Uber are getting shirty
Discussion
Digga said:
wiffmaster said:
- I don't care if my driver can't speak English particularly well. All they have to do is follow a little blue line on the map and hey presto, we're at our destination.
BlackLabel said:
"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
Saw this earlier.. Pretty retarded decision if you ask me.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
I like Uber. I've used them all over the world and the product isn't that dis-similar. This week, I've used them in Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore and New York and in each location, the car was clean and well driven, there was water provided, the driver spoke good English and drove well. Add that to not needing to make a cash transaction and what's not to like?
It's to do with "control". Many businesses outsource and, by and large, the people they use are self employed independents.
But if the "principal" exercises pretty much total control over how the work is organised and managed and places severe restrictions on what its operatives can and can't do - then the claim that these people are really, genuinely "self employed" (i.e. running their own independent businesses) begins to look less like an accurate description of what is actually going on.
But if the "principal" exercises pretty much total control over how the work is organised and managed and places severe restrictions on what its operatives can and can't do - then the claim that these people are really, genuinely "self employed" (i.e. running their own independent businesses) begins to look less like an accurate description of what is actually going on.
Eric Mc said:
It's to do with "control". Many businesses outsource and, by and large, the people they use are self employed independents.
But if the "principal" exercises pretty much total control over how the work is organised and managed and places severe restrictions on what its operatives can and can't do - then the claim that these people are really, genuinely "self employed" (i.e. running their own independent businesses) begins to look less like an accurate description of what is actually going on.
Like a MacDonalds franchise? But if the "principal" exercises pretty much total control over how the work is organised and managed and places severe restrictions on what its operatives can and can't do - then the claim that these people are really, genuinely "self employed" (i.e. running their own independent businesses) begins to look less like an accurate description of what is actually going on.
valiant said:
How dare TfL insist that minicab drivers speak English to a decent standard and have the correct insurance!
Speaking English, fair enough. Reading English? Also far. But writing? Seems a bit excessive. And £200 seems overpriced. Clearly there's some protectionism going on here, if they were talking about rolling these requirements out to all licensed minicab drivers then fair enough but it's not, its just Uber by the sounds of it, which means TfL/Black Cab drivers are feeling under threat. Eric Mc said:
It's to do with "control". Many businesses outsource and, by and large, the people they use are self employed independents.
But if the "principal" exercises pretty much total control over how the work is organised and managed and places severe restrictions on what its operatives can and can't do - then the claim that these people are really, genuinely "self employed" (i.e. running their own independent businesses) begins to look less like an accurate description of what is actually going on.
Based on the decision today, I can't see how HMRC can now see them as being anything other than employees of Uber, and not self employed at all.But if the "principal" exercises pretty much total control over how the work is organised and managed and places severe restrictions on what its operatives can and can't do - then the claim that these people are really, genuinely "self employed" (i.e. running their own independent businesses) begins to look less like an accurate description of what is actually going on.
It's a long time since I was S/employed and things may well have changed, so apologies if I've got this wrong.
Would this now make Uber responsible for deducting tax/NI at source from these drivers, as the decision implies they are now directly employed by Uber, and as such the drivers would now be losing what many see as a perk of being s/employed as they declare their own incomes, and pay tax according to what their own 'accounts' state.
don'tbesilly said:
Based on the decision today, I can't see how HMRC can now see them as being anything other than employees of Uber, and not self employed at all.
It's a long time since I was S/employed and things may well have changed, so apologies if I've got this wrong.
Would this now make Uber responsible for deducting tax/NI at source from these drivers, as the decision implies they are now directly employed by Uber, and as such the drivers would now be losing what many see as a perk of being s/employed as they declare their own incomes, and pay tax according to what their own 'accounts' state.
I think that would be true - in return they gain employment rights such as holiday pay and certain protections. Also minimum wage legislation will apply.It's a long time since I was S/employed and things may well have changed, so apologies if I've got this wrong.
Would this now make Uber responsible for deducting tax/NI at source from these drivers, as the decision implies they are now directly employed by Uber, and as such the drivers would now be losing what many see as a perk of being s/employed as they declare their own incomes, and pay tax according to what their own 'accounts' state.
I doubt there are many Uber drivers earning sufficient to benefit a great deal from tax deferral.
richie99 said:
Like a MacDonalds franchise?
Not at all. Franchising is a recognised form of business operation. Even though McDonalds may set standards and codes for the franchisee to follow, the garnering of business and the risk of operating that business fall squarely on the franchisee.HMRC recognises the way franchised businesses work.
Eric: How do you read a 'normal' private hire setup where the company hires a 'radio' to the driver and makes work available. However it is the driver's choice which work to take and when, and when to work or not work at all. Also the driver receives all the fares directly (bar accounts) and must cover all of his own operating costs. As opposed to the Uber system where the company receives the fare and pays the driver a weekly wage of his fare total minus Uber's commission. S-E or E?
We are going backwards the way Uber is misusing the system.Self employed drivers no way.
It has all been done before.Hull trawlermen long time ago had no rights and where classed as casual labour.Because they worked on different trawlers.
The trawler owners loved the system.Zero hrs contracts why is the government allowing this,it all breeds poverty.
It has all been done before.Hull trawlermen long time ago had no rights and where classed as casual labour.Because they worked on different trawlers.
The trawler owners loved the system.Zero hrs contracts why is the government allowing this,it all breeds poverty.
drainbrain said:
As opposed to the Uber system where the company receives the fare and pays the driver a weekly wage of his fare total minus Uber's commission. S-E or E?
That was the point I tried to make earlier.If the ruling made today makes Uber the employer wouldn't it now be the case that:
As opposed to the Uber system where the company receives the fare and pays the driver a weekly wage of his fare total minus Uber's commission + the income tax & NI Ubers employee would be liable to pay on their income.
Wouldn't Uber be responsible for deducting the above (IT & NI) at source?
How can an employee be S/employed?
drainbrain said:
Eric: How do you read a 'normal' private hire setup where the company hires a 'radio' to the driver and makes work available. However it is the driver's choice which work to take and when, and when to work or not work at all. Also the driver receives all the fares directly (bar accounts) and must cover all of his own operating costs. As opposed to the Uber system where the company receives the fare and pays the driver a weekly wage of his fare total minus Uber's commission. S-E or E?
It all depends on how involved the drivers are in choosing to carry out a job or not. If they have no choice and could be "fired" as a result, they are not self employed.Dr Jekyll said:
Who, other than HMRC and rival cab firms, is going to benefit from this ruling? It does seem like a massive extension of the notion of 'employment'.
This has been a perennial issue for over a century. There are dozens and dozens of legal cases where the status of individuals as regards to their employment or self employment. Cases are brought for all sorts of reasons - tax
employee rights
health and safety responsibility
insurance claims
It isn't always clear what a person's true status is - and sometimes the authorities don't make it easy. For instance, the definitions of employed/self employed are slightly different for tax purposes compared to National Insurance - both which of which are administered by HMRC.
As a result there are some workers who are categorised as employed for PAYE purposes but self employed for NI purposes.
I attended a lecture on employment law not too long ago and the lecturer started the session by saying "Even after 100 years of legislation and court cases, we still don't have a clear view on what an "employee" actually is.
Eric Mc said:
drainbrain said:
Eric: How do you read a 'normal' private hire setup where the company hires a 'radio' to the driver and makes work available. However it is the driver's choice which work to take and when, and when to work or not work at all. Also the driver receives all the fares directly (bar accounts) and must cover all of his own operating costs. As opposed to the Uber system where the company receives the fare and pays the driver a weekly wage of his fare total minus Uber's commission. S-E or E?
It all depends on how involved the drivers are in choosing to carry out a job or not. If they have no choice and could be "fired" as a result, they are not self employed.So (in general not just minicabs) if a contractor to a firm refuses to carry out a task the firm asks him to do and they fire him because he won't do it then the contractor is not s-e? Naa. Revenue wouldn't win that argument.
In mini cabbing the jobs get offered for the drivers to take or refuse as they please. However refusing a contract job (unless you've told the base you don't do contract work) can result in a timeout penalty.
Uber's not the same really. They're a whole new (sub)species of taxiing. I don't think yesterdays ruling will affect 'normal' private hire firms. Nor do I think most private hire drivers would want it to. They like being 'their own man' rather than being regulated. But that's just in my experience.
Yes - Uber do things in a different way, which is why they have been caught out. I'm only guessing that HMRC may get involved. They may decide to leave it alone as they have far too many matters on their plate - such as Making Tax Digital.
That will certainly cheer up all those Self Employed drivers.
That will certainly cheer up all those Self Employed drivers.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff