Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supr.Court rules

[amusingduck]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56123668

bbc said:

Ride hailing taxi app firm Uber must classify its drivers as workers rather than self-employed, the UK's Supreme Court has ruled.

The decision means tens of thousands of Uber drivers are set to be entitled to minimum wage and holiday pay.

The ruling could leave Uber facing a hefty compensation bill, and have wider consequences for the gig economy.

In a long-running legal battle, Uber had appealed to the Supreme Court after losing three earlier rounds.

[chemistry]

Whilst certainly good on the face of it, I fear this will also come with lots of negative unintended consequences in the long run.

[Rivenink]

chemistry said:

Whilst certainly good on the face of it, I fear this will also come with lots of negative unintended consequences in the long run.

It might have some positive ones too.

The gig economy is an inherently unstable foundation that many young people find themselves having to try to build their lives upon.

[valiant]

Good result.

The gig economy is in dire need of some reform where employee rights that most on here would take for granted are seen as luxuries to those who rely on the likes of Uber et al.

[300bhp/ton]

chemistry said:

Whilst certainly good on the face of it, I fear this will also come with lots of negative unintended consequences in the long run.

Negatives such as?

[Electro1980]

chemistry said:

Whilst certainly good on the face of it, I fear this will also come with lots of negative unintended consequences in the long run.

Unlikely. IR35 is far more wide ranging and the court have done nothing more than rule on a legal status of one company.

[ReallyReallyGood]

Wonder if Uber will put up prices and become just another taxi company. “Disruption” my arse, all they did was charge less by paying less.

[London424]

300bhp/ton said:

chemistry said:

Whilst certainly good on the face of it, I fear this will also come with lots of negative unintended consequences in the long run.

Negatives such as?

Not as many jobs.

[Blue62]

London424 said:

Not as many jobs.

Not as many sh*t jobs

[valiant]

ReallyReallyGood said:

Wonder if Uber will put up prices and become just another taxi company. “Disruption” my arse, all they did was charge less by paying less.

Yep, drive out the competition by subsidising fares. Once that competition is gone then the fares are jacked up. Can only do this at the expense of the ‘cheap’ workforce. Their fares, I imagine, will now fall into line with other traditional minicab companies and only marginally cheaper than the London black cab.

Wide ranging repercussions from this and I imagine the likes of Deliveroo, Amazon drivers, Hermes, etc are all busy now looking at their employment practices.

Interesting times ahead.

[Drawweight]

From what I can see the problem was that the drivers were ‘locked into’ the Uber app and as such had no control.

Would Uber be able to tweak this in some way that circumnavigates the ruling?

Perhaps employ self employed drivers who have the option of using the app or not at any one time.

[Louis Balfour]

Folk dancers will now be demanding minimum wage and holiday pay because they are part of the jig economy.

[300bhp/ton]

Drawweight said:

From what I can see the problem was that the drivers were ‘locked into’ the Uber app and as such had no control.

Would Uber be able to tweak this in some way that circumnavigates the ruling?

Perhaps employ self employed drivers who have the option of using the app or not at any one time.

I don't know the ins and outs of the case. But I suspect, Uber like a lot of companies were simply trying to side step and ignore employment rights, by "forcing" people to declare they were self employed when really they were working in the fashion of an employee.

I guess the only way around this would be to franchise out the Uber brand/name. So that the workers would not be direct employees of Uber. The only other option would be to shut up shop and only operate in corrupt 3rd world countries were employees have no rights.

[Frimley111R]

300bhp/ton said:

I don't know the ins and outs of the case. But I suspect, Uber like a lot of companies were simply trying to side step and ignore employment rights, by "forcing" people to declare they were self employed when really they were working in the fashion of an employee.
.

I think they are driven by tech. The concept is good but with any type of employment there are pros and cons. Fewer st jobs means fewer jobs full stop. if you find getting work hard this is better than not working and no-one is forced to do it.

[rover 623gsi]

Good - the gig economy is just a modern version of slave labour

[Gecko1978]

300bhp/ton said:

I don't know the ins and outs of the case. But I suspect, Uber like a lot of companies were simply trying to side step and ignore employment rights, by "forcing" people to declare they were self employed when really they were working in the fashion of an employee.

I guess the only way around this would be to franchise out the Uber brand/name. So that the workers would not be direct employees of Uber. The only other option would be to shut up shop and only operate in corrupt 3rd world countries were employees have no rights.

You mean like in the UK with ir35 where 2.5m contractors were moved into zero hours no rights employment and had all employment cost deducted at source without any access to employment support during the pandemic because it was based on paye income pre feb 2020 when the Government knew that was when all ltd contractors were moving over to umbrella firms. So HMRC know exactly how much tsx you pay each month paye but had no ability to help you if you lost your job due to covid....funny that.

No in the long run this will just push up costs and drivers will get less money.

[Blue Oval84]

Not sure that this is a great outcome for passengers, although may be great for their workers.

Round here (Brighton) Uber isn't really much cheaper than a regular taxi, but is more convenient. The local lot do have an app but it's nowhere near as slick as Uber's and unless there's a big surge pricing in effect (I've not seen one of those since pre-pandemic) then I tend to drift back to Uber for most journeys as it's just easier.

[oobie38]

As I understand it, one of the key issues is that Uber sets the value of the contract, not the driver. Pretty unequivocal judgement, anyway..

[i]First, where a ride is booked through the Uber app, it is Uber that sets the fare and drivers are
not permitted to charge more than the fare calculated by the Uber app. It is therefore Uber
which dictates how much drivers are paid for the work they do.
Second, the contract terms on which drivers perform their services are imposed by Uber and drivers have no say in them
Third, once a driver has logged onto the Uber app, the driver’s choice about whether to
accept requests for rides is constrained by Uber. One way in which this is done is by
monitoring the driver’s rate of acceptance (and cancellation) of trip requests and imposing what
amounts to a penalty if too many trip requests are declined or cancelled by automatically logging
the driver off the Uber app for ten minutes, thereby preventing the driver from working until
allowed to log back on.
Fourth, Uber also exercises significant control over the way in
which drivers deliver their services. One of several methods mentioned in the judgment is the
use of a ratings system whereby passengers are asked to rate the driver on a scale of 1 to 5 after
each trip. Any driver who fails to maintain a required average rating will receive a series of
warnings and, if their average rating does not improve, eventually have their relationship with
Uber terminated.
A fifth significant factor is that Uber restricts communications
between passenger and driver to the minimum necessary to perform the particular trip and takes
active steps to prevent drivers from establishing any relationship with a passenger capable of
extending beyond an individual ride
[/i]

Summary is here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0...

Edited by oobie38 on Friday 19th February 12:53

[Dr Jekyll]

Frimley111R said:

I think they are driven by tech. The concept is good but with any type of employment there are pros and cons. Fewer st jobs means fewer jobs full stop. if you find getting work hard this is better than not working and no-one is forced to do it.

+1

[Louis Balfour]

Blue Oval84 said:

Not sure that this is a great outcome for passengers, although may be great for their workers.

I don't think it will be good for either, to be honest.