Pretty much, there has to be a middle ground between black cabs and the Uber model, that said most 'traditional' mini cab firms compete with Uber on price and the 'black cab' issue is really a London one. The barriers for entry elsewhere are far lower.
Uber lose battle in Supreme Court on drivers right
- Thread starter Bald-Eagle22
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,190
- Location
- Rollergirl
I didn't say anyone was stupid and I didn't say that I knew better than anyone. Nothing in the post you quoted even suggests that that was my opinion.
I find that comment a bit bizarre to be honest, could you explain why you thought that was my position?
- Joined
- 30 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 2,812
- Location
- Essex
Not so sure about that Jean , we rent a Prius out fully serviced and insured for £220 a week and make very little mark up on it . TFL licensed vehicles have to have am MOT every 6 months and an annual PCO inspection . In addition to that every day you enter the congestion charge zone that’s another £15.20 a day so in effect another £76.50 a week or £296 a week before fuel - a 5 day weeks cost for a central London private hire driver is around £350 per week with fuel . Sorry any driver worth his salt will be chasing work in the zone - it’s where the money is .
How on earth the Supreme Court can get anyone to work out what that rate would be to log onto the app and be paid holiday pay , sick pay and employee NI is totally beyond me.I think employed builders rules changed where they were taxed at source and claimed back expensises at the end of year ? Given the expenses involved I dint think that will work.
All I know is the Uber model will change , prices will increase to facilitate the extra costs and driver might not have the flexibility of working when they want and what job they choose , reject a job and your effectively in breach of working conditions.
There is another option for Uber here and it’s a distinct possibility EMPLOY NO DRIVERS - hear me out . Uber purchased a national cab platform called Autocab last year https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/aug/06/uber-buys-uk-minicab-software-company-autocab. With Autocab you can cover work through there cab exchange program , job gets booked in a London office for a job is say Birmingham , it then Goes through the system to the Birmingham Autocab user and gets covered , London office just take a booking fee . Uber are the brand and there are plenty of London private hire company’s using Autocab , Uber can use there booking app integrated with Autocab and run a virtual fleet . No drivers just booking fees and no bs for them .
Either way this will be very interesting to see how this all pans out .
Here.
Good thing the uber model isn't exploiting anyone then. The likes of Uber and Deliveroo have given jobs to many people who wouldn't otherwise have one. One could argue they both created an industry where one didn't really exist before through their model and jobs in the process.
The demand for private hire vehicles and delivered food increased because they made it much more accessible and convenient and then matched that demand to jobs.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Aug 2020
- Posts
- 134
- Location
- Bristol
This is such good news. As much as overunionisation is an issue exploitative companies are 100x worse.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Aug 2020
- Posts
- 134
- Location
- Bristol
Good option when you're young but this really destroys your emotional and mental health.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,190
- Location
- Rollergirl
Thanks for clarifying. If you read the part you placed in bold then I'm sure you'll see that I'm not calling anyone stupid nor am I saying that I know better. You were paraphrasing but I feel you've misunderstood the point I was attempting to get across. I'll clarify:
Employment laws exist to protect individuals, not only from unscrupulous employers but also from the employees own errors of judgement. The laws are based on data and experience that the individual simply doesn't have. For example, a person may have made some questionable financial decisions in the past and that might lead them to work 12 hours per day, 7 days a week. The individual may feel that they are physically fit to work a shift pattern like that, however employment laws & the HSAW Act 1974 place a responsibility on the employer to monitor the hours an individual works and to complete fatigue assessments where required. By pretending to be a third party in the process, Uber can encourage drivers to work excess hours and at the same time dodge any responsibility that they legally have to take as an employer.
This goes beyond the holiday pay issue. As others have pointed out, it's a clear attempt by a company to dodge their legal responsibility. It's actually a 2 way street because individuals who pretend to be self employed or limited companies commonly abuse the same system to dodge their tax responsibilities. That's why we have the IR35 situation that's been ongoing for years. It leads to silly situations where limited company contractors arrive on site expecting to be handed coveralls, safety boots etc.
Right now I've got limited company individuals complaining because they're not getting regular work but the PAYE guys are. It's a joke, the system needs a proper overhaul and the Uber court case highlights that it's causing multiple problems when individuals are hired as self employed entities in industries where they clearly aren't.
You’ve obviously given this a great deal of thought Bald Eagle, and I appreciate your input on all this.
When I said that Black Cab overheads are higher, I was mostly thinking about the price of purchasing a TX model.
My last one, an S reg, was £28,995 new, I cba to Google their price now, but it’s probably £45,000 plus.
Having done my time on the streets of the capital, it’s unsurprising that I still carry the flag for London’s finest
When I said that Black Cab overheads are higher, I was mostly thinking about the price of purchasing a TX model.
My last one, an S reg, was £28,995 new, I cba to Google their price now, but it’s probably £45,000 plus.
Having done my time on the streets of the capital, it’s unsurprising that I still carry the flag for London’s finest
A new taxi is about £60k now, there plug in hybrids with a massive battery pack. The engine is just a range extender that charges the battery and isn’t connected to the wheels at all.
They cost next to nothing to run though compared to the older diesel ones.
They cost next to nothing to run though compared to the older diesel ones.
I said this earlier in the thread. Althought I'm employed full time and happy I still leave job alerts on from the job search site, because you never know and I've noticed a fair few ads contain the phrase "This role is on a self-employed basis".
I believe the HMRC calls it "disguised employee". A few TV personalities, Kaye Adams & Christa Ackroyd to mention 2, have been caught and prosecuted under IR35, the latter being landed with a £400k tax bill.
- Joined
- 30 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 2,812
- Location
- Essex
Absolutely, watch cab fares go through the roof .
Is that all we care about tho? We could abolish min wage and employment rights and have really cheap cab fares, with cab drivers basically earning enough for a can of beans and a cardboard box to sleep in, if you really wanted that.
Could do that with all such professions. I'm sure you could knock a few quid off the cost of Amazon Prime if Bezos was allowed to run the warehouses with a child slave labour workforce
- Joined
- 30 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 2,812
- Location
- Essex
Is that all we care about tho? We could abolish min wage and employment rights and have really cheap cab fares, with cab drivers basically earning enough for a can of beans and a cardboard box to sleep in, if you really wanted that.
Could do that with all such professions. I'm sure you could knock a few quid off the cost of Amazon Prime if Bezos was allowed to run the warehouses with a child slave labour workforce
Not disputing what your saying at all the point I’m making is it will make a loss in trade for the drivers . Being in the industry I’ll tell you now the majority of Uber driver once they understand the Implications will call BS on this ruling . Uber will lay off drivers in droves , if not all of them ( yes this could happen, they could run a virtual fleet though other suppliers ) , and the ones left will have to work under very inflexible guidelines .
The appeal for all Uber drivers is the total flexibility it gives a driver , work when they want with no set hours . Get offered a job and reject it as they simply don’t fancy going in that direction , if this is Implemented this all stops .
Not really, why would anyone become a cab driver in that case?
It isn't like anyone is forced into being an uber driver or even coerced, it's supposed to be a self-employed gig - not something your JSA advisor can threaten to sanction you for if you don't go and try.
If it was so bad then why do so many uber drivers prefer it over other driving gigs? Nothing stopping them from say being a regular minicab driver using the same license or working for Addy Lee or some uber rival etc..
At the end of the day, self-employed should mean self-employed.
There are too many businesses that disguise exploitative practices under the guise of "self-employment", and this ruling will help put an end to them.
It's good news, really, for everyone who dislikes that particular form of exploitation.
I'm not sure that it does necessarily do that. What was exploitative about this situation? If it was so exploitative then why do you suppose drivers actively choose it over other options easily available to them? Again it isn't something anyone has forced them to do, it's got barriers to entry too (drivers licence, private hire licence), it isn't an offer of formal employment you need accept etc.. so where is the exploitation?
There are people formally employed to flip burgers, mop floors or answer phones in a call centre that would seem to be way more exploited than any uber driver choosing their own hours, choosing their vehicle, choosing where to go to look for jobs etc... One of the reasons people choose gig economy jobs is because of the freedom to choose their own hours, work when they feel like it etc..
The exploitation mainly revolves around so-called "self-employed" (not just Uber; consider delivery drives and other such businesses), a) acting like employees b) assuming all the risk/costs c) not receiving either the benefits of an employee or being fully able to determine their own employment terms (as a truly self-employed person would).
The exploitation is using loopholes in the law to grant neither employee benefits nor the benefits that come from true self-employment.
So this ruling closes those loopholes. This won't just affect Uber, it will affect the whole so-called Gig Economy, which can be (and is) very exploitational/one-sided.
The exploitation is using loopholes in the law to grant neither employee benefits nor the benefits that come from true self-employment.
So this ruling closes those loopholes. This won't just affect Uber, it will affect the whole so-called Gig Economy, which can be (and is) very exploitational/one-sided.
That's pretty vague -I'm still not seeing the exploitation tbh...
Accepting the risk is part of the deal, they also get the rewards! Suppose they introduce a floor instead, to give some min amount to account for min wage + holiday pay but in order to do this they reduce the variance of earnings i.e. the top earners take a hit perhaps and/or low performers are sacked more easily... why is that necessarily better?
Uber drivers can make circa £15 an hour AFAIK, that's above the min wage and above the living wage, it is more than enough to incorporate holidays and average sick pay as a self-employed person, the notion that it is exploitative seems fundamentally flawed.
I'm not buying the control issue either, see for example franchise business owners - they tend to employ others so perhaps having a ltd company with employees avoids this but someone running a McDonalds franchise has a larger company exercising a **** load of control over their business, arguably more so than any uber driver...
Suppose instead of a McDonalds I set up dowie's ice creams, a business designed to be operated by an individual pushing an ice cream cart, I exercise a similar level of control as McDonald's does but my franchise owners get to choose their own hours too like uber drivers etc.. am I exploiting people? Is McDonald's exploring its franchise owners (a bunch of them are millionaires thanks to their franchises).
That's a very interesting thing to say. Weren't you calling Hamilton a tax dodger.
HMRC is convinced Uber owes them billions in tax and not paying that tax (unlike competitors) contributes to Uber charging what it does.
Do you respect Uber dodging financial obligations because you're benefiting?