Slashdot Mirror


Uber Drivers Have Rights on Wages and Time Off, UK Panel Rules (apnews.com)

Uber suffered a blow on Friday to its operations in its biggest market outside the United States when a British panel ruled in London rejected the company's argument that its drivers were self employed. The decision, which affirmed a ruling made last year, means that Uber will have to ensure its drivers in Britain are paid a minimum wage and entitled to time off, casting doubt on a common hiring model in the so-called gig economy that relies on workers who do not have a formal contract as permanent employees. From a report: Judge Jennifer Eady rejected Uber's argument that the men were independent contractors, because the drivers had no opportunity to make their own agreements with passengers and the company required them to accept 80 percent of trip requests when they were on duty. The tribunal, Eady wrote in her decision, found "the drivers were integrated into the Uber business of providing transportation services." The ride-hailing service said it has never required drivers in the U.K. to accept 80 percent of the trips offered to them and that drivers make well above the minimum wage. Employment lawyers expect the case to be heard by higher courts as early as next year.

21 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Are they stupid or something? by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Informative

    Paid time off is legally mandated for all employed people in the UK.

  2. firemen are paid to wait for the call so why not by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    firemen are paid to wait for the call so why not for other people who provide on call services?

  3. Re:firemen are paid to wait for the call so why no by jonsmirl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because firemen are required to wait and Uber drivers aren't.

  4. I don't get it by micahraleigh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I don't eat at McDonald's I don't pay McDonald's.

    And if they don't want to serve me food for 2 weeks I'm definitely not paying them for those 2 weeks.

    Same is true if I had a meal plan somewhere.

    My job (software consultant) says they want me sooo bad they'll pay for me to have 3 weeks off. The US gov doesn't make them do that.

    So why is a gov MAKING some businesses PAY for services in exchange for NOTHING?

    Another place where we are paying the government for someone else's generosity.

    1. Re: I don't get it by micahraleigh · · Score: 2

      You appeal to a lot of things here, but I still don't understand why I don't have to pay for meals when I don't eat there and why businesses DO have to pay BY LAW for services when they aren't getting anything during that time. It just seems like a weird double standard. Perhaps you were subtly touching on an answer there and it went over my head.

      I also don't understand why we should care about society. I care about my neighbor. Society is just an abstraction. 83% of people in the US (that includes a lot of democrats, progressives, and probably some socialists) think private charities do a better job of taking care of people than the government.

  5. Driver's don't get the opportunity to.... by mark-t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... negotiate with passengers because the passengers are not who is contracting the drivers in the first place. The passengers are Uber's clients, not the driver's.

    Uber is the one contracting the drivers. The drivers are using their own equipment, at their own cost, and setting their own work schedule.

    The drivers no more get to negotiate prices with their passengers than an independent contractor that's hired by a construction firm gets to negotiate their prices with the construction firm's clients.

    1. Re:Driver's don't get the opportunity to.... by swillden · · Score: 2

      Drivers don't get the opportunity to negotiate with passengers because the passengers are not who is contracting the drivers in the first place. The passengers are Uber's clients, not the driver's.

      IMO, Uber should fix this. Enabling drivers to set prices would solve their employee vs contractor problem in most (maybe all?) jurisdictions.

      The fix is pretty straightforward. Essentially, pricing should be done by a sort of a real-time auction. Drivers should be allowed to set their price in generic terms, using a per-mile, per-minute, etc. model, similar to how taxi metering is done in most places, or to how I'm sure Uber calculates prices now -- but the driver gets to pick the numbers. Drivers should also be allowed to set mileage, etc. rates for their trip to the pickup. Then, when a passenger opens the app and requests a ride to a specific destination, Uber should calculate -- for every nearby, available driver -- the total fare for the passenger, including a fixed percentage markup for Uber. Uber's app should present the passenger with a list, sortable by fare, ETA or driver rating.

      This approach would get Uber entirely out of the business of setting fares, whether for normal or "surge" times. It would make fare pricing a purely market-driven negotiation between drivers and passengers.

      Under this model, I expect many drivers would mark themselves as "available" even during their nominal downtimes, but just bump their fares up enough that they won't be offered a trip unless there is a surge. In this way, surge response would be more natural. Uber could still try to predict surges ahead of time and inform drivers of what is probably coming.

      This scheme could be augmented with an even more direct negotiation scheme. Passengers who aren't happy with any of the offered fares could be given the option of making an offer. Nearby drivers would be notified of the offer, along with information about the time, mileage and final destination (since a trip that leaves them in a bad location to pick up another passenger is less desirable), and they'd be able to accept or reject it. The passenger would be notified of the first acceptance, and the count of rejections -- providing feedback on the reasonableness of the offer.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Driver's don't get the opportunity to.... by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Or, perhaps, people should not choose to be working for Uber at all if they are not satisfied with the amount Uber is willing to offer. As an independent contractor you can try and negotiate your pay all you want but if the person who is going to be paying for your services doesnâ(TM)t want to pay you that much, and never promised or even suggested that they would, then not being paid what you want for working for them is your own fault for agreeing to work for them in the first place for less than your desired pay grade. If they arenâ(TM)t willing to negotiate, you either accept what the person contracting you has offered or wait for something else to come along.

  6. Re:Are they stupid or something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Damn those socialists for winning weekends off, an eight-hour work day, minimum wage, and banning child labor! What horrible monsters they were!

  7. Gig economy by shayd2 · · Score: 2
    "Gig economy" is nothing new

    It has one major problem There is always someone who will take a job for a lower rate than you need.

    This lead to unionization, insurance, paid time off etc. etc

    1. Re:Gig economy by imgod2u · · Score: 2

      And? Eventually, the world runs out of third world workers.

  8. Re:Are they stupid or something? by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you're sitting there for an hour and no jobs come up, that's called not working.

    A nice example of a circular argument.

    If you are employed and at the workplace, you must be paid. Just because the boss doesn't have any work for you to do is irrelevant. If there isn't any work, the boss should send you home.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  9. Re:firemen are paid to wait for the call so why no by jonsmirl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ridiculous. Uber did not exist ten years ago. Plus 95% of the population have never used them.

  10. Re:Are they stupid or something? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's hilarious that the US still calls itself "the land of the free"

    Mandatory paid time off may be a good idea, but it is not "freedom". It is a restriction on liberty for (arguably) a greater social good.

    "Freedom" would leave it up to individuals whether they want vacation, or would prefer shorter daily hours or higher pay. Because that is the tradeoff. The paid vacation is not going to be "free".

  11. Re:firemen are paid to wait for the call so why no by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    In many small towns, the firemen are part time workers who are "on call" from their day job. They only get paid for time spent either training or responding to alarms. They usually keep some equipment, such as extinguishers and first aid kits, in their home or workplace, so they can go directly to a reported problem in their neighborhood, rather than going to the station first. This generally works well, since response time is often the most important factor in an emergency.

    Disclaimer: When I was growing up, my dad was a volunteer fireman.

  12. Re:firemen are paid to wait for the call so why no by gnick · · Score: 2

    maybe firemen could become hobby pyromaniacs in their spare time, and thus reduce the waiting time . . . ?

    They already thought of that. About 100 firefighters a year are convicted as serial arsonists in North America.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  13. Re: Are they stupid or something? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Freedom is more than choice. It's also about what is basic decency

    Government enforced decency is not "freedom". It may be a good idea in many cases, but simply using "freedom" as a synonym for "good" is idiotic.

    freedom from being mistreated and exploited by employers.

    Protection from being mistreated and exploited by employers. Whenever you see the phrase "freedom from" being used, rather than "freedom to", it is almost always being used inappropriately.

  14. Re:firemen are paid to wait for the call so why no by whoever57 · · Score: 2

    In the UK, if you are on-call and required to stay at or close to a workplace, you must be paid. Volunteers have no such constraints.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  15. Uber punishes drivers by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    who don't take enough rides or who turn down rides that aren't profitable. Uber does lots of stuff to control it's workforce. Sorta like an employer (hmmmm....).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  16. That might fly by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    if Uber didn't tightly control working hours by punishing drivers for not accepting unprofitable trips or not accepting enough trips. Uber has been caught doing both and I imagine a subpoena could find lots of other examples of Uber dangling carrots to force certain behavior if we actually had a working labor board anywhere on earth.

    I could probably come up with other reasons why Uber drivers are, for all intents and purposes, employees, but I'll give other's a chance to chime in. Also, you probably don't want to break the employee/employer social contract. Maybe in the UK. In the States it's probably a bad idea. Guns we got, mental health services and a safety net, not so much...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  17. Re:firemen are paid to wait for the call so why no by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    How is that not on-call?

    It is not "on call", because answering the call is completely optional. If a fireman or ambulance driver is "on call", he can lose his job if he doesn't respond. For an Uber driver, there is no repercussion, other than that fare going to someone else.