Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
<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>
Are you sure its the Uber drivers campaigning against their own jobs? I mean real Uber drivers. It wouldn't be too difficult for some union activists to sign up as drivers and then start whining about 'Muh employee benefits'
Have gnu, will travel.
Did it occur to you that the laws may be different in the UK and the third alternative (work as an employee) might be the best option?
Your argument can be re-written as: you have no power, so suck up the crumbs were are prepared to drop for you. Well, perhaps the drivers do have more power.
Also, since this wasn't a class action, it doesn't affect anyone except the two drivers who sued. However, all the other drivers can now sue, secure in the knowledge that they will win and that Uber will have to pick up both sides' legal costs.
Perhaps, also, this is bad for the economy as a whole as the current situation leads to Uber not paying the taxes that would otherwise have to be paid. In other words it is just another example of socializing the costs while privatizing the profits.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
A similar situation happened with Microsoft temp/contract employees a number of years ago. They sued MS because they were essentially "permanent temps". As a result, they're now (if I recall correctly) required to take at least six months off after a maximum of 18 months of employment. So, unfortunately, their situation didn't really improve, as I presume they were hoping to get benefits, etc, as full time employees. Microsoft was obviously using long-term contract employees to avoid paying benefits or taking responsibility of employment, but now as a result of the lawsuit, all the temp / contract employees seem to be worse off than before.
I'll be curious to see what happens with Uber employees in the UK. My guess is something similar.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
leaving satisfied.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
they have a lot more control then that.
Like
can't set your own price
limits on what tools (car) you can use.
The rating system.
can't really be Promoting Competitor’s Services (Including Your Own)
limits on acceptance rates / can really see where a ride is going be for committing to it.
and more
but some workers where not even makeing the Minimum wage. With the app work / other misclassified 1099's they have all the control but don't want to pay for car / truck reimbursement, pay for waiting time, pay for on call time, full workers comp / other liability's, taxes, cell phone / other tools reimbursement. return to base time / mileage reimbursement. (after say a long run out of your base area)
piece work pay that can end up being under Minimum wage. Forced to split your piece work pay when they say you need to train a new guy.
Some don't pay full mileage rates or tolls / parking fees.
Some app work / other misclassified 1099 force there workers to buy / rent uniforms, there software, tools, rent there cell phone / pda, etc.
Also a true 1099 can sub out any work then want or even have any one they want to cover there work for them.
uber needs to do the knowledge if they want to stay
Living off the desperation of laborers, tempting them to give their labor so the wealthy class of owners can profit at their expense.
Uber ... don't own the vehicles, maintain the vehicles, fuel the vehicles or have garages for them.
Hmmm. Sounds almost like they're just contracting with an independent car owner and offering a match-making co-ordination app to them for a fee.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Nice cherry-picking.
Uber sets the prices, sets the commission rate and collects the payment, while also determining the relationship between the driver and the passenger. Note that it's not a fee, it's a commission. Does eBay tell me how much I must sell something for?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
don't work for Uber then. They dictate all of your terms except when you're 'on', and if you're 'on' and turn down a ride (even one you know you'll lose money on) they'll penalize you.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Match-making, so, something like e-bay, right?
Can I register on Uber and offer my services to twice the average rate (I have a classic car people would probably like to ride in, so they might pay more)? Half the average rate (I really need the money and have an efficient car)?
Can I register on Uber and also other sites? I mean I would be more likely to get a "sale" if I used more sites...
I can offer an item for sale on e-bay for any price I want. People may not buy it for that price, but my ad is still there. If I have more than one item (that is, I am manufacturing them), I can offer them for sale on e-bay, craigslist and other sites at the same time.
No, but if ebay did come up with a price they wanted you to sell for, that wouldn't make you their employee. You still have the choice to either accept their conditions or deny them. If they decide your denial makes you less valuable to do business next time, how is that wrong? When you accept the ride, you're accepting the prices, commission, etc. Contractors to work on the terms of the contract, whatever that may be. If they don't like it, they can deny it.
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
which has much weaker employee protections than the UK. Not that the UK is doing great. Ever since Reagan/Thatcher their working class has been getting picked apart.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The MS situation would have been to avoid temp workers becoming permanent after 2 years (which happens automatically under UK law).
Minimum wage and holiday pay happen from the start of employment.
That's what they did in Bulgaria. Worked nicely, they are gone. Only a few thousands misguided idiots signed their protest petition.
I wish I lived in your simplistic world, where everything worked the way I think it should work. But I don't and neither do you.
Your comment about "THE logic, the legal logic" is ridiculous. Did you not understand that this decision was rendered, not by a jury, but by judges?
Yes, it's possible that one or more appeals may overturn this, but Uber will be swimming against the current. It's also quite likely that the judges hearing the appeals will agree with the tribunal (you didn't even get that right, did you?)
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
When I was doing tier II work at an IBM facility the same policy applied. After 18 months, your gone. Usually, don't bother coming back after six months, because someone else is already 6 months into their own 18 month cycle.
I await the data to speak to the following issue, but I strongly suspect all commercial rideshare services worsen driving for all drivers by structurally encouraging poor rideshare drivers to work without commercial car insurance. I suspect this choice drives up the cost of car insurance for other drivers operating their vehicles within the terms of their respective policy.
I figure that poor drivers looking to make quick money by being employed by the rideshare service are more likely to attempt commercial ridesharing without car insurance.
When the uninsured (or improperly insured, there's no distinguishable difference here) have an accident, the other driver is likely to be an insured driver operating their vehicle within the terms of their insurance. If the rideshare driver is at fault and they don't have commercial car insurance, their insurance agent hears about the accident and says the insurer won't cover any damage to either vehicle, the attempted claim is a breach of contract, and whatever insurance they had is now canceled. In order to be made whole, the insured driver has to have thought ahead to this situation and previously bought "uninsured driver" insurance. This additional policy increases the cost of any car insurance.
Sure, uninsured driver insurance existed well before rideshare services. But I suspect organized, commercialized rideshare services increase the odds that one will need uninsured driver insurance because people have a tough time holding the rideshare service liable for accidents their employees (inappropriately called "independent contractors") cause.
Digital Citizen
Actually that sounds like it improved a lot! Any temps that are on a mandatory work-somewhere-else schedule are not going to be assigned to important work, they'll only be doing legit temp work. The ones who become important during their work... will be hired on regular. That was the whole point of the action, that was the goal; to force MS to stop abusing the temporary status. The goal wasn't to make temp work awesome, or to lift temp workers up, it was to restore honesty about who is and isn't a temp. I guarantee important fake-employees became real employees when their time-away approached.
The goal wasn't to make temp work awesome, or to lift temp workers up, it was to restore honesty about who is and isn't a temp.
Then why not adjust the law so that there is no temporary/contractor/contingent/casual classifications, just FTE? Making it bad just because it is "temporary work" makes no sense - it just enables a benefit dodge.
The ones who become important during their work... will be hired on regular
I guarantee important fake-employees became real employees when their time-away approached.
Citation needed on that one - conversion rates aren't high enough and incentives don't work that way.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
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.
There are so many arguments and practical hacks against the ruling that it is not even practicable to even list those arguments, and we will not even attempt to do so.
Such as?
We have a number of duck laws here, the ones that say if you look like a duck and quack like a duck then you're a duck. s/duck/employee. You see we've had plenty of large companies over the years try to escape their obligations to employees and the government by calling employees something else. Uber are not the first and they certainly won't be the last.
All it will do is that Uber will accelerate driver-less car fleet and those who were petitioning for minimum hourly rate, on behalf of all drivers, will accelerate mass joblessness, as most of the Uber drivers will be obsolete.
Seems unlikely. If driverless cars are coming, they are coming no matter what. Treating people like scum to hold off the inevitable for a year or two is not a worthwhile tradeoff.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Contractors to work on the terms of the contract, whatever that may be.
Not in the UK. We have laws on the books that say if contractors look too much like employees then for the purposes of the law, they are employees. The specific point is to stop companies like Uber having people who are for all intents and purposes employees (possibly part time) but get to escape all their obligations by playing silly buggers with the name they give their employees.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
For anyone who is interested, take a look at the IR35 regulations, which HMRC are cracking down on massively...
http://www.contractorcalculato...
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ir...
These are just one of the rules designed to prevent the contractor-not-employee tax avoidance schemes in the UK.
It's called piecework.
The difference here is it's cars as the tool and not sewing machines.
Fair enough but that word "rideshare" that you use so much is a blatant confidence trick and an insult to the reader's intelligence. It's part of the obfiscation that has created situations such as what you describe.
What the Tribunal found was that the two drivers involved were effectively employees. Uber's attempts to have every party sign disclaimers had had no effect on the substance of the employment relationship, judged on quite traditional criteria. It is entirely possible that people who drive with Uber introductions in different circumstances do not have employee rights.
Minimum wage and other worker protections make areas "regulatory shit holes", do they? Also, some slaves in the West Indies were actually voluntary -- see "indentured servitude". This is now illegal. Is that a bad thing?
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Also, since this wasn't a class action, it doesn't affect anyone except the two drivers who sued. However, all the other drivers can now sue, secure in the knowledge that they will win and that Uber will have to pick up both sides' legal costs.
I didn't think there was any class action status in any of the UK's legal systems...? This judgement is against Uber, and says that their behaviour is illegal. I believe, therefore, that it does affect all employees.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
There will be appeal process to this. During appeal process finally THE logic, the legal logic, will be used and the ruling of the lower court will be thrown away. It is that simple. Luckily there is a reasonable and predictable legal process.
There is a reasonable and predictable process, and that's why it won't be thrown out
There are so many arguments and practical hacks against the ruling that it is not even practicable to even list those arguments, and we will not even attempt to do so.
In which case, just list one.
However here is one: Under the current interpretation, all you need to do is to register yourself, and the money starts flowing. Reality is that, the law would force employment contract between Uber and the driver, while, clearly, there is no agreement between the the Uber and the driver, and Uber is under no commitment to bring business to the driver when there is none.
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.
Nope. UK law allows for zero-hours contracts, and allows pretty short notice for it. All Uber really need to do here is replace check-in with "declare available". Then Uber need to chose whether to give you a shift or not. Once said shift starts, then they have to make sure you get the appropriate pay.
All it will do is that Uber will accelerate driver-less car fleet and those who were petitioning for minimum hourly rate, on behalf of all drivers, will accelerate mass joblessness, as most of the Uber drivers will be obsolete.
That is a matter of a decade.
Exploitative jobs replaced by machines is a bad thing? Having a job that doesn't pay enough to eat is a good thing?
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Correct. There is no concept of Class Action here in UK law. As HP Hal says, this is a ruling against Uber as a whole (although they have immediately appealed, so let's wait and see).
The interesting aspect is what happens to other similar businesses - Deliveroo is a similar large 'gig-economy' company here in Britain, so how will they react?
Selling on eBay isn't (or didn't used to be) a job. Sellers on eBay set their own prices. They can arrange their own method of payment, their own method of delivery etc. They are not expected to sell exclusively through ebay. They have plenty of powers that Uber drivers don't.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
"Rideshare" is something like Bla Bla Car. Last I checked, Bla Bla Car's policies in the UK were set to ensure drivers never made anything that could be construed as a profit. They did this by capping their rates at the HMRC's published rates for what companies can give out as reimbursement for business mileage. This is real ridesharing/car-pooling/sharing-economy, because the idea is that no driver is actually working or profiting. Instead, they're simply taking a trip they would otherwise do anyway and having their costs offset by someone else. That's a good model for ridesharing. Uber's something else entirely.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Driving Uber isn't a job. Drivers set their own time. They can wait for profitable (peak) time, or can go where there is more business.
Uber does not expect drivers to be at Uber all the times. A driver can work with Lyft. They can also get business by working as a licensed taxi, also offering a ride by soliciting in person.
Uber is not meant to be employer, but some people chose to make money out of it.
some people have store fronts on eBay and it's like a flea market there the market has a few rules (no where near uber) and changes rent / fees for the space.
Think is while this is a UK ruling it is based on working time directive, and hence has potential to be applicable across the EU. Depends I guess how far Uber choose to appeal this, but EJC is still the top courtfor this assuming it gets that far before brexit kicks in.
So, the real question is: what's the difference between a contractor and an employee. Are they not pretty much the same thing? Why is there a special class for "employees"? I understand that it's the case for most countries, but it still escapes me why we can't let people do work without attempting to regulate it. This case shows that the system set up to handle this is inadequate to properly address the situation.
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
I mean your cries about how the world has done nothing for you so you don't need to give anything back.
"I've got mine" is not a philosophy. It is a character flaw.
As for the shit you are always going on about with needing guns to overthrow your country - look up Hungary 1956 to see how you would just end up as a small read smear on the ground if you want to do things in such a stupid way. Guns don't win countries. A lot of people working together as well as an army win countries. That lone wolf anarchist shit you push is insane, greedy and sociopathic.
Driving Uber isn't a job. Drivers set their own time. They can wait for profitable (peak) time, or can go where there is more business.
Uber does not expect drivers to be at Uber all the times. A driver can work with Lyft. They can also get business by working as a licensed taxi, also offering a ride by soliciting in person.
Uber is not meant to be employer, but some people chose to make money out of it.
That is not how UK law defines a job. Hence the ruling that Uber is, according to UK law, an employer.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
You kicked off with what looked like a very obvious lie - there is no total ban.
system, the concept of "Presumed Innocence" and the fact that judges err on the side of caution when issuing injunctions and the like (with the assumption that they can order payment in full with interest to the aggrieved party at the end of the trial).
In the states it's only an issue because our Judicial branch overwhelmingly sides with property and the wealthy. Even more so than in the UK. Which is impressive when you think about it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Come up with a term that covers all of the commercial services and I'll consider using that term instead. But I don't know of any such name and I won't use a name which is basically advertising for any of them (like calling all portable music players "walkmen" or "ipods", or calling an audio recording online a "podcast"). I understand the value of calling things by their proper names, but your post and a sibling post to yours complain of essentially the same thing while offering no specific language to use instead.
Also, I believe the name covering these services is hardly significant in terms of why people would choose to use them. These services are inexpensive (probably partially due to the savings of not having to deal with car insurance) and convenient due to integrating quite well with mobile phones; a potent combination which I understand traditional cab services didn't really compete with until pushed by these services.
Digital Citizen
The fact you are claiming Uber is somehow a ride-sharing company speaks volumes. It's not. It's nothing close to a ride-sharing company.