Oh, and it's worth noting that Alexander Fleming failed to get any private chemist to help him refine the process for harvesting penicillin. It was only thanks to state investment by the UK and US governments in the second world war that we have antibiotics today. The market is really bad at risking starting something new. The pharmaceutical companies are happy to research new antibiotics now that the principle of antibiotics is proven, but no-one was willing to take the risk to start with. The same is true of most genuinely new ideas -- companies won't do it.
It's called the free market, which is the basis for nearly every economic advance we enjoy in today's society.
What on Earth is an "economic advance"? Economics is a means to an end, not an end itself. Besides, we have not had a free market since the first kings were crowned. Hell, the last free markets we had were before we'd even invented money.
The thing with markets is that no-one is an independent agent.
Consider this: why is spaghetti almost always cheaper than linguine, when they're made of identical ingredients and the only difference in mass manufacture of the two is the shape of the hole they're squeezed through? Because more people buy spaghetti than linguine, which means there are more economies of scale. And because it's cheaper, we buy it, so it stays cheaper. Those of us who prefer linguine aren't equally catered for. Now if the spaghetti and linguine are us, and the price is our salaries, I can't compete because of the number spaghettis who are willing to work for less than it costs to feed and clothe a family.
Hey ass-hole, Uber REGULATES the drivers. This isn't some sort of app the people can use to hail rides and the passenger and rider negotiate a fare. Uber controls everything. Read the fucking ruling moron.
As long as it's the "free market" that's shafting people, that's OK. You can double your wage by getting rid of the government that stops companies like Uber from underpaying you. So the GP seems to believe.
No. No. A thousand times no. Driving is a skill. Most people learn to do it at some point in their lives, but they're not very good at it. The standard we expect of someone who uses the roads for an hour or two a day is not what we expect of people who spend their entire working day on the roads. Considering the number of hours they're out, isn't it a bit surprising how few accidents are caused by taxi drivers? That's because in most places, there are standards for professional drivers that aren't expected of amateurs.
but what happens when someone comes out with a decentralized free software ('open source') app to do basically the same thing? Maybe it'll enable customers to put out a pickup point, drop off destination, and amount they are willing to pay. The app then connects them with drivers. The customers can leave reviews similar to eBay. Now who do you hold accountable for employment? The customer?
No, that would be an open marketplace and the drivers would be able to work as self-employed contractors. It's the negotiation, the market, that is missing in the case of Uber.
We need to eliminate stupid legislation regulating wages and employment.
Yes we do, because otherwise the desperate will drive wages down to an unsustainable level. The unregulated market becomes a tragedy-of-the-commons situation, with companies killing long-term viability in a grab for short-term competitive advantage (lower prices).
Would you give up government if your income would double? Well, that's exactly how things stand today.
But it would be pretty expensive transporting my own rubbish to the tip instead of leaving it on the kerbside to be collected... oh but wait, there wouldn't be a tip, as that's a municipal facility too. Most people would leave garbage all over the place, and in the long-term it would result in pollution of the ground.
If I did try to get to the tip, I'd probably bugger up my car driving on unmaintained roads.
Yeah, let's have the government protect us from the the free-market and pre-decide that people aren't smart enough to evaluate opportunities presented by evil businesses.
Your local loan-shark sends his thanks for your support. As does your local kitchen with dubious hygiene and the cheap café that sometimes adds rat meat to their dishes.
What's the difference between a one-man business "keeping the profits" and him paying himself a salary out of the profits?
The difference would be "where does the rest of the profit go?" At the end of the day, if the entrepreneur who pays himself a salary winds up the company, the profit he hasn't already paid out to himself is his as capital, which means the difference is pretty much minimal. That makes him an entrepreneur simultaneous to his employment, even if he draws no "entrepreneurial" income and only "employee" income. It's all a pretty academic distinction that leads to a minor difference in tax liability.
Older programmers know the basics and they know how to learn new technologies.
Not necessarily. Older programmers have often gone through a process of learning and forgetting, because lots that they learned during a CS degree wasn't relevant for their first umpteen years as a code monkey coding up other people's specs. So there's lots of information that's been lost in algorithm design, automata etc. These things are worth refreshing.
But the reason there seems to be a gap in the market for training for older coders is that older coders are very much a heterogeneous set; gaps in knowledge are specific to the individual and their background. Training has to be extremely flexible so that it can be tailored to each customer's specific needs. That's a very tall order and hard to justify to accounting, which is why in-house training offered even at IT companies is almost invariably mindless waffle.
They're fucking these kids over for life anyway.... It's simply an act of desperation.
The alternative is not Windows, because they've basically found (like every other school without a rich patron that's tried the same thing) that replacements for obsolescence, and the loss of paid-for licenses with hardware failure makes it impossible to get to full coverage because after a certain number of units are implemented, replacing existing units takes up the entire budget.
There's a similar situation when schools try to roll out iPads. They try to stage them by year groups, and given that they don't go with the latest shiny-shiny (can't afford it), the units are only likely to be supported with iOS updates for about 3 years, so well before their 5-year rollout is finished, they're suddenly forced into implementing rolling replacements with the budget that was supposed to be for new devices. (Although at least iOS app licenses aren't tied to a specific device so can be reinstalled on the replacements.)
Pupils will have a chance to get to learn Windows in class, but this gives them something extra that they would otherwise be denied.
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.
People with store fronts are likely to fall under existing local laws as a small enterprise, including consumer protection legislation and sales tax/VAT regulations. Having ebay as a main outlet actually aids compliance, as if anyone appears to be cheating, the injured party (including the taxman) can petition the court for an order to release sales records. Meanwhile, Uber actively incites drivers to flout local laws.
"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.
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.
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?
The case [i]was[/i] black and white. There was no possible alternative outcome -- anyone with an inkling of UK employment regs knew it. But the process had to be followed, so it was.
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.
Hear, hear. The title should be "Workers lose right to be contract employees, set own hours and working conditions."
Why? At the moment, the only thing you get to choose is your hours. You cannot negotiate rates, you cannot negotiate conditions. A contract is something that is negotiated between parties. If you have no power to negotiate terms, it is not a true contract. If you cannot negotiate, you are an employee, not a contractor. This decision only supports the existing status quo, and does not deny any rights to genuine contractors.
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?
It doesn't take "pressure from the offshoring corporations" to explain this -- it's basically tax avoidance, and the taxman generally likes to maximise income. If there is no difference between employee work and contractor work, and the only difference is in employee rights, tax and pay; well, if it looks like a fiddle and it quacks like a fiddle....
Tesla was pretty late to the game -- his big thing was playing with AC (which royally buggered up Edison's DC business plan, incidentally).
Electricity was another instance of a long line of small (but important) discoveries. Benjamin Franklin's kite is a wonderful story, but it was simply proving the nature of lightning, and didn't further our knowledge of electricity. If I had to credit anyone as the first "inventor" of electricity I would probably have to say Alessandro Volta, because his cell was the first real supply.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and it's worth noting that Alexander Fleming failed to get any private chemist to help him refine the process for harvesting penicillin. It was only thanks to state investment by the UK and US governments in the second world war that we have antibiotics today. The market is really bad at risking starting something new. The pharmaceutical companies are happy to research new antibiotics now that the principle of antibiotics is proven, but no-one was willing to take the risk to start with. The same is true of most genuinely new ideas -- companies won't do it.
It's called the free market, which is the basis for nearly every economic advance we enjoy in today's society.
What on Earth is an "economic advance"? Economics is a means to an end, not an end itself. Besides, we have not had a free market since the first kings were crowned. Hell, the last free markets we had were before we'd even invented money.
Consider this: why is spaghetti almost always cheaper than linguine, when they're made of identical ingredients and the only difference in mass manufacture of the two is the shape of the hole they're squeezed through? Because more people buy spaghetti than linguine, which means there are more economies of scale. And because it's cheaper, we buy it, so it stays cheaper. Those of us who prefer linguine aren't equally catered for. Now if the spaghetti and linguine are us, and the price is our salaries, I can't compete because of the number spaghettis who are willing to work for less than it costs to feed and clothe a family.
Pick a personal freedom that you enjoy that others may not approve of. Then imagine it gone because someone else complained about it.
I pick the personal freedom not to be exploited. You're the one that's complaining and trying to take away stuff from me.
Hey ass-hole, Uber REGULATES the drivers. This isn't some sort of app the people can use to hail rides and the passenger and rider negotiate a fare. Uber controls everything. Read the fucking ruling moron.
As long as it's the "free market" that's shafting people, that's OK. You can double your wage by getting rid of the government that stops companies like Uber from underpaying you. So the GP seems to believe.
Driving is an unskilled job
No. No. A thousand times no. Driving is a skill. Most people learn to do it at some point in their lives, but they're not very good at it. The standard we expect of someone who uses the roads for an hour or two a day is not what we expect of people who spend their entire working day on the roads. Considering the number of hours they're out, isn't it a bit surprising how few accidents are caused by taxi drivers? That's because in most places, there are standards for professional drivers that aren't expected of amateurs.
but what happens when someone comes out with a decentralized free software ('open source') app to do basically the same thing? Maybe it'll enable customers to put out a pickup point, drop off destination, and amount they are willing to pay. The app then connects them with drivers. The customers can leave reviews similar to eBay. Now who do you hold accountable for employment? The customer?
No, that would be an open marketplace and the drivers would be able to work as self-employed contractors. It's the negotiation, the market, that is missing in the case of Uber.
We need to eliminate stupid legislation regulating wages and employment.
Yes we do, because otherwise the desperate will drive wages down to an unsustainable level. The unregulated market becomes a tragedy-of-the-commons situation, with companies killing long-term viability in a grab for short-term competitive advantage (lower prices).
Would you give up government if your income would double? Well, that's exactly how things stand today.
But it would be pretty expensive transporting my own rubbish to the tip instead of leaving it on the kerbside to be collected... oh but wait, there wouldn't be a tip, as that's a municipal facility too. Most people would leave garbage all over the place, and in the long-term it would result in pollution of the ground. If I did try to get to the tip, I'd probably bugger up my car driving on unmaintained roads.
Yeah, let's have the government protect us from the the free-market and pre-decide that people aren't smart enough to evaluate opportunities presented by evil businesses.
Your local loan-shark sends his thanks for your support. As does your local kitchen with dubious hygiene and the cheap café that sometimes adds rat meat to their dishes.
It's entrepreneurship because you get to decide when, where, and how much you work.
Do you have a newsletter? Your ideas are intriguing....
His newsletter is printed in a retro Roman-themed format. It's a scroll, available for your perusal in all good public restrooms....
What's the difference between a one-man business "keeping the profits" and him paying himself a salary out of the profits?
The difference would be "where does the rest of the profit go?" At the end of the day, if the entrepreneur who pays himself a salary winds up the company, the profit he hasn't already paid out to himself is his as capital, which means the difference is pretty much minimal. That makes him an entrepreneur simultaneous to his employment, even if he draws no "entrepreneurial" income and only "employee" income. It's all a pretty academic distinction that leads to a minor difference in tax liability.
I think he's making a reference to an Anonymous Coward (or group thereof) whose typical term is a whole lot less wholesome that "minorities"....
Older programmers know the basics and they know how to learn new technologies.
Not necessarily. Older programmers have often gone through a process of learning and forgetting, because lots that they learned during a CS degree wasn't relevant for their first umpteen years as a code monkey coding up other people's specs. So there's lots of information that's been lost in algorithm design, automata etc. These things are worth refreshing.
But the reason there seems to be a gap in the market for training for older coders is that older coders are very much a heterogeneous set; gaps in knowledge are specific to the individual and their background. Training has to be extremely flexible so that it can be tailored to each customer's specific needs. That's a very tall order and hard to justify to accounting, which is why in-house training offered even at IT companies is almost invariably mindless waffle.
yes but we save so much + we get people willing work 60-80 hour weeks and more with no compilations
If you want programmers with no compilations, why not switch to Python?
They're fucking these kids over for life anyway. ... It's simply an act of desperation.
The alternative is not Windows, because they've basically found (like every other school without a rich patron that's tried the same thing) that replacements for obsolescence, and the loss of paid-for licenses with hardware failure makes it impossible to get to full coverage because after a certain number of units are implemented, replacing existing units takes up the entire budget.
There's a similar situation when schools try to roll out iPads. They try to stage them by year groups, and given that they don't go with the latest shiny-shiny (can't afford it), the units are only likely to be supported with iOS updates for about 3 years, so well before their 5-year rollout is finished, they're suddenly forced into implementing rolling replacements with the budget that was supposed to be for new devices. (Although at least iOS app licenses aren't tied to a specific device so can be reinstalled on the replacements.)
Pupils will have a chance to get to learn Windows in class, but this gives them something extra that they would otherwise be denied.
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.
People with store fronts are likely to fall under existing local laws as a small enterprise, including consumer protection legislation and sales tax/VAT regulations. Having ebay as a main outlet actually aids compliance, as if anyone appears to be cheating, the injured party (including the taxman) can petition the court for an order to release sales records. Meanwhile, Uber actively incites drivers to flout local laws.
"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.
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.
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?
The case [i]was[/i] black and white. There was no possible alternative outcome -- anyone with an inkling of UK employment regs knew it. But the process had to be followed, so it was.
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.
4. Uber will close all offices in the UK, fire any local staff and pretend that all transactions are international.
As I understand it, Uber's base for UK customers is in the Netherlands.
Hear, hear. The title should be "Workers lose right to be contract employees, set own hours and working conditions."
Why? At the moment, the only thing you get to choose is your hours. You cannot negotiate rates, you cannot negotiate conditions. A contract is something that is negotiated between parties. If you have no power to negotiate terms, it is not a true contract. If you cannot negotiate, you are an employee, not a contractor. This decision only supports the existing status quo, and does not deny any rights to genuine contractors.
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?
It doesn't take "pressure from the offshoring corporations" to explain this -- it's basically tax avoidance, and the taxman generally likes to maximise income. If there is no difference between employee work and contractor work, and the only difference is in employee rights, tax and pay; well, if it looks like a fiddle and it quacks like a fiddle....
Tesla was pretty late to the game -- his big thing was playing with AC (which royally buggered up Edison's DC business plan, incidentally). Electricity was another instance of a long line of small (but important) discoveries. Benjamin Franklin's kite is a wonderful story, but it was simply proving the nature of lightning, and didn't further our knowledge of electricity. If I had to credit anyone as the first "inventor" of electricity I would probably have to say Alessandro Volta, because his cell was the first real supply.