worker scam.

no one is putting a gun to your head!!

its a career decision you want permie work at MacDonald's flipping burgers.

get paid for what you do not being there!!

[Eric Mc]

Employees don't have to be permanent staff.

The number of hours you work does not dictate your employment status.

[edh]

Self employed?

[768]

uber said:

Nor does it make any sense for TfL to demand to be told before Uber makes changes to its app.

Pretty hard to disagree with that.

[Eric Mc]

I expect HMRC will be next in line.

[GT03ROB]

Eric Mc said:

I expect HMRC will be next in line.

I'd say thats certain!

[Dr Jekyll]

Where does this leave driving instructors? Many of them work through driving schools.

[Ayahuasca]

Uber does not run a transportation business.

It runs an app business.

The whole car / driver stuff is peripheral. They could outsource it all and it would still be the same business.

[K12beano]

^^^

Yes, exactly. They effectively DO outsource!!

[edh]

Ayahuasca said:

Uber does not run a transportation business.

It runs an app business.

The whole car / driver stuff is peripheral. They could outsource it all and it would still be the same business.

What bearing does that have on the court ruling today? Considering they don't "outsource" at the moment
If they did outsource, wouldn't the new party just be the employers of the drivers?