Uber are getting shirty

[audidoody]

I wish someone would launch a mini-cab service where:

1 The cars were all clean.
2. That you could order to come to you wherever you are in a city from your phone and track their location in real-time
3. That validate the driver's identity and sent his mug shot to your phone
4. That emails you a real-time permanent log of the journey imprinted on a Google map giving you a time and distance fare breakdown
5. That you never needed to carry cash for
6. That sent a URL to your nearest and dearest to track your location in real-time
7. That did all this for around half the price of a black cab

Oh wait ... someone did.

[Dr Jekyll]

edh said:

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'.

The drivers? Plus an estimated half a million workers in other firms who have also been told they are "self employed"

The majority of Uber drivers actively prefer their current status, and many workers in other fields are self employed for perfectly good reasons.

[davepoth]

The problem is that Uber was asking for a level of control over their drivers that exceeded what the law considers reasonable for self-employed workers. Added to that, the drivers were not being paid by their riders but by Uber.

[JagLover]

edh said:

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'.

The drivers? Plus an estimated half a million workers in other firms who have also been told they are "self employed"

This

A higher minimum wage is required due to government policy mistakes in recent decades. Companies have been trying to get around this by classing people as self-employed who, in fact, are not based on their actual working arrangements.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Will the drivers actually be better off though?

Will their income tax increase or decrease?

Will their NI increase or decrease?

Will they get more or less tax relief for the use of their personal vehicle?

[TLandCruiser]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Will the drivers actually be better off though?

Will their income tax increase or decrease?

Will their NI increase or decrease?

Will they get more or less tax relief for the use of their personal vehicle?

Their NI would increase and their tax will most likely increase as they won't have any expenses to offset against their earnings but then on the other hand they will receive a minimum wage, holiday pay and most better employment rights. Will they be financially better off I don't know, you would need someone to speak about it who has worked for them.

[don'tbesilly]

TLandCruiser said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

Will the drivers actually be better off though?

Will their income tax increase or decrease?

Will their NI increase or decrease?

Will they get more or less tax relief for the use of their personal vehicle?

Their NI would increase and their tax will most likely increase as they won't have any expenses to offset against their earnings but then on the other hand they will receive a minimum wage, holiday pay and most better employment rights. Will they be financially better off I don't know, you would need someone to speak about it who has worked for them.

Is that going to be the case though, as no one seems to be able to give the definitive answer?

The ruling implies that Uber IS the drivers employer, so they are NOT S/employed.

Are Uber going to be responsible for deducting tax/NI at source or not from the drivers?
As Uber ARE the employer, I would have thought/guessed/opined that Uber should be responsible for deduction at source.

As a S/employed person they are responsible for their own tax returns, their own tax and NI responsibilities and contributions,and can offset many expenses against the same, will that no longer be the case?

I would have thought that as a result of this ruling a lot of s/employed people will gain in one hand and lose as much from the other, seems to me as an own goal in many ways?

Dunno

[PurpleMoonlight]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Yes to a point it doesn't matter.

This case wasn't brought by HMRC though, it was brought by drivers with the assistance of a Union.

Presumably the drivers believe they will be better off, but people often can't see the wood for the trees. I would guess there are going to be a lot of self employed drivers nationwide that aren't happy about this.

Uber is appealing I believe, so the current judgement could be overturned.

[Dr Jekyll]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It does matter, because if they can't operate the drivers are out of work, the customers have less choice, and Uber are out of business. So people who would like to provide a service driving their cars are sitting at home while those who would happily pay for that service no longer have the option.

There was no reason to think Ubers business was breaking any laws before this judgement which in any case is open to appeal, so you can hardly accuse Uber of playing a fast one.

Why on earth should someone who invents of way of putting potential can customers in touch with potential cab drivers have to start employing people PAYE in order to profit from their idea?

How do you suppose Uber should profit from their service?

[Dr Jekyll]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Fascinating.

[Kolbenkopp]

Dr Jekyll said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Fascinating.

Yep, isn't it interesting they now face legal issues even in the pretty liberal UK? Not exactly the first time at least parts of their services are deemed outside the law [1].

What bugs me is the way they just ignore the legal situation when starting to offer services in a country. I'm sure they have a very competent legal team and hence know exactly what they are doing. But it's always -- let's see what happens, then strong arm tactics and very loud publicity to push governments and law making their way.

It would seem a better approach to work out a legal solution with local regulators before setting up shop?

Perhaps not surprising they act as they do though. Tech wise, the app is trivial, nothing that could not be replicated. The advantages they have is a big pile of money and a head start since they are among the first to really push the idea.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber_protests_and_le...

[Dr Jekyll]

don'tbesilly said:

Is that going to be the case though, as no one seems to be able to give the definitive answer?

The ruling implies that Uber IS the drivers employer, so they are NOT S/employed.

Are Uber going to be responsible for deducting tax/NI at source or not from the drivers?
As Uber ARE the employer, I would have thought/guessed/opined that Uber should be responsible for deduction at source.

As a S/employed person they are responsible for their own tax returns, their own tax and NI responsibilities and contributions,and can offset many expenses against the same, will that no longer be the case?

I would have thought that as a result of this ruling a lot of s/employed people will gain in one hand and lose as much from the other, seems to me as an own goal in many ways?

Dunno

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/10/29/the-economics-of-the-uber-employment-decision-is-not-quite-what-you-think-drivers-are-now-poorer/2/#36c72497497b

[RedTrident]

The Mad Monk said:

I think that what Uber do - or the way they operate, is pretty common in the minicab business.

Every minicab driver I know is self employed. Instead of a % of each fare they pay fee for the radio. Instead of a computer flashing their next customer a human radio operator does this.

I have friends who are uber drivers. They work when they want for how long they want.

If uber drivers are employees then so should every other mini cab driver. Let's see where that ends up.

[Eric Mc]

The differences that determine status can be very subtle.

There are literally dozens of cases on this topic, if you care to research the legal history.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Dr Jekyll said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/10/29...

What does that say? I can't get past the adblock.

[RedTrident]

Eric Mc said:

The differences that determine status can be very subtle.

There are literally dozens of cases on this topic, if you care to research the legal history.

The guys I know that switched to uber preferred it. No preferential treatment from the office, no need to bribe the radio guy for the better jobs etc. No way will they want to be employed and be paid an hourly rate.

[Dr Jekyll]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Dr Jekyll said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/10/29...

What does that say? I can't get past the adblock.

That the extra costs, holiday etc, will fall on the driver not on Uber. Also that although the drivers were held not to be self employed, they weren't held to be employees either. So not all the protections such as notice period that would apply to an employee would apply to Uber drivers.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Dr Jekyll said:

That the extra costs, holiday etc, will fall on the driver not on Uber. Also that although the drivers were held not to be self employed, they weren't held to be employees either. So not all the protections such as notice period that would apply to an employee would apply to Uber drivers.

Ta.

It has been reported the judgement deemed them workers, and it seems a worker is not necessarily an employee.

All very confusing.

[Liokault]

Dr Jekyll said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

Dr Jekyll said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/10/29...

What does that say? I can't get past the adblock.

That the extra costs, holiday etc, will fall on the driver not on Uber. Also that although the drivers were held not to be self employed, they weren't held to be employees either. So not all the protections such as notice period that would apply to an employee would apply to Uber drivers.

If thay were not getting minimum wage, but now will, where will the cost to the driver to cover holidays etc come from?

[Dr Jekyll]

Liokault said:

If thay were not getting minimum wage, but now will, where will the cost to the driver to cover holidays etc come from?

The same place any holiday pay comes from. The difference between the total amount the 'employer' pays to have their services and the pay they actually receive.