Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A British Plumber May Show Uber the Future of Employment (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the setting-the-stage dept.

A British plumber may show Uber the future of employment. From a report: The U.K.'s top judges ruled Wednesday that Pimlico Plumbers Ltd. should've treated one of its tradesman as a "worker," giving him the right to vacation pay and to sue the company in a decision that could have ramifications for other gig economy lawsuits. Supreme Court judges found that plumber Gary Smith, who worked for London-based Pimlico Plumbers between August 2005 and April 2011, wasn't self-employed or a client of the firm, giving him the right to sue the company under discrimination laws.

"This is one of the most significant employment status decisions we have seen in the last five years," said James Murray, an employment lawyer at Kingsley Napley in London. Uber and other app-based firms will be watching the ruling with interest as they face similar legal challenges over the way they treat employees. Uber's appeal of a decision granting its drivers benefits including overtime and paid vacation is scheduled to be heard by another court October 30. Meanwhile Deliveroo, the food-delivery service, is currently battling the IWGB union over its riders' employment status and in May, taxi service Addison Lee lost an appeal over whether drivers were independent contractors or employees with rights to benefits.

98 comments

  1. So what about his National Insurance? by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If he wasn't self employed, he should have payed a higher rate of NI (for all you non-UK people: in the UK, income tax is split in a weird way into 2 pieces: i) income tax and ii) Natonal Insurance (NI). NI is not payed by pensioners, and a lower rate applies to the self-employed). I wonder if he's due a tax bill.

    1. Re:So what about his National Insurance? by demon+driver · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This being 2018, I could very easily imagine governments demanding something like that, but perhaps as the culprit wasn't the worker but the company it would rather be fair that the company would have to repay him so that his net wages, after paying that tax bill, would equal what he had earned being self-employed?

    2. Re:So what about his National Insurance? by cardpuncher · · Score: 3, Informative

      The court decided he was a "worker" - that's an intermediate category between being employed and self-employed. You'd think the categories would be aligned for the purposes of employment law and tax law, but that would be too easy...

      HMRC are coming after people who were operating through service companies (and paid themselves mostly in dividends therefore avoiding NI altogether). but self-employed people now pay a substantially similar level of NI to the employed for the services they receive (given that they don't get unemployment benefit, for example) so there would be little benefit in trying to make a case.

    3. Re:So what about his National Insurance? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This has been the subject of much debate and law-making in the Netherlands. The issue isn't new, and better believe that someone will pay this tax.


      Not long ago, legistlaters thought the VAR system was needlessly burdensome, and changed it so that self-employed and their clients had to enter into a pre-approved "model agreement". No one understood this system; some large companies (typically the worst offenders such as Deliveroo) got their model agreements stamped, the rest simply stopped hiring freelancers except through payroll companies (who are just highly expensive middlemen). This went on for the better part of 2016, until the new law was suspended. It still is, and they are still debating on where to draw the line between self-employment and employment.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re:So what about his National Insurance? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ./ ate a paragraph there:

      This has been the subject of much debate and law-making in the Netherlands. The issue isn't new, and better believe that someone will pay this tax.

      In the old days, self-employed people did pay the national insurance tax without actually being covered. Then, the tax was repealed, but if the Revenue Service ruled that your work constitued employment rather than self-employment, you still had to pay (and were retroactively covered). Most freelancers were fine with this as they were in the best position to assess how much of a risk this actually was. But some thought this to be "unfair" and the law shifted the burden to the freelancers' clients. Still not a big deal, clients were ok with this if you could show a VAR, an individual ruling on the nature of your worker status, issued by the Revenue Service.

      Not long ago, legistlaters thought the VAR system was needlessly burdensome, and changed it so that self-employed and their clients had to enter into a pre-approved "model agreement". No one understands this system; some large companies (typically the worst offenders such as Deliveroo) got their model agreements stamped and carried on with the practices that started this whole debate in the first place; the rest more or less completely stopped hiring freelancers except through payroll companies (who are just highly expensive middlemen). This went on for the better part of 2016, until the new law was suspended. It still is, and they are still debating on where to draw the line between self-employment and employment.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:So what about his National Insurance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Depends how much he earned; his employer would certainly be on the hook for a bill. Assuming the median wage of about 24k a year:

      EMPLOYEE:
      Gross Income: £24k (Employer also pays £2k in NI)
      Income Tax: £2.5k (20% of above £12k)
      Employee NI: £1.9 (12% Class 1 NI above £8k)
      Total tax paid: 6.4
      Employee Net: 19.6

      CONTRACTOR:
      Gross income: £24k ("Customer" pays no NI)
      Income Tax: £2.5k (20% of above £12k)
      Employee NI: £2 (9% Class 4 NI above £8k, plus £150 in Class 2 NI)
      Total Tax Paid: £4,5k
      Employee Net: £19.5k

      Of course plumbers probably earn a bit more than average, so the influence of Class 2 NIs is relatively less, but it's likely pretty minor compared to how he's getting screwed out of holiday pay (5.6 weeks per year minimum), sick pay etc.

    6. Re: So what about his National Insurance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the UK, taxes for employees are the responsibility of the employer. NI contributions as well as income tax are calculated and paid by employers. That means that most people in the UK are spared the burden of being their own tax accountant.

    7. Re:So what about his National Insurance? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Does a "contractor" get similar tax advantages as the US for deducting costs? In the US, that can be up to 50% of income that isn't taxed (if you know how to play the game).

    8. Re: So what about his National Insurance? by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 2

      It does sound familiar, a homeless junkie was screaming something similar to what you wrote at a fire hydrant last night.

      --
      Sig. Sig. Sputnik
    9. Re:So what about his National Insurance? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Geez, you always have this one asshole, that goes and ruins a good thing for the rest of the many that enjoy the freedoms and tax benefits that can be attained by contracting.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:So what about his National Insurance? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Does a "contractor" get similar tax advantages as the US for deducting costs?

      If you are a true 1099 contractor, then absolutely YES!!

      I find it is best to incorporate yourself, be a company of one....and do your 1099 work corp-to-corp.

      You can write off a lot of things, very legally with no need whatsoever to push the boundaries of what might be shady or illegal.

      IN fact, that is one of the very good reasons to work contracting.

      However, it comes with a good deal of responsibilities...you have to pay monthly/quarterly taxes to the feds, state....etc. You have to keep records, and I'd highly advise having a good CPA for taxes and advice, but you figure all this into your bill rate. You also have to figure in hours you'd take off during the year for sick/vacation....insurance, etc...all those have to be calculate into your bill rate.

      It sounds like a lot and at first, it is...but you get the hang of it, and there can be great tax savings.

      I won't go into it in depth, but you can set up as an S-Corp, and save yourself on how much employment taxes you have to pay (SS and medicare).....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:So what about his National Insurance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the limit on tax look-backs is 7 years. He's in the clear.

    12. Re: So what about his National Insurance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Canada has the same problem. If you're determined to be a personal services business your tax rate effectively becomes 58% (highest tax bracket in the country). But if you're not, your taxes are around 40% depending on what your dividends are.

      The difference is not well explained and many times the government will retroactively take a 28% increase in taxes for up to 7 years should they feel you fit the definition.

      Here's the government's definition:

      https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-publications/publications/t4012/t2-corporation-income-tax-guide-chapter-4-page-4-t2-return.html

      "A personal services business is a business that a corporation carries on to provide services to another entity (such as a person or a partnership) that an officer or employee of that entity would usually perform."

      I mean, really, does that apply to everything consultants do? Yet the vast majority of consultants are deemed by revenue Canada to NOT be PSBs. Such a mess.

      I won't even get into the fact they they are busy modifying dividend income splitting for the current tax year within that tax year. The tax difference could be 30% or more.

    13. Re:So what about his National Insurance? by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or...thank God for the guy that's prepared to stand up for what is right, despite the personal cost should they lose.

      This isn't about contracting on its own (which is still 100% allowable), this is about using contracting as a scam to avoid paying the full costs of employing someone. I actually think this is more cut and dried than e.g.. Uber, because these guys supplied him with his tools, uniform, van, jobs and demanded a minimum number of hours worked - that's pretty much employment where I come from.

    14. Re: So what about his National Insurance? by houghi · · Score: 1

      On top of that (at least in Belgium) the company wouls also need to pay paid holdays 13th month, if that is a thing,extra social security, and some extra taxes. Some will go to the state and some will go to the employee. Plus any extra benefits other employees would gave gotten.

      I am just not sure what Uber has to do with anything I learned 15 years ago and existed well before that.

      I know a lot of consultants who legally could easily sue the company they work for. Especially those that work for several years for one company. Do contact a specialized lawer for advice. Most lawyers will have no idea.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    15. Re:So what about his National Insurance? by john.r.strohm · · Score: 2

      Perhaps.

      However, in this particular case, the asshole was not the worker, but rather the management.

      The guy had a very serious health episode, was in hospital, went home, and asked the company to let him cut back on his hours while he recovered. This was an eminently reasonable request, under the circumstances, and a reasonable manager would not have hesitated for a moment before granting it.

      However, Pimlico Plumbers was not a reasonable manager. Instead of allowing him to cut back on his hours, and continue recovering, Pimlico "fired" him and demanded he return the mandatory company uniforms and company truck.

      He then sued, with the results everyone has seen.

      TL;DR: Pimlico shot themselves in the foot.

  2. Except it probably won't... by overnight_failure · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Depends which lawyers you speak to I guess. How about this opinion from another employment lawyer:

    Alan Lewis, employment partner at law firm Irwin Mitchell said the decision was not a "game changer" and that cases would continue to be argued on their specific facts and, for businesses that rely on self employed contracts, that means further uncertainty.

    "This decision is not necessarily a win for 'gig economy' workers seeking to challenge their employment status."

    Pimlico Plumbers does "not operate a gig model and the implications for Uber, City Sprint, Deliveroo etc may be limited, although the publicity around this case may encourage other 'self employed' contractors to challenge their legal status," added Mr Lewis.

    Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/bus...

    1. Re:Except it probably won't... by Sique · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know for the UK, but in other countries, the question of self employment or not depends on who is your largest customer, and if this customer demands priority services or other exclusivity, limiting your ability to search for other contracts. If your ability to independently decide which assignment to take is severly limited by your largest customer, and your income strongly depends on his jobs, then you are in fact employed and not a free agent.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:Except it probably won't... by SillyBrit · · Score: 2

      Exactly, it's down to the facts. In such 'self employed' arrangements it comes down to what contracts were in place and questions such as what freedom the worker has to send someone else etc to determine whether they should be classed as truly self employed or not.

      --
      --- To save space, would readers please insert their own witty comment -here-
    3. Re:Except it probably won't... by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      Considering it's in the best interests of an employment lawyer for there to be as much employment litigation as possible that's a pretty predictable statement to make. Precedent, which this makes, has a pretty huge impact on how court cases go and most companies and individuals don't just try to take every grievance to court, they make an assessment of their chances before they make that decision and precedent is obviously a factor in that assessment.

      Sure, precedent won't stop a particular type of case from being brought before a court, but when the chances of winning or losing change, so will the likelihood of litigants to be willing to take it to court.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    4. Re:Except it probably won't... by mikael · · Score: 3, Informative

      For the UK, HMRC look to see whether an individual is an "employee in disguise". Do they work at the customers premises. Does the company provide tools. Does the individual work his own hours? Does the individual service multiple clients?

      In this case, the plumbing company provided the van, the tools and customer bookings, plus require the individual works a minimum number of hours.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    5. Re:Except it probably won't... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      That's basically how it is here. If Uber assigns you work, tells you where to go and when, sets your fares and monitors your performance then they are your employer.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Except it probably won't... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      I don't know for the UK, but in other countries, the question of self employment or not depends on who is your largest customer, and if this customer demands priority services or other exclusivity, limiting your ability to search for other contracts. If your ability to independently decide which assignment to take is severly limited by your largest customer, and your income strongly depends on his jobs, then you are in fact employed and not a free agent.

      Agreed. And that means that Uber drivers cannot be employees because they always have the option to turn off the Uber app on their phone and do something else. They're not compelled to do anything. It's so far from actual employment that it's barely even similar.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    7. Re:Except it probably won't... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Depends which lawyers you speak to I guess. How about this opinion from another employment lawyer:

      I wonder how many billable hours that partner charged for that opinion. It's interesting to note that high value professional workers (attorneys, engineers, doctors) tend to want to be sole proprietors, partners, etc. Anything but employees. It's the bottom tiers of the labor force that want to be classified as employees.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:Except it probably won't... by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 1

      How can uber not set your fares? Do contractors decide how much they want to be paid each day in the UK ?

      Today, my salary will be one million quids!

    9. Re:Except it probably won't... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah, typically a contractor will negotiate their own day rate or whatever.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Except it probably won't... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      There is a whole list of things which can categorise you as an employee, just because you can turn off the app doesn't mean you don't count under other criteria.

  3. Contractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Contractors get no respect in California. We work side by side employees, but get none of their benefits.

    1. Re:Contractors by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Contractors will normally get the higher pay though.
      So as an employee I can get paid $50 an hour for my services, plus the company will pay an other $50 an hour to cover non salary expenses. From Benefits to your supplied laptop and the property used for your office/cube. So that $100k job for a salary employee cost the company $200k to keep you there.
      As a contractor you may charge $250 an hour for the services, So if you are working for a customer full time that is $500k a year, however this extra money means you will not get a lot of the benefits, because you are already costing the company more money. You will be moved to a cube where they keep spare parts if no other spots are available, even if you job is a higher level work then they guy who took the cube you are using. Because the company needs to pay for the property that is using the cube space. And the employee who is there for a cost savings over you will get preference because they in general bring better value.

      Also as a contractor this extra pay is what you need to cover things like health care, time off for a vacation, and being a contractor you may not always have full time work, so the extra costs covers your expenses while you are hunting for a new customer.

      Now this for self employed contractors. If you ware working for a consulting/contracting firm. Then these benefits should be provided by the firm you are working with. Because that $250 an hour isn't all going to your pocket 60% (or more) may go right to the firm eating away a lot of the money you need to support yourself, so the firm should be offering some benefits Such as health insurance, retirement and cover vacation time which the larger organization can probably get a better deal then you as a self employed person can get.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Contractors by cre1mer · · Score: 1

      Most contracting agencies in Silicon Valley offer full benefits that are equal or better than what corporate employees get.

      --
      Goodbye, Slashdot!
    3. Re:Contractors by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      Contractors get no respect in California. We work side by side employees, but get none of their benefits.

      Well, if you are a REAL contractor, you know you calculate your bill rate to take into consideration you paying your health care insurance and HSA, your time off for vacation and sick, etc.

      That's one reason contractors' hourly bill rates look to be incredibly high, but things like that and retirement savings, etc...are all parts you pay out of that bill rate.

      It is nice, to be able to come and go as you please much more than W2 employees, and you get nice tax write offs that the W2 folks don't get.

      There are pros and cons to both sides of the equation....but if you do it right, contracting can give you benefits over the regular employees.

      If nothing else, they usually want to work the W2 salary employees OT more often than the contractors, because the have to pay the contractors for those hours, which they get for "free" off the W2 salaried employees....that's one big benefit.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re: Contractors by edgedmurasame · · Score: 1

      Citation needed, especially for entry level work. Contracting agencies are incentivized to treat people like raw meat.

      --
      "Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
  4. Pimlico plumbers? really? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    The main thing I knew about Pimlico plumbers is they have the most incredible Christmas decorations which you can see from the Waterloo mainline (left hand side as you're leaving London).

    Shame to hear that they've been a bunch of wankers.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:Pimlico plumbers? really? by MrKaos · · Score: 2

      Shame to hear that they've been a bunch of wankers.

      Is it possible they are being cunts?

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    2. Re: Pimlico plumbers? really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen the owner of pimilico plumbers? Please Google him. He is also thinking of running for mayor.

    3. Re:Pimlico plumbers? really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but man, the christmas decorations.

    4. Re:Pimlico plumbers? really? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but man, the christmas decorations.

      They are AMAZING!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re: Pimlico plumbers? really? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the owner of pimilico plumbers? Please Google him. He is also thinking of running for mayor.

      My goodness, you are right!

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  5. We have this in Germany... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and it absolutely ruined the market for domestic freelancers. German companies are afraid to hire freelancers for projects because it might be ruled that they have to be treated as employees and have the same benefits.

  6. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Key facts in this case
    - He had to work 5 days a week for a minimum of 40 hours
    - He had to wear the company uniform and drive a company-logo van
    - He couldn't send someone else to do the work (substitution) (although under limited circumstances a different pimlico employee could do work)
    - There were significant limitations on his ability to work for other people or competitors

    the courts basically looked at this and said; Yup - he looks an awful lot like an employee rather than an independent self-employed person.

    More generally, the way the contract was written shows that Pimlico were trying to present to customers that the plumbers were employees, whilst making the plumbers not employees so that they could limit tax and avoid certain obligations. The UK courts are getting increasingly vociferous in saying that this is not ok.

    http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases...

    --
    VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
  7. Isn't this already covered by IR35 ? by POPE+Mad+Mitch · · Score: 0

    I would have thought this was basic IR35 stuff. if you do work only for one employer, wether via a shell "service" company or not, then you are not an independent contractor you are an employee, and all the standard payroll taxes and procedures apply.

    1. Re:Isn't this already covered by IR35 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's how it works in Australia, they're getting a little tired of 'sham' contracts. You're not a contractor, you're an employee.

    2. Re:Isn't this already covered by IR35 ? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Six years with the company goes way beyond a standard independent contractor gig. He'll be lucky if the Inland Revenue don't invite him to hand over far more than he picks up from the company.

    3. Re:Isn't this already covered by IR35 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the problem with working as a permanent employee is that some employers will try and shuffle and bump around staff onto different tasks the minute someone else applies for a position. There may be work you have done in the past which you don't ever want to do again, have spent 10 years getting away from, but the PHB looks at your CV/resume and goes "Aha! You've done code grunging in the past! I know we offered you a position in advanced grokkery, but we've just got a CV come in from our agency. We're moving you back onto code grunging next week." This even happens at job interviews. Plus they also slap on a three month notice period for resigning, so that makes it virtually impossible to leave. Then those companies complain they can't find anyone.

    4. Re:Isn't this already covered by IR35 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He'll be lucky if the Inland Revenue don't invite him to hand over far more than he picks up from the company.

      I doubt it, since he is in UK. The HMRC may take an interest, you never know.

    5. Re:Isn't this already covered by IR35 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Australia, sometimes it may be enforced, but mostly it is not. FWA had to contract extras for petrol service stations and fast food outlets.
      Plumbers electricians and ICT workers are way down on on the wish list Even then the fines are woefully inadequate. Bring on class actions, and if they have balls, an amnesty for companies before new penalties and compound interest. No more soft unpublished agreements.

  8. Of course. by tlambert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Contractors get no respect in California. We work side by side employees, but get none of their benefits.

    If they did not treat you substantially differently -- cubicles instead of offices, no free food, no company events, etc. -- the California Department Of Labor would reclassify you as employees.

    In effect, the California Department Of Labor demands that the company you contract for essentially treat you like shit, and if they don't, the punish the company.

    1. Re:Of course. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      I might not go that far, but the practice of directly hiring "contractors" in California has all but died for large companies, and for small companies it is more trouble than it is worth.

      My often-told story about how we have a couple engineers [well] over 70 that are considered contractors is an example of a difficult position. They want to be contractors because they don't want to work full time, they don't need healthcare, don't need 401k, they take months off per year, and it gives them something to do when they want social contact... and for one, a way to get some extra spending cash after his last divorce and alimony settlement. They can't manage their own computers though.

      In proper terms, they are part-time, irregular employees, but we would pay them half as much with that classification, and they wouldn't have the same motivation to contribute what they do. Pain in the ass...

  9. I keep pointing out that Uber could fix this. by tlambert · · Score: 0

    I keep pointing out that Uber could fix this.

    It would cost about $12 million for every Uber contractor to incorporate into a contracting company, and then contract their employees services to Uber.

    They all become employees... of the contracting company that they own, not of Uber.

    1. Re:I keep pointing out that Uber could fix this. by jabuzz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah that won't work in the UK. The government became wise to that years ago.

    2. Re:I keep pointing out that Uber could fix this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in the way you are implying. If you operate through a Ltd. company, you don't get any employment benefits or rights from the client company. All that the government has done with IR35 is make the same Ltd. company also liable for employer taxes. So basically if you are operating inside IR35 through a Ltd. company you are deemed a "disguised employee", which means you get all the rights of a contractor (none) with all the tax liabilities of an employer AND all the tax liabilities of an employee. So yes, it would in fact solve Uber's problem, but it would increase tax liabilities on all of their "contractor" drivers. I suspect you'll find that at that point all the drivers would suddenly stop trying to argue that they are employees because they would become liable for their own benefits.

    3. Re:I keep pointing out that Uber could fix this. by PPH · · Score: 1

      AND all the tax liabilities of an employee

      But I'm incorporated overseas. In a country with very low employee tax liabilities.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:I keep pointing out that Uber could fix this. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Incorporate where you like. If your work in the UK, you're subject to UK employment laws which means if you act in a manner equivalent to an employee then you are one as far as the government and especially the inland revenue care.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:I keep pointing out that Uber could fix this. by shatteredsilicon · · Score: 1

      The company is liable for corporation taxes in it's local tax jurisdiction, the person doing the work is liable for personal taxes, including national insurance, in the jurisdiction where they are tax resident.

    6. Re:I keep pointing out that Uber could fix this. by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      If your work in the UK, you're subject to UK employment laws which means if you act in a manner equivalent to an employee then you are one as far as the government and especially the inland revenue care.

      But, in the UK, the employer is solely responsible for the employer's part of National Insurance. The UK has no way to force an offshore employer to pay NI for an employee. Hence you *may* be able to avoid half your NI contributions.

      However, most people doing this simply take a small salary, which is below the NI threshold, and the rest of their income is received as dividends.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    7. Re:I keep pointing out that Uber could fix this. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      OK, but it depends on who you're contracting to. If you're contracing to an overseas compay then yes. If you're playing shell games but contracting to a UK company then you're still on the hook for IR35.

      However, most people doing this simply take a small salary, which is below the NI threshold, and the rest of their income is received as dividends.

      That's the traditional way. If you fall foul of IR35 though you will be liable for NI (there's an employer and employee contribution) I think. don't quote me on that, IANAL, it's been a while since I've done contracting and I was so far from IR35 that it really wasn't a concern for me.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  10. "Fake Self-Employment" is already a law in Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Fake Self-Employment" is already a law in Germany for decades. If you match certain criterias like "working just for one customer who also gives yu all your orders and tells you what to do" then you are automatically declared "fake self-employed" and your employer has to treat you as employee with all the benefits

  11. Re:"Fake Self-Employment" is already a law in Germ by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

    Here in the US, each state has tax laws that basically state that if someone works full time for a year, it constitutes "nexus". That means that the company is established in that state and is bound to obey tax and other laws in that particular state.

    The real issue is enforcement. I imagine most places have all kinds of laws that negate the benefits of "fake self employment" but if they are not uniformly imposed, corruption takes root.

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.
  12. At it's already taking its toll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone I know has had their contract terminated by their employer because of this. Perhaps it's just an excuse, but the employer said that they didn't want the contractor pulling this stunt.

  13. Uber PTO by Daralantan · · Score: 2
    I've seen several things criticizing Uber for not having PTO, benefits, etc. I've always wondered exactly how people want that treated. Do they mean that for every single person at Uber? Or does it require 30+ hours a week every week of the year? Because I know several Uber drivers just do it 1-2 days a week, sometimes they take a break, etc. How would PTO work out for someone who just does 3-6 hours a week? Benefits, etc? Would it be a situation where Uber would have to make them employees once they hit a certain requirement? And then after that, would they be required to make those hours every week unless they had PTO approved?

    .

    Most anyone I've known that does Uber only did it for a little extra income. I was surprised to find there were people that used it as a main source of income.

    1. Re:Uber PTO by Computershack · · Score: 1

      Here in the UK every single employee is entitled to 5.6 weeks pro rata holiday pay no matter how few hours they work. In the case of someone who works different hours every week the way holiday pay is calculated is as an average of the previous 12 weeks replacing any week where no work was done with one that was so for example if in the last 12 weeks you had a week with no pay you would include the week prior to this 12 week period in the calculation. Every employee is also entitled to a workplace pension as well.

      --
      I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
    2. Re:Uber PTO by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Well, for instance, the people buying/leasing a car through Uber could easily be classified as employees. Uber and Lyft each have bonus structures around driving during rush hours (so less than 30 hours per week, but giving N rides during rush hours that involve being on the road for the entire time). People who want to Uber for a living make sure to hit those bonuses. Those people are de facto employees.

      The problem is, any rules we put down will be gamed by Uber (since they don't want an employee). So the solution seems to be to make them all employees. While it may be that most drivers are casual, most rides are given by people who derive most of their income from Uber. And I'm far more interested in protecting those people than the people who do it for a few hours per week cause they are bored.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Uber PTO by PPH · · Score: 2

      This would prompt employers to hire fewer employees and work them full time. To keep the benefits cost down. This is good if you want to be an employee, but bad if you wanted short hours, flexible work.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re: Uber PTO by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Who is "they"? Polish people?

    5. Re:Uber PTO by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      The problem is, any rules we put down will be gamed by Uber (since they don't want an employee).

      "Gamed" meaning Uber will comply with the law and alter the driver agreements as needed to maintain their status as contractors. So then the government will change the law again to try to catch Uber out.

      This is about government trying to all but eliminate individuals working for themselves as independents. Controlling people is made much harder when government can't simply go to a person's employer and 'suggest' they could see costly legal/regulatory problems in the near future if person 'X' is not fired because he voices opinions and talks about facts the government dislikes.

      Governments want to run societies like ant colonies, and there are no "independent contractors" in an ant colony.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    6. Re:Uber PTO by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      No because it's pro rated. If you work one day per week and are entitled to 5.6 weeks off, then you get about five and half days off.

      You multiply the number of hours worked per week by 5.6 weeks to work out the number of hours paid leave.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Uber PTO by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      "Gamed" meaning Uber will comply with the law and alter the driver agreements as needed to maintain their status as contractors.

      Yes, that's precisely what I mean. Avoiding Uber technically complying while violating the intent of the rules.

      This is about government trying to all but eliminate individuals working for themselves as independents. Controlling people [by threatening that tehy get fired]

      That's just stupid paranoid bullshit. First, it's no easier to get someone fired than to suggest Uber delist them as a driver/contractor. Actually, because of the longterm commitments and anti-firing laws in an employee situation, it's easier for the government to bring pressure to fire a contractor. Second, there hasn't been a case of that in the US for at least 50 years (and most of the people on McCarthy's blacklist were contractors), and that was considered heinous by today's standards. Third, corporations are pretty good at standing up to the government. Fourth, an employee, unlike a contractor, can actually get unemployment, etc. if they get fired, reducing the cost to them

      But go on, explain how the legal classification of someone as an employee is going to increase the government's power over them.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    8. Re:Uber PTO by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Avoiding Uber technically complying while violating the intent of the rules.

      Ah I see, when Uber violates the law they're bad, and when they comply with the law they're even worse.

      The rest of your post is just hand-waving, strawmen, and attempting to take the high moral ground and not worth the time & trouble to bother refuting as those with less bias will see it for what it is while the kool-ade drinkers will never concede anything.

      Enjoy your UK police-state.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    9. Re:Uber PTO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No because it's pro rated. If you work one day per week and are entitled to 5.6 weeks off, then you get about five and half days off.

      You multiply the number of hours worked per week by 5.6 weeks to work out the number of hours paid leave.

      Yup. Same at a company I used to work for. Part timer only working 10 hours a week? Want to take a 1 week vacation? No problem - you'll get 1 week's pay - 10 hours. A lot of people are confused by it.

    10. Re:Uber PTO by drsquare · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. Both the_donald and /pol/ exist for you fucking nut-job libertarian Trumpanzee shitlords, why do you have to come here and shit up our tech forum?

  14. Thought this would take a different turn by TJHook3r · · Score: 4, Funny

    British plumbers are notorious for high prices and bum cleavage. I'm hoping that Uber don't adopt either of those!

    1. Re:Thought this would take a different turn by KiloByte · · Score: 2

      That's why the Brits use Polish plumbers -- might be drunkards but can tell a pipe from their ass. Any who couldn't stayed in Poland.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:Thought this would take a different turn by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You only get to see the builders bum if they actually turn up, something the great British plumber is notorious for not doing. Then there's the endless cups of tea and sucking air through the teeth before telling you it's going to be expensive, mate.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:Thought this would take a different turn by mi · · Score: 1

      Viva la employee-protections, mate!

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:Thought this would take a different turn by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      British plumbers are notorious for high prices and bum cleavage.

      High prices? You obviously haven't employed a plumber in California.

      As for the bum cleavage: to each his (or her) own.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:Thought this would take a different turn by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Viva la employee-protections, mate!

      Certianly. We tried not having them a while back. It worked great for some people, but not the majority. We're trying a different way now and it seems to be better.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Thought this would take a different turn by mi · · Score: 1

      Well, you've already admitted — in an unguarded moment of levity — that it is not better. Now you are back to the party line...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  15. let us eat dirt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no right to vacation in the US.

    1. Re:let us eat dirt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sick time isn't covered either.

  16. Re:If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck by JBMcB · · Score: 2

    Key facts in this case
    - He had to work 5 days a week for a minimum of 40 hours
    - He had to wear the company uniform and drive a company-logo van
    - He couldn't send someone else to do the work (substitution) (although under limited circumstances a different pimlico employee could do work)
    - There were significant limitations on his ability to work for other people or competitors

    That's interesting, and probably shields some gig-economy companies from similar rulings. For regular Uber, at least:

    1. You work whenever you want, as much as you want
    2. You don't have to wear a uniform (but I think you need to put an Uber sign in your window when you are driving)
    3. You can do whatever else you like when you aren't working for Uber.

    The "sending someone else" thing doens't apply in this case, I think, because you are accepting fares from requests, nobody is ordering you to take a fare.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  17. There's been dozens of these by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    For some reason they never seem to effect Uber. They've consistently won despite all evidence. They're the Donald Trump of companies and in more ways than one.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  18. Re:"Fake Self-Employment" is already a law in Germ by PPH · · Score: 1

    if someone works full time for a year

    For a single employer.

    Solution: Make sure you have more then one client. This may be a problem if one of your customers needs you for a critical project. But that trigger is creeping up and you've got to take 6 months and go work for his competitor. Too bad. We'll just see who gets their product to the market first.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  19. Could be by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    but those calculations would have factored into Uber's pay offering too. If Uber knows their employees get a tax advantage then they're smart enough to know they can offer less pay with the understanding that the lower pay gets made up in the backend when the employee files for taxes. In America we see this with Walmart paying their employees so little they qualify for food stamps (and in America if you qualify for food stamps you _really_ need them, we're kinda petty about who qualifies).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Could be by Strider- · · Score: 1

      And herein is why someone working for Uber and the like is not a contractor. They do not have the ability to negotiate the level of compensation. It's take it or leave it on Uber's part, with no room for negotiation.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  20. Total nonsense, govt should stay out by lamer01 · · Score: 1

    It should be up to the Company and the employee to decide what kind of relationship they want to engage in. I don't want the govt to tell me if I am a worker or a freelancer/contractor.

  21. Uber lack of problem with double dip lyft drivers by HundyCougar · · Score: 0

    Uber's lack of problem with double dip Lyft drivers becomes much clearer now - if the driver is driving for both services -e.g. Lyft and Uber - then they look more like they are providing a service vice being an employee.

  22. Re:If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck by drsquare · · Score: 1

    Actually, Uber punishes drivers for refusing fares. And they're not allowed to negotiate the price.

    Uber has lost a key legal battle in the UK after a London tribunal upheld a ruling that the ride-hailing app must treat its drivers as “workers” entitled to the minimum wage and holiday pay.

    Here's a list of criteria for self employment:

    * Ultimate control of the work. A self-employed person should exercise independent control and judgement over how the work is carried out i.e. the means and methods
    * Working for a number of people. The greater the number of client's the more indicative of self-employment status.
    * Working exclusively for one organisation is indicative of employment.
    * Profit element, and risk of loss.
    * Self-employed individuals usually have the right to appoint a substitute or to delegate work to others and are not necessarily required to carryout work personally
    * Mutuality of obligations. A self-employed worker is not obligated to accept new work assignments from the work provider and the work provider is not obligated to offer new work assignments
    * Correction of faulty work at own cost and time
    * Provision of own materials and equipment
    * Working hours. Generally the self-employed have greater freedom to negotiate their working hours and working practices
    * Integration with the employer's business. Self-employed individuals are not generally integrated into the organisational structure of the work provider
    * The intention between the parties
    * Usual conditions in the industry

  23. 3 classes: Employee: Worker: Other by eionmac · · Score: 1

    UK tax and employment law recognises three classes of person working in or for a company:
    a) Employee (full right to benefits , holidays, pension etc by law)
    b) "Worker" (gets some rights of employee, but not all of them)
    c) "Self employed" (no rights , has unlimited personal liability for tax and events)
    d) "Limited Company" (one man incorporation) (No rights, but only monies paid up as shares on incorporation and residual retained profits can be at risk) Thus no personal liability and house etc and family funds are not at risk.

    The 'worker' status of this plumber is the "b" option , which is why it is not a 'full employee' benefit obligation but he wins some of benefits of an employee.

    --
    Regards Eion MacDonald
  24. CRE!MER has no idea what he's talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He doesn't even get a bus pass.
    His retirement plan involves SPAMMING SLASHDOT with referrer links to amazon and running a vlog on youtube.
    He hasn't been extended an actual direct hire contract since he was testing videogames for companies that hardly exist anymore back when bodyshops were hardly a thing.

    His current contract was awarded to him by a bodyshop who got a nationwide government contract for IT grunts and they set the salary at 50k across the country. So in Silicon Valley he was their only option.

    I would recommend not encouraging him to post here because once he gets a sockpuppet with any karma he'll start linking to his various money making schemes.

    Pay off your credit cards creampuff!! Finish your microsoft certification so you have some hope of retiring. Stop fucking off on slashdot!