Uber Loses Right To Classify UK Drivers as Self-Employed (theguardian.com)

Uber drivers are not self-employed and should be paid the "national living wage," a UK employment court has ruled in a landmark case which could affect tens of thousands of workers in the gig economy. From a report on the Guardian: The ride-hailing app could now be open to claims from all of its 40,000 drivers in the UK, who are currently not entitled to holiday pay, pensions or other workers' rights. Uber immediately said it would appeal against the ruling. Employment experts said other firms with large self-employed workforces could now face scrutiny of their working practices and the UK's biggest union, Unite, announced it was setting up a new unit to pursue cases of bogus self-employment. The Uber ruling could force a rethink of the gig economy business model, where companies use apps and the internet to match customers with workers. The firms do not employ the workers, but take commission from their earnings, and many have become huge global enterprises.

Comments

It makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

They have a lot of control over the drivers. Don't they still have a rule where the Uber app won't work if you have the Lyft app running? You aren't an "independent contractor" when your boss doesn't allow you to accept work from competitors. You are an employee.

Re:Wow

[Fwipp]

<Snooty baron voice>
Most assuredly, they should be grateful they're allowed to work at all! Just like those fool peasants demanding an 8-hour workday.
</Snooty baron voice>

Good for the UK

[rsilvergun]

they've been employees since day 1. They can't set their own prices or solicit tips. That alone makes them employees even before we start talking about the amount of control Uber exerts.

You bet your ass they are

[rsilvergun]

they're campaigning for real jobs, with real job protections. People died for minimum wage and the 40 hour work week, ya know? Don't underestimate the working class. They're not as dumb as folks like think. Down on their luck, yeah. But not dumb.

Re:You bet your ass they are

[dbIII]

The true irony here is that if you act as you suggest you end up being a massive leech on society yourself - exactly what you accuse the government of doing!
It's funny how all these "step outside society" fantasies always depend on stealing from someone else - "when society falls apart I've got mine and I've got a lot of guns so I can get yours too".

Re:You bet your ass they are

[newcastlejon]

They can leave it. If they paid too little, or were too restrictive, drivers would not be using Uber. Apparently enough find it acceptable - or maybe they do negotiate, but people won't/can't talk about it? ...

...If anyone knows differently, please enlighten me?

Some people will take any job so long as it pays, just look at all those small employers hiring migrant workers for a pittance. The whole point of the minimum wage* is that employers are legally obliged to pay at least that. Uber (and others) use the whole self-employed canard solely to abrogate their responsibilities as employers to increase profits at the workers' expense; it should really tell you something when even a Conservative government thinks that stinks and does something about it.

One other thing, no-one negotiates a higher salary for low-paying jobs, even if they aren't applying to someone like Uber. The only workers who are in a position to negotiate their salary are the highly skilled ones who can't simply be replaced by any other schmuck off the street who holds a clean driving license.

*Despite what politicians say, the NLW is not a living wage and I refuse to call it thus; it's barely an increase on the old minimum wage and is only called the "living" wage for political reasons.

Uber is a parasite

[Anonymous Coward]

Living off the desperation of laborers, tempting them to give their labor so the wealthy class of owners can profit at their expense.

Re:UK is the land of law

[Shimbo]

So, what you need to do is to open an Uber account, go to the furthest part of the island, where there is a zero demand for UBER service, preferably during the night and check-in. Leave the car overnight and let the idle car make money, while doing nothing.

If UBER is willing to employ people for whom it has no work, then it needs to rethink its hiring policy. It's UBER's job to find a business model that is profitable under the law; it's not the law's job to accomodate UBER's business model.

Re:That's fine

[AmiMoJo]

Because we don't want a race to the bottom, we set minimum standards. Working for less is harming other people.

Re:That's fine

[AmiMoJo]

What some libertarians don't understand is that someone always pays. All uber is doing its externalising the cost. The drivers get benefits, subsidised housing, they can use charities like food banks. If that isn't available, someone has to pay for the extra policing due to their crime, or to cremate turn when they die of exposure one winter.

It's better that an uber costs 50p more and the company doesn't get too be a welfare queen leeching off the state.

Re:That's fine

[roman_mir]

What you don't understand (and I am an ANCAP) is that there are people who do not qualify for meaningful employment at the costs set up by government (minimum wage, lawsuits based on any form of discrimination, harassment, etc.) There are unemployable people out there who will be on welfare if nobody hires them. If a company hires that person and pays him or her something and the person gets more from any other sources (there shouldn't be any welfare, food stamps, etc. but as long as they exist that's a source that can be taken advantage of).

Minimum wage is simply minimum ability. By increasing minimum wage all that the society will get will be this: people with fewer marketable skills and traits will be left behind and the jobs will be reallocated to people with more marketable skills, but clearly there will be fewer jobs.

I run a company, ask me why if you want, I will explain. I make money by selling my services to my clients, we are building the services I sell at my company and I have to be able to afford this development. The people I hire get paid from the money that the clients pay me. I can afford certain number of people, I have multiple offices, I outsource. If I had to pay more per hour than I am paying already, I would cut the workforce and for that hire rate I would only get people who qualify to be paid that much.

I hire people off the street, some don't know how to develop, don't have experience, are recent graduates, some never went to a university of a college, they build the skills in my company. If I am forced to pay a higher rate, I would have fewer people, but the people I have would all be at a higher starting level, thus leaving lower starting level people behind.

Do you understand my points at all, even close? Government can only make some people unemployable with their rules, they cannot make me hire people that are not worth the money.