Uber lose battle in Supreme Court on drivers right

[Bald-Eagle22]

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?

Yes I did and he has but not sure what thanks to do with this !

If your referring to drivers not paying taxes then all fool them they will get caught eventually, and a lot do .There is detailed paper trail in London of every job done and which driver did it , it’s all part of TFL licensing compliance for operators and gets uploaded to TFL on a weekly basis .

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. I don’t work for Uber as a driver I work in the private hire industry in operation. I know what costs operators and drivers alike have and to add holiday pay , sick pay and N.I ect will mean costs go up to the end user and Uber will have to change there working model . In turn it changes the inflexibility for the driver and ultimately customers service levels will drop .

From a drivers perspective it’s a lose lose.

I believe the bill from HMRC is Vat that should have been charged to customers on journeys , nothing directly involved with driver earnings. This is to do with the argument of how they operate.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uber-could-face-2bn-vat-bill-cf3xkccx5

 

[FoxEye]

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).

You can't think of any situations in which "self-employed" gig economy workers are being exploited? Apparently it's all good and everyone really enjoys the gig economy?

OK, well in that case I suggest you're just doing more of your trademark bickering rather than trying to have a discussion. At that point I really lose interest.

Why don't you set up "dowie's ice creams" and make everyone a millionaire, you seem to think that's typical of the gig economy

 

[b0rn2sk8]

@FoxEye - genuine question, if they were paid more for the job they do, would you be happy they retained their self employment status?

The real issue behind these firms is that they have become a little ‘too cheap’ so the people working for them can’t earn an adequate wage while the company maintains a sensible return for its investors and is able to invest in its future.

Sure there arguments about what is adequate earning and sensible profits/returns but striking a balance is ultimately what it comes down to.

I think we can all agree that traditional taxis are just pretty inefficient and there are better ways to do things now like app/gps based requests for transport. The high barriers to entry and having to be in the right place at the right time just pushes up fares.

 

[Jean-F]

@FoxEye - genuine question, if they were paid more for the job they do, would you be happy they retained their self employment status?

The real issue behind these firms is that they have become a little ‘too cheap’ so the people working for them can’t earn an adequate wage while the company maintains a sensible return for its investors and is able to invest in its future.

Sure there arguments about what is adequate earning and sensible profits/returns but striking a balance is ultimately what it comes down to.

I think we can all agree that traditional taxis are just pretty inefficient and there are better ways to do things now like app/gps based requests for transport. The high barriers to entry and having to be in the right place at the right time just pushes up fares.

I have no desire to go deep into this, as the rights and wrongs of app/gps booking of public transport are complex and myriad, but are you sure that “inefficient” was the word that you were reaching for in describing traditional taxis?
At the risk of appearing to carry the flag for London’s Black Cab drivers, and at the same time be giving myself a big up for when I personally was out there, I know beyond all doubt that I was far from inefficient.
I could pick up a job at Marylebone Station, going to Crouch End or beyond, and skirt Regents Park, go through Camden to Kentish Town, Dartmouth Park, Hornsey Lane, to Crouch End, drop the job, then start to aim back toward Kings Cross, get lucky and be hailed and asked for Wimbledon Village, and I would go from NE London to SW London, just using the Sat-Nav between my ears.
In all, I bought three brand new Black Cabs, one after the other, and not one of them ever saw a Sat-Nav.
On the rare occasions that I trapped a job to Aylesbury, or Sevenoaks, I’d say, “I’ll get you to the town, then you tell me how to go from there.”
I’d go anywhere for a buck certainly, but inefficient I wasn’t.

 

[FoxEye]

@FoxEye - genuine question, if they were paid more for the job they do, would you be happy they retained their self employment status?

The real issue behind these firms is that they have become a little ‘too cheap’ so the people working for them can’t earn an adequate wage while the company maintains a sensible return for its investors and is able to invest in its future.

Sure there arguments about what is adequate earning and sensible profits/returns but striking a balance is ultimately what it comes down to.

I think we can all agree that traditional taxis are just pretty inefficient and there are better ways to do things now like app/gps based requests for transport. The high barriers to entry and having to be in the right place at the right time just pushes up fares.

I'm concerned about the rise of the "gig economy" in general. As a general principle.

It's not true self employment. It's a 3rd category, where (in most cases) workers assume risks and costs, and companies/big corps are able to shed all responsibilities for their employees/workers. No sick pay, holiday pay, no basic employment rights.

I see that model taking off and being applied in many industries. It doesn't sit well with me at all.

When sufficient employers shift to this model such that being "self-employed" is no longer a choice (large parts of your workforce won't have any alternative), then I can only see things getting more and more one-sided.

No new laws have been passed here. It's simply a case that this 3rd category of employment isn't officially recognised. It's up to the lawmakers and electorate whether we want to have this gig economy and if we want to throw workers under the bus of shareholder returns.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

The majority of people who defend the gig economy are those that don't work within it and who use it for a service (OMG, the price is going to go up) or those that exploit it for advancement or financial gain that's not possible in a conventional employer/employee relationship. This idea that people love the freedom of insecurity is definitely not my experience of it. Sure, I've encountered people who prefer to work through winter then travel during summer but they are few and far between. The most common reaction when told there's no more shifts for a while is one of panic and reaching for the phone to fill the gap before the mortgage is due.

The majority of self employed people that I've encountered have done it for 2 reasons:

1. Tax "savings"
2. It's become so established in their field that it's the only way to get work.

 

[Bear]

The majority of self employed people that I've encountered have done it for 2 reasons:

1. Tax "savings"
2. It's become so established in their field that it's the only way to get work.

That’s overly simplistic, plenty of contractors don’t just contract because of the tax savings. The financial side of contracting is an aspect of it for sure, but not having to get involved in company politics, performance reviews, asking is it ok to take time off etc. My last permie place of work, we had to get special permission to take off more than 2 weeks off. I asked to take 3 weeks off so we could go to Australia so my wife and I could get married and stay with her sister who lives over there only to be told, no it wasn’t a special enough reason. As a contractor, so long as I meet my deliverables, when I’m supposed to then I can do what I want. I don’t have to go cap in hand and ask for permission and for me that flexibility is what I like about contracting.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

That’s overly simplistic, plenty of contractors don’t just contract because of the tax savings. The financial side of contracting is an aspect of it for sure, but not having to get involved in company politics, performance reviews, asking is it ok to take time off etc. My last permie place of work, we had to get special permission to take off more than 2 weeks off. I asked to take 3 weeks off so we could go to Australia so my wife and I could get married and stay with her sister who lives over there only to be told, no it wasn’t a special enough reason. As a contractor, so long as I meet my deliverables, when I’m supposed to then I can do what I want. I don’t have to go cap in hand and ask for permission and for me that flexibility is what I like about contracting.

Yes, I'm not suggesting my experience is all that's out there and I've encountered people like yourself who have enjoyed other perks, as mentioned previously it's mostly been people who enjoy traveling which was a similar example you gave.

I'd be interested in how much time you've spent out of work due to gaps in assignments. My assumption is that you haven't experienced much of that but I'd be happy to have that corrected if that's not the case.

 

[Bear]

I'd be interested in how much time you've spent out of work due to gaps in assignments. My assumption is that you haven't experienced much of that but I'd be happy to have that corrected if that's not the case.

Ive been contracting for about 11 years and been out of work for about 6 weeks in that time

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Ive been contracting for about 11 years and been out of work for about 6 weeks in that time

I'm sure you could agree that you've had a decent run. I'm not surprised that your experience has been positive, and I agree with you that there are plenty others with similar experience to you.

What I've seen has been a bit more of a mixed bag, particularly since Covid hit. It's really highlighted to the self employed guys just how much they can and will be used and abused. They're in a situation now where they can't get regular work and the work that they are getting is basically a few days here and there that the PAYE guys wouldn't accept. The PAYE guys are regularly sitting at home on a retention payment while the self employed guys get paid no retention. It's compounding the issue for them because due to "tax efficient accounting" in the past they can't claim furlough equivalent to cover their losses. Furthermore, any work that comes along is offered to the PAYE team first and foremost. When the SE guys do get work it isn't unusual for the duration to be changed with no notice which means either they lose out financially or it goes the other way and they have to cancel plans due to not getting the time off they were expecting. The PAYE guys get paid the original agreed duration even if they get sent home early.

They're basically getting treated like crap. What frustrates me is that when they are actually on assignment you wouldn't know who was self employed and who wasn't because they work the same hours on the exact same contract doing the exact same job. They even wear the exact same workwear, PPE etc. They get issued PPE from our stores which I wind them up about because they're supposed to be limited companies - they know there's no real intent behind it, I'm just having a wee dig.

I really feel for them because they're all cracking lads and good at their job. They've got bills to pay and mouths to feed and from my perspective I'd rather they were all treated the same.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Snip

That’s not quite what I meant but is a fair point, but taxis also operate in other cities.

Where I was going is the barriers for entry and unnecessary high. There should be local knowledge tests but tests that go as deep as like the knowledge of London just are not needed anymore. It’s a hangover from days when GPS maps with real time, crowd sourced traffic just didn’t exist.

It’s not the best experience for passengers, it’s fine if your in a well traveled street but you’ll not flag down a cab elsewhere. You can’t flag down a cab from your office or restaurant table. Booking via apps makes it so easy and convenient. It also means firms can move drivers to places where they are needed quickly. A cab driver has no idea if there is a huge line at kings cross unless they go there or are tipped off by a friend/radio network. That said, they have got with the times and most are on some kind of app or network and can be booked that way. There just expensive still compared to other options.

I'm concerned about the rise of the "gig economy" in general. As a general principle.

It's not true self employment. It's a 3rd category, where (in most cases) workers assume risks and costs, and companies/big corps are able to shed all responsibilities for their employees/workers. No sick pay, holiday pay, no basic employment rights.

I see that model taking off and being applied in many industries. It doesn't sit well with me at all.

When sufficient employers shift to this model such that being "self-employed" is no longer a choice (large parts of your workforce won't have any alternative), then I can only see things getting more and more one-sided.

No new laws have been passed here. It's simply a case that this 3rd category of employment isn't officially recognised. It's up to the lawmakers and electorate whether we want to have this gig economy and if we want to throw workers under the bus of shareholder returns.

That didn’t answer my question at all. You say people are being exploited, I asked at what point they stop being exploited due to their remuneration and other benefits.

 

[Bear]

I'm sure you could agree that you've had a decent run. I'm not surprised that your experience has been positive, and I agree with you that there are plenty others with similar experience to you.

What I've seen has been a bit more of a mixed bag, particularly since Covid hit. It's really highlighted to the self employed guys just how much they can and will be used and abused. They're in a situation now where they can't get regular work and the work that they are getting is basically a few days here and there that the PAYE guys wouldn't accept. The PAYE guys are regularly sitting at home on a retention payment while the self employed guys get paid no retention. It's compounding the issue for them because due to "tax efficient accounting" in the past they can't claim furlough equivalent to cover their losses. Furthermore, any work that comes along is offered to the PAYE team first and foremost. When the SE guys do get work it isn't unusual for the duration to be changed with no notice which means either they lose out financially or it goes the other way and they have to cancel plans due to not getting the time off they were expecting. The PAYE guys get paid the original agreed duration even if they get sent home early.

They're basically getting treated like crap. What frustrates me is that when they are actually on assignment you wouldn't know who was self employed and who wasn't because they work the same hours on the exact same contract doing the exact same job. They even wear the exact same workwear, PPE etc. They get issued PPE from our stores which I wind them up about because they're supposed to be limited companies - they know there's no real intent behind it, I'm just having a wee dig.

I really feel for them because they're all cracking lads and good at their job. They've got bills to pay and mouths to feed and from my perspective I'd rather they were all treated the same.

It sounds like IR35 will take out a lot of those guys. If they go on to be permies then I wouldn’t trust HMRC not to go after them even though they say they won’t.

I guess I’m lucky in that I have a pretty niche set of skills/experience that seems to be in high demand due to the lack of people doing it which means I don’t have to suffer what you mention.

 

[dowie]

You can't think of any situations in which "self-employed" gig economy workers are being exploited? Apparently it's all good and everyone really enjoys the gig economy?

Nope, I've not made either of those claims, I'm asking about this situation - where is the exploitation here relative to regular employment? You don't appear to have an answer, you've thrown in some strawman-style questions and then an ad hominem instead...

 

[FoxEye]

Nope, I've not made either of those claims, I'm asking about this situation - where is the exploitation here relative to regular employment? You don't appear to have an answer, you've thrown in some strawman-style questions and then an ad hominem instead...

And you made up a bizarre argument about McDonald's franchisees making $millions. Somehow that's supposed to be representative of the gig economy or the self-employed.

I honestly can't be arsed, dowie. Find someone else to have a pointless back-and-forth with, and read into that whatever you like. I don't care.

That didn’t answer my question at all. You say people are being exploited, I asked at what point they stop being exploited due to their remuneration and other benefits.

The law makes clear what an employees rights and expected benefits are. For both employees and for the (genuinely) self-employed.

The law doesn't seem to want to allow for a grey area, where you're neither an employee nor meeting the criteria of the (genuinely) self-employed.

That grey are certainly contains scope for abuses to happen.

Now, you could argue that only the individual knows if they're being exploited or not, but then equally you can condition people to think they've got a great deal when everything else thinks they're being exploited.

Since we're not talking about changes in the law, but merely that the current law be upheld, then you could ask how we arrived at the current legal framework that we have...

Certainly companies that fail to meet their minimum legal obligations could be considered exploitative, given that all the other companies are meeting those obligations. Whether or not their employees "feel" exploited or not.

After all, you could ship in a load of Somalians and give them a better life over here with a far worse remuneration package than Brits would expect.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

And you made up a bizarre argument about McDonald's franchisees making $millions. Somehow that's supposed to be representative of the gig economy or the self-employed.

I honestly can't be arsed, dowie. Find someone else to have a pointless back-and-forth with, and read into that whatever you like. I don't care.

The law makes clear what an employees rights and expected benefits are. For both employees and for the (genuinely) self-employed.

The law doesn't seem to want to allow for a grey area, where you're neither an employee nor meeting the criteria of the (genuinely) self-employed.

That grey are certainly contains scope for abuses to happen.

The law absolutely has and allows for ‘grey areas’ otherwise known as interpretation. It’s based on principles and weighing up a number of factors when looking at the relationship between all parties in the transaction.

By definition that is very much open to interpretation and opinion.

If the law didn’t allow for interpretation, it would be prescriptive and rules based which it just isn’t.

It’s the exact reason this whole case exists and has taken so long to determine. If the law was set up as the latter it would have been done and dusted years ago.

Just to add, there is nothing stopping them changing their relationship with their contractors to just sidestep this ruling. Changes they have already made long before this judgement was made may be sufficient. If you want to stop business playing this game, the rules of the game need to be changed.

 

[FoxEye]

The law absolutely has and allows for ‘grey areas’ otherwise known as interpretation. It’s based on principles and weighing up a number of factors when looking at the relationship between all parties in the transaction.

By definition that is very much open to interpretation and opinion.

If the law didn’t allow for interpretation, it would be prescriptive and rules based which it just isn’t.

It’s the exact reason this whole case exists and has taken so long to determine. If the law was set up as the latter it would have been done and dusted years ago.

Just to add, there is nothing stopping them changing their relationship with their contractors to just sidestep this ruling. Changes they have already made long before this judgement made may be sufficient. If you want to stop business playing this game, the rules of the game need to be changed.

What I said was, "The law doesn't seem to want to allow for a grey area, where you're neither an employee nor meeting the criteria of the (genuinely) self-employed."

As in, this particular grey area. There are plenty of other grey areas in many places and yes, you have cases like this to resolve ambiguity. Do the judges not take into consideration the intent of the law as much as the penned wording?

Sometimes with the best of intentions you can't precisely sculpt a law to cover every single possible loophole, hence there being teams of lawyers employed precisely to find and exploit such loopholes. Even when the loopholes are clearly contrary to the intent of the law.

Law needs and often has refinement and the periodic closure of loopholes.

It's doesn't detract from the point, that when a company uses such a loophole and others don't, or a company simply fails to meet its legal obligations (and others don't), then that company can be considered exploitational, regardless of whether the employees feel exploited, or even just grateful to have a job.

 

[dowie]

And you made up a bizarre argument about McDonald's franchisees making $millions. Somehow that's supposed to be representative of the gig economy or the self-employed.

It’s called an analogy and no claim was made that it was representative of the gig economy in general... you’re again arguing against points you’ve made up yourself.

I honestly can't be arsed, dowie. Find someone else to have a pointless back-and-forth with, and read into that whatever you like. I don't care.

You can’t be arsed yet you’ve still replied, more than once, with inherently flawed arguments. Try to apply some thought to what you’re saying, you do this frequently. I remember when you came up with some dodgy absolutist position for herd immunity last year and I pointed out the flaws, you seemingly couldn’t grasp why it was flawed and gave the same sort of straw man and ad hominem type replies... yet this year it was shown to be completely wrong...

If you’re getting frustrated because you can’t actually argue the points being made then maybe your position is a bit weak in the first place or perhaps you’re just mindlessly projecting some other position on the posts you’re reading instead of paying attention to what has actually been said.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

What I said was, "The law doesn't seem to want to allow for a grey area, where you're neither an employee nor meeting the criteria of the (genuinely) self-employed."

As in, this particular grey area. There are plenty of other grey areas in many places and yes, you have cases like this to resolve ambiguity. Do the judges not take into consideration the intent of the law as much as the penned wording?

Sometimes with the best of intentions you can't precisely sculpt a law to cover every single possible loophole, hence there being teams of lawyers employed precisely to find and exploit such loopholes. Even when the loopholes are clearly contrary to the intent of the law.

Law needs and often has refinement and the periodic closure of loopholes.

I’m not even clear what you are arguing now as what you just posted isn’t what actually happened. They were found to be neither employees, or self employed. They were found to be ‘workers’ which is a strange middle ground between the two.

This isn’t a loophole, nothing has changed and the law as it stood back then still applies today. The same basket of factors which people need to weigh up to determine employment status remains the same. All that happened was a group of people challenged their status with Uber and they won. That’s it, nothing else. It only applies to them and the relationship as it stood then. It doesn’t apply to anyone else. That said, there is nothing stopping people filing their own case based on this judgement, they are only guaranteed to win if they had exactly the same relationship with Uber as the 6 in this case.

The law explicitly caters for these kind of arrangements. There have been previous judgement in this sector specifically which found the people to be self employed. The reason that didn’t apply in this case is because the judge decided that it didn’t apply because the relationship between the contractors and the operator was materially different to that of Uber and its workers.

You also still dodged my question about at what point does someone no longer be classified as exploited based on their remuneration. £50k? 50% more than their employed equivalents? They can’t always be exploited based on them being classed as self employed.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

For the record, I’m very much playing devils advocate because your making sweeping statements with very little substance.

I’m actually in favour of tightening up the law in this area. But I’m under no illusion that this judgement actually does that.

Some sectors are absolutely taking the proverbial in this area in the pursuit of profit. I wouldn’t have said this was one of them though.

 

[chrcoluk]

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

I know a few uber drivers and they disagree with this, they not earning any less than when they used to work for traditional taxi companies. It might be less than black cabs who have much higher pricing, but not against the other firms.