Uber lose battle in Supreme Court on drivers right

[phil675]

They'll probably do something ridiculous like 2 year probationary periods to hire and fire at will.

 

[Bald-Eagle22]

So why were so many drivers keen to move from say Addison Lee to uber then? Why, if it is so bad, don't most uber drivers seem to actually want this change?

How are they being treated like dirt under this model as opposed to say some new model where they're possibly required to do shifts of a set duration or required to go to certain areas where there is more demand instead of just relying on incentivizing them etc..?

Do you honestly think it would be better if they were to be paid at least minimum wage but in return, they then had various targets they must hit otherwise they get sacked? You remove the freedom of choice that plenty of them value and add in some additional stress but at least you've removed some variance from their pay right (even if that then causes a bunch to lose money).

You got this spot on , if you did a straw pole of Uber drivers and told them the implication of this they wouldn’t a change . The flexibility Uber gives the self employed drivers is what the attraction was for 45,000 drivers .

Anyhow I feel if enforced Uber might up sticks and not actually employ drivers directly and just act as an aggregator for other fleets and pass on the work just taking a booking fee.

I’m in the trade and now they bought Autocab last year , Autocab are is a national cab platform . I.e if I take a booking in Edinburgh but my operation is in London I can get the booking covered if I’m on Autocab from a supplier in Edinburgh on Autocab . We’re talking the corporate world here but it can easily be flipped to be used in conjunction with the Uber app .

Uber have purchased this platform , they have a brand that people will book and threes plenty of private hire firms in central London that will take work from them . As I said if pushed they will just give up and runa virtual fleet and not have the headache of drivers .

The drivers that brought this law suit might just have shots themselves in the head .

https://www.uber.com/en-GB/newsroom/uber-to-acquire-autocab/

 

[kaiowas]

Apart from maybe costing them a little more over the next few years this won’t really hurt Uber, if anything it’ll just accelerate their movement towards their longer term goals.

The drivers are just an inconvenient overhead cost at the moment with their long game being to establish a dominant and unassailable position in the market by the time autonomous vehicles are mainstream at which point they can ditch the the expensive fleshy parts of the business, sit back and enjoy their global monopoly on inner city transport.

 

[SPG]

Yes, because its not about the drivers. Its about the company actually paying TAX to the UK and no a final transaction in Luxemburg where its then diverted to some off shore account in the Bahamas and suddenly the money is "lost" from tax.

The drivers are just as short sighted as anyone else who thinks its a good business model, but its the Tory way....

 

[Resident]

Yeah it's about time authorities started pushing back on businesses and corporations using legal loopholes to circumvent peoples' rights, be it employment, privacy etc. This is hopefully the start.

I've noticed a lot of job adverts lately have started stating "Self-employed basis", jobs that would normally taken on as a full employee.

Obviously trying to circumvent employee rights, especially protection against unfair dismissal.

 

[413x]

How does this pan out?

I'm guessing..
Prices for uber go up
A lot of people will lose their jobs and those who don't will get better rights
Effectively you're putting more money in less peoples pockets?

Surely this pushes people from uber towards traditional companies.


I guess overall its a good thing. But there will be a lot of fallout.

Edit. Read the BBC article. Uber basically dictate everything, so yeah. Definitely the right outcome!

 

[dowie]

I do feel a lot of people are going a bit far with the implications of this ruling, it isn't a ruling against the gig economy, it's a ruling against Uber's interpretation of how to implement a gig economy.

I'm willing to change my mind once I've seen the details and how it works in reality, obvs the outer Hebrides example is an exaggeration but it does seem like (current) successful; drivers will take a hit here and/or low performing ones will have to be set targets, or told where to move to or just sacked.

I mean if it is an issue of control, uber dictates certain things about pricing etc.. then what next? Are McDonald's (or similar) franchise owners no longer self-employed because they have to take deliveries from particular supplies, have to follow strict recipes and have to set certain prices or agree to certain discounts/deals set by corporate.... bunch of students come in with NUS cards wanting a free hamburger with their meal then that self-employed franchise owner has to supply them. I'd suspect most wouldn't agree but a small unsuccessful minority of failed franchise owners might like a load of manager's backpay etc..

Or is it only people lower down the food chain that can't exercise any agency here re: choosing to sign up to some scheme where they're self-employed/running their own business albeit with lots of control from a larger company? Just because a small (likely unsuccessful) minority of them have decided it's a naff deal (for them) and so have kicked off for some free gibs.

Yes, because its not about the drivers. Its about the company actually paying TAX to the UK and no a final transaction in Luxemburg where its then diverted to some off shore account in the Bahamas and suddenly the money is "lost" from tax.

The drivers are just as short sighted as anyone else who thinks its a good business model, but its the Tory way....

Is it? What does uber being located in Luxemburg have to do with any differences in tax between drivers being employees or self-employed?

I think @Pudney is a tax expert so maybe he can shed some light on it but I'd assumed that uber locating in Luxemburg is a different issue to this.

 

[rogue66700]

If the drivers are entitled to minimum wage now how is that going to be worked out with expenses like fuel?

 

[Pudney]

I'm willing to change my mind once I've seen the details and how it works in reality, obvs the outer Hebrides example is an exaggeration but it does seem like (current) successful; drivers will take a hit here and/or low performing ones will have to be set targets, or told where to move to or just sacked.

I mean if it is an issue of control, uber dictates certain things about pricing etc.. then what next? Are McDonald's (or similar) franchise owners no longer self-employed because they have to take deliveries from particular supplies, have to follow strict recipes and have to set certain prices or agree to certain discounts/deals set by corporate.... bunch of students come in with NUS cards wanting a free hamburger with their meal then that self-employed franchise owner has to supply them. I'd suspect most wouldn't agree but a small unsuccessful minority of failed franchise owners might like a load of manager's backpay etc..

Franchising isn't really a good example as that's not really about self-employment, it's a licensing model for a business and can involve Ltds, individuals, partnerships etc.

What's important here is that people are narrowly focusing on the type of control Uber had over the working arrangements when the actual control was far wider, including controlling the customer relationship, fees based on percentage of fares, control over whether/how much a driver could actually profit out of their activities etc.

I can already think of several ways Uber could adapt their business model to get around the ruling and achieve what they want, e.g. charging drivers for time spent using the app or making any customer contracts between the driver and the customer. It needs to be remembered at least some of the minicab business models have already been tested in courts and found to be not a worker relationship. Uber is distinguished on the facts, in which case if they moved their model closer to a traditional minicab arrangement it should theoretically change the worker/self-employment conclusion while retaining their USP which is the app itself.

Is it? What does uber being located in Luxemburg have to do with any differences in tax between drivers being employees or self-employed?

I think @Pudney is a tax expert so maybe he can shed some light on it but I'd assumed that uber locating in Luxemburg is a different issue to this.

You're right, this case has nothing to do with tax. It's only an employment rights case, and as I pointed out earlier it doesn't necessarily stop an Uber driver being self-employed for tax purposes. The legal system is sometimes great like that in this country!

 

[Guest2]

Most (maybe all) Uber drivers i've spoken to in the past do it for flexibility and so they are able to have other jobs.

Similar to one of my friends taking deliveroo orders in the evenings when /if he wants a bit of spare cash.

 

[clv101]

Very much the opposite. These companies exist by undercutting their more legitimate competitors. Forcing them to pay tax, treat their employees properly, and obey the rules of the land they should have been operating under enriches the country overall, leading to more jobs, and because they are often driving locally owned businesses under, more money in the UK.

It's a good thing all round.

Well said. We need to get away from this 'race to the bottom' mentality. Amazon next?

 

[dowie]

Franchising isn't really a good example as that's not really about self-employment, it's a licensing model for a business and can involve Ltds, individuals, partnerships etc.

Fair enough, I wasn't being completely serious as I'd hope that a Maccy'Ds franchisee is obviously an independent business however it is structured in terms of control from the bigger organisation, I just don't see why the level of control (which is clearly there in the case of plenty of franchise owners too) should become some special distinction when it comes to sole traders/individual freelancers.

I can already think of several ways Uber could adapt their business model to get around the ruling and achieve what they want, e.g. charging drivers for time spent using the app or making any customer contracts between the driver and the customer. It needs to be remembered at least some of the minicab business models have already been tested in courts and found to be not a worker relationship. Uber is distinguished on the facts, in which case if they moved their model closer to a traditional minicab arrangement it should theoretically change the worker/self-employment conclusion while retaining their USP which is the app itself.

I guess, I mean perhaps they will, it's just frustrating to see as no one is forced to become an uber driver, it isn't something, for example, the jobcentre can coerce someone to do if it isn't actually an offer of employment AFAIK it is a personal choice to pursue it instead of an actual min wage job... (and for people who are good it is more lucrative too) just as say a salesperson might take their chances at some commission only role etc...

I just don't like the notion of that opportunity not being available because of some seemingly spurious reasons about the level of control involved in the deal from the larger organisation that facilitates the marketing, software etc... especially when most drivers seem to be in favour of the current model and have moved to uber away from those other minicab firms that uber might now need to get more in line with.

I mean there is nothing stopping them from going to work for a mincab firm now, but those that have chosen not to seem to have voted with their feet already in having moved to uber.

I don't see how a pushing uber towards adopting a minicab type model that is already in place elsewhere and another option for drivers to freely choose already is going to be particularly beneficial for a bunch of drivers who have already made a choice to not work under such a model.

You're right, this case has nothing to do with tax. It's only an employment rights case, and as I pointed out earlier it doesn't necessarily stop an Uber driver being self-employed for tax purposes. The legal system is sometimes great like that in this country!

Yeah does seem a bit messy at times. I thought I'd just check but it did seem like a bit of an empty/muddled claim from @SPG re: Luxembourg etc..

 

[dowie]

Very much the opposite. These companies exist by undercutting their more legitimate competitors. Forcing them to pay tax, treat their employees properly, and obey the rules of the land they should have been operating under enriches the country overall, leading to more jobs, and because they are often driving locally owned businesses under, more money in the UK.

It's a good thing all round.

What is the tax issue here? AFAIK the one tax expert in this thread has just clarified above that this is an employment rights case?

 

[Pudney]

I guess, I mean perhaps they will, it's just frustrating to see as no one is forced to become an uber driver, it isn't something, for example, the jobcentre can coerce someone to do if it isn't actually an offer of employment AFAIK it is a personal choice to pursue it instead of an actual min wage job... (and for people who are good it is more lucrative too) just as say a salesperson might take their chances at some commission only role etc...

I just don't like the notion of that opportunity not being available because of some seemingly spurious reasons about the level of control involved in the deal from the larger organisation that facilitates the marketing, software etc... especially when most drivers seem to be in favour of the current model and have moved to uber away from those other minicab firms that uber might now need to get more in line with.

I mean there is nothing stopping them from going to work for a mincab firm now, but those that have chosen not to seem to have voted with their feet already in having moved to uber.

I don't see how a pushing uber towards adopting a minicab type model that is already in place elsewhere and another option for drivers to freely choose already is going to be particularly beneficial for a bunch of drivers who have already made a choice to not work under such a model.

In reality how many Uber drivers would have made a conscious decision to go with Uber because of the differences in working model to minicab firms? My guess would be not a lot really, and the ease of signing up and becoming a driver was probably the most important factor. The minicab model isn't massively different to Uber, but there are enough differences to change the employment status (slight caveat the Supreme Court refused to comment on previous minicab cases, so for now they're binding).

Here is quote regarding a minicab arrangement:

The claimant owned his own vehicle and was responsible for obtaining a PHV driver’s licence. He was one of some 225 drivers who paid a weekly fee to Amber Cars for access to what was initially a radio and later a computer system through which trip requests from customers were allocated to drivers. There was no obligation to work but, when he chose to work, the driver was obliged to wear a uniform and to apply a fixed scale of charges set by the operator. He collected and was entitled to keep the full fare paid by the customer. The operator had a procedure for dealing with complaints from passengers about the conduct of the driver and had the power to order a refund of the fare to the passenger.

111. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the employment tribunal that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim as the claimant was not “employed” by the operator within the meaning of section 78 of the Race Relations Act 1976. Maurice Kay LJ (with whom Sir Martin Nourse and Buxton LJ agreed) regarded it as fatal to the claim that the claimant was “free to work or not to work at his own whim or fancy” (para 14) and held that the absence of an obligation to work placed him beyond the reach of section 78. Buxton LJ gave as an additional reason that, even when working, a driver was not employed by Amber Cars “under … a contract personally to execute any work or labour” as his only such obligation was owed to the passenger

.....

113. It is not necessary for present purposes to express any view on whether the Mingeley case was correctly decided. I do not accept, however, that the fact that the claimant in that case was free to work as and when he chose was a sufficient reason for holding that, at times when he was working, he was not employed under a contract to do work for the firm. If that conclusion was justified on the facts of the Mingeley case, it would have to be on the basis that the claimant was not to be regarded as working for the minicab firm when transporting passengers in circumstances where the firm did not receive any money in respect of any individual trip undertaken by him. This arrangement was materially different from Uber’s business model.

And another quote just because it involves strippers and I'm childish.

In Quashie v Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1735; [2013] IRLR 99 the claimant was a lap dancer who performed for the entertainment of guests at the respondent’s clubs. An important factual finding was that the respondent was not obliged to pay the claimant any money at all. Rather, the claimant paid the respondent a fee for each night that she worked. Doing so enabled her to earn payments from the guests for whom she danced. She negotiated those payments with the guests and took the risk that on any particular night she might be out of pocket.

 

[dowie]

In reality how many Uber drivers would have made a conscious decision to go with Uber because of the differences in working model to minicab firms? My guess would be not a lot really, and the ease of signing up and becoming a driver was probably the most important factor. The minicab model isn't massively different to Uber, but there are enough differences to change the employment status (slight caveat the Supreme Court refused to comment on previous minicab cases, so for now they're binding).

Well they clearly see some benefit and it's not just part of the app, how the app functions is part of the way they work too, there are things like the star rating, the contract being standard, the fares being set/capped etc.. they've chosen to work under this model, if it was so bad then why aren't they choosing to work with minicab firms instead? They have that free choice already.

I just don't see the need for the change, if conditions are so bad working for uber then why are they choosing it over the alternatives - it just doesn't add up, this seems to be a change to suit the low performers, though could easily result in them being sacked instead.

And another quote just because it involves strippers and I'm childish.

LOL

 

[Pudney]

Well they clearly see some benefit and it's not just part of the app, how the app functions is part of the way they work too, there are things like the star rating, the contract being standard, the fares being set/capped etc.. they've chosen to work under this model, if it was so bad then why aren't they choosing to work with minicab firms instead? They have that free choice already.

I just don't see the need for the change, if conditions are so bad working for uber then why are they choosing it over the alternatives - it just doesn't add up, this seems to be a change to suit the low performers, though could easily result in them being sacked instead.

But I don't think much of that really needs to change to swing the outcome back to non-workers, e.g. Uber could just charge a fixed access fee for their app plus a small admin fee for covering the processing of card payments direct to drivers' bank accounts, make the star rating something customers can use to filter driver choice and make contracts clear that drivers are providing a service to customers. Those changes in my mind already go significantly to moving it far closer to the mincab model without significantly changing real world circumstances. The hardest part is rejigging fee structures.

 

[muon]

Why is everyone mentioning tax?

The ruling is about minimum wage and holiday pay from what I can see.

How does minimum wage even work when all the costs can only be known by the driver because they are in reality self employed. If uber do offer a minimum wage, it's not even going to cover costs most likely.

Also pretty much all minicab companies operate this way. So all that will happen is the industry will be pushed into smaller minicab companies.

Food delivery? Back to having restaurants individually hiring self employed delivery drivers.

 

[Pho]

It’s not like anyone is forced to be an uber driver - they could work for a local small minicab firm or the likes of Addison Lee or they could study for the knowledge exam and become black can drivers.

The whole point of uber was to facilitate self employment, choose your own hours etc.. I’ve had an uber eats delivery from a couple before, young bloke just driving around with his girlfriend, presumably just earning a bit more income. As a side hustle perhaps they’re not fussed about chasing as many jobs as possible, they can just chill and do their deliveries/drive about etc.. while earning a bit. As employees would they instead end up with targets fir number of jobs done or the threat of being sacked if not hitting certain numbers etc..?

Is it really going to be an improvement if a bunch of drivers now have min targets to hit, some extra stress and potentially some get fired.

I find it pretty laughable black cab drivers get so tetchy about Uber drivers because "they didn't have to pass the knowledge". Whilst it's an impressive feat to learn it, it's pointless. It's 2021, we have satnavs that can update in real-time and direct you to any street in the country in seconds. It was pointless five years ago as well :/.

Does this ruling stop a driver from deciding to do a couple of hours one night, and make them have fixed hours? Sounds terrible for people who just want to earn a bit of cash on the side when they feel like it.

I've only used Uber a couple of times, but I'll miss the fact you book them and they appear out of nowhere in about five seconds vs waiting who knows how long for a normal cab that charges you double to turn up

 

[Bald-Eagle22]

Why is everyone mentioning tax?

The ruling is about minimum wage and holiday pay from what I can see.

How does minimum wage even work when all the costs can only be known by the driver because they are in reality self employed. If uber do offer a minimum wage, it's not even going to cover costs most likely.

Also pretty much all minicab companies operate this way. So all that will happen is the industry will be pushed into smaller minicab companies.

Food delivery? Back to having restaurants individually hiring self employed delivery drivers.

What they mean and a lot of guys are missing this is the Gigg economy is not taxed at source . If your company’s to make workers employees ( as this will ) tax is paid at source and the government get a nice big fat increase in the tax take . It will probably run like the builders pay tax I think , expenses submitted , forgot what form they submitted .

I have my suspicions this ruling was delayed until after our exit from the EU and designed closely with the treasury.

The other point now though is if you want cabs at the flick of an app , pizza at the click of an app or your Amazon delivery the next day then the cost just doubled , maybe even more .

 

[touch]

If your company’s to make workers employees ( as this will ).

The ruling doesn't make them employees, it makes them "workers" which is different.