Uber lose battle in Supreme Court on drivers right

muon · 19 Mar 2021 at 21:27

I'd like to see Uber's full argument if anyone has it?

Jamie Heywood, Uber's Regional General Manager for Northern and Eastern Europe, said: "We respect the Court's decision which focussed on a small number of drivers who used the Uber app in 2016.

"Since then we have made some significant changes to our business, guided by drivers every step of the way. These include giving even more control over how they earn and providing new protections like free insurance in case of sickness or injury.

They made changes to the app which presumably meant drivers weren't forced to take fares?

This was on the judgement on the two drivers who wanted to be paid from the time they logged on to the time they logged off.

Resident · 20 Mar 2021 at 04:26

muon said:
I'd like to see Uber's full argument if anyone has it?

They made changes to the app which presumably meant drivers weren't forced to take fares?

This was on the judgement on the two drivers who wanted to be paid from the time they logged on to the time they logged off.

Am I missing something?

So drivers aren't forced to take fares but will get paid log on - log off, presumably at min wage. What's to stop a driver logging on, no intention of doing any work then logging off 10hrs later?

If that's the case I might sign up to be a driver and log on whilst I'm at my normal job

Hotwired · 20 Mar 2021 at 04:45

Building the leaning tower of assumptions.

muon · 20 Mar 2021 at 10:15

Resident said:
Am I missing something?

So drivers aren't forced to take fares but will get paid log on - log off, presumably at min wage. What's to stop a driver logging on, no intention of doing any work then logging off 10hrs later?

If that's the case I might sign up to be a driver and log on whilst I'm at my normal job

That's why uber are only doing it for active fares.

mattyg · 20 Mar 2021 at 10:28

Get ready for your parcel delivery costs to go up, If similar hits the haulage industry. So many Self employed drivers . HGV's, small vans. Big vans etc.

No more sending a parcel from lands end to john o'groats for 4 quid

b0rn2sk8 · 20 Mar 2021 at 16:50

All Royal Mail people are employed, that’s the lowest common denominator. You can send a parcel for as little as £3....

You’ll not get a courier service like DPD for anything close to that price, delivery here is over £10 and they send hundreds of not thousands a day.

I don’t disagree that couriers take the proverbial when it comes to terms but they all have to compete with RM at the end of the day and it’s a very competitive marketplace. I can’t see prices rising significantly if they had to make their drivers workers or employees.

dowie · 20 Mar 2021 at 18:32

Yeah I don't think the courier thing is too relevant unless paid per delivery, if you're getting say a flat daily rate then I'm not sure there is much to change, would seem to be more than min wage anyway in various cases.

chrcoluk · 22 Mar 2021 at 09:20

muon said:
So what the people you are listening to are claiming is that the contract starts when you log on and ends when you log off. However, uber doesn't agree with that I can see why.

If I show up to Sainsbury's on a zero hours contract and wait outside for a shift, should I be paid for waiting? No one asked me to wait, and I could stop waiting at any time.

Yeah I think if uber were to be challenged for this and if they were to lose, it would cause upheaval in large swaths of the UK, one factory I worked for used to have dozens of people on standby waiting for work each day, and obviously they didnt get paid to do that.

Kronos · 22 Mar 2021 at 09:45

Resident said:
What's to stop a driver logging on, no intention of doing any work then logging off 10hrs later?

So pretty much what so many peers do in the House of Lords except they get 300 quid?

a1ex2001 · 22 Mar 2021 at 10:59

chrcoluk said:
Yeah I think if uber were to be challenged for this and if they were to lose, it would cause upheaval in large swaths of the UK, one factory I worked for used to have dozens of people on standby waiting for work each day, and obviously they didnt get paid to do that.

The exact reason the zero hours contracts should probably be illegal, they are abusive of the employee and almost entirely favour the employer, I know I know you get to choose when to work blah blah blah except most include clauses preventing you turning down shifts or firing you if you do. The blanace bettween rich and poor in our society is so badly broken right now that I honestly don't know how we fix it.

chrcoluk · 23 Mar 2021 at 11:51

a1ex2001 said:
The exact reason the zero hours contracts should probably be illegal, they are abusive of the employee and almost entirely favour the employer, I know I know you get to choose when to work blah blah blah except most include clauses preventing you turning down shifts or firing you if you do. The blanace bettween rich and poor in our society is so badly broken right now that I honestly don't know how we fix it.

I dont disagree, but sadly because "some" like the arrangement the excuse will always be there to keep it legal.

Dolph · 23 Mar 2021 at 17:55

a1ex2001 said:
The exact reason the zero hours contracts should probably be illegal, they are abusive of the employee and almost entirely favour the employer, I know I know you get to choose when to work blah blah blah except most include clauses preventing you turning down shifts or firing you if you do. The blanace bettween rich and poor in our society is so badly broken right now that I honestly don't know how we fix it.

The problem is, blaming the contract doesn't really address the issue. The sort of employer that abuses zero hours contracts will also abuse any other contract. The problem isn't the contract, it's the employer, the employee or some combination thereof.

People often tend to focus on one side or the other being bad, and treating them as one big homogenous block, when they aren't. I've worked for great employers and bad ones, good managers and bad even within the same company where the contract was identical. I've also been on the other side and watched some employees absolutely abuse their employer, which always leads to the employer wanting greater control.

Employment shouldn't be a conflict, and far too many people, both employers and employees, seem to believe it should be.

dowie · 23 Mar 2021 at 18:17

chrcoluk said:
Yeah I think if uber were to be challenged for this and if they were to lose, it would cause upheaval in large swaths of the UK, one factory I worked for used to have dozens of people on standby waiting for work each day, and obviously they didnt get paid to do that.

What do you mean by this though? As in they don't know whether they'll be called to be offered a shift in the morning? Can they turn down a shift or indicate in advance that they won't be free etc..?

That seems a bit different to say being on call for example.