Uber lose battle in Supreme Court on drivers right

[Bald-Eagle22]

Here we go , massive can of worms about to be opened .

This won’t just effect London Uber drivers .

https://news.sky.com/story/uber-los...n-drivers-rights-in-gig-economy-test-12222531

No further right of appeal .

Will have implications for all Gigg economy workers .

 

[A2Z]

Great news.

 

[Martynt74]

I wonder what this will do for Uber etc.

Presumably the great strength of Uber was that it was generally cheaper and you accepted a poorer service for that (i've lost count of the number of times the drivers got lost). The only way would be to increase prices but then i'd rather pay a proper taxi driver with local knowledge for the same price, rather than some guy who just wants extra cash in the evenings.

If it then makes it harder for people to do these side jobs then i wonder if the number of people using them will drop and therefore the level of service drops in line with that, because half the benefit is that there's always a driver around.

 

[Mr Jack]

Great news for British workers and British businesses

 

[mmj_uk]

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.

 

[Dolph]

This is a judgment with major potential to be far reaching and change the nature of employment for a significant number of people not involved with the case and happy with their current position.

The rationale used covers historic ways of working for pretty much every mini cab firm, for black cab drivers, and a whole variety of people who have historically been considered self employed or independent contractors.

With that in mind, I'm kind of torn as to whether I'm in favour of it or not. It potentially has major ramifications and as such, is likely to fall foul of the law of unintended consequences, even if on the face of it, the changes seems like a good idea for those who wanted them.

 

[Efour]

Bye Uber.

 

[phil675]

Unless there is some sort of opt-out, this will make tons of businesses unviable and lots of people out of work, fantastic.

 

[Murf]

Unless there is some sort of opt-out, this will make tons of businesses unviable and lots of people out of work, fantastic.

The businesses were never viable in the first place if they can't survive while paying tax. (I appreciate that's a massive simplification)

 

[Jokester]

Unless there is some sort of opt-out, this will make tons of businesses unviable and lots of people out of work, fantastic.

If businesses aren't able to operate within the tax regime of the UK, then they shouldn't exist.

 

[Pudney]

This is a judgment with major potential to be far reaching and change the nature of employment for a significant number of people not involved with the case and happy with their current position.

The rationale used covers historic ways of working for pretty much every mini cab firm, for black cab drivers, and a whole variety of people who have historically been considered self employed or independent contractors.

With that in mind, I'm kind of torn as to whether I'm in favour of it or not. It potentially has major ramifications and as such, is likely to fall foul of the law of unintended consequences, even if on the face of it, the changes seems like a good idea for those who wanted them.

The Supreme Court drew factual distinctions between Uber's business model and that of mini cab firms in previous cases so it may not be as far reaching as you fear.

 

[Dolph]

If businesses aren't able to operate within the tax regime of the UK, then they shouldn't exist.

While this is true, it doesn't help people who go from poor wages to no wages at all, especially as that also impacts eligibility for other state support...

 

[Mr Jack]

Unless there is some sort of opt-out, this will make tons of businesses unviable and lots of people out of work, fantastic.

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.

 

[Jokester]

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.

Indeed.

 

[mrgubby]

I've always disagreed with the "Gig economy" but this could be the death knell for many companies and loss of many jobs.

When it costs double to have your kebab delivered, you're more likely to opt for pickup rather than delivery.

 

[Surveyor]

Didn't the majority of Uber drivers want to keep their self-employed status? Also, will they now have to repay everything they've claimed under the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme?

 

[peterwalkley]

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.

+1

London is not the only place Uber were doing this. Several states in the US also don't like the way uber were operating, California being the most notable.

It hinges around the degree of control uber exerted over the drivers. They were under sufficient control to be deemed employees and not independent contractors.

 

[Pudney]

Didn't the majority of Uber drivers want to keep their self-employed status? Also, will they now have to repay everything they've claimed under the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme?

Not necessarily, employment law and taxation law isn't completely aligned. This was a case about entitlement to worker's rights (e.g. holidays, sick pay etc.).

https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/selfemployed-contractor

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) may regard someone as self-employed for tax purposes even if they have a different status in employment law.

 

[thenewoc]

Seems a bit odd still to me, if a driver can choose to sign in and make themselves available when they choose that is very different to being the recipient of a fixed rota / shift patterns handed down from management.

 

[dowie]

Not sure about this tbh.. will need to see the actual ruling and some analysis of how it will now work in practice.

On the face of it it seems silly, I don’t see why people can’t chose to be self employed and work these jobs - there is an element of self selection there, if you start implementing a floor (min wage, holidays etc) then the companies perhaps either need to be brutal with ditching drivers quicker or the more efficient drivers perhaps end up with diminished returns to fund the mediocre/poor performing drivers.

Also hourly pay/min war doesn’t necessarily work with these apps - some regular private hire drivers use them in between jobs, some drivers switch between uber and competitors, turn both apps on towards the end of a job and see whether they pick up a job after that etc.. Will this ruling remove part of the flexibility?

it also potentially undermines the efficiency of the service (similar to the potential for taking away from successful drivers) - uber copes with high demand by using surge pricing, this incentivises drivers to move to an area where there is currently higher demand for rides but if a floor is introduced then such an incentive is obviously diminished.

Perhaps they can counter the effect of such a floor by raising prices in general, that would perhaps reduce the customer base and they’d need to either ditch drivers or again the top performing drivers will take a hit.

The whole thing can just turn into an exercise in reducing the variance of driver payouts - poor performing drivers get a boost and top performers get penalised, welcome to mediocrity.

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.


It seems as a society we’ve decided pay per hour is the only model we should use for compensating people (at least at the lower end) and are very anti variable rewards or just letting people choose their own ways of working (working multiple jobs/using multiple apps or just chilling and casually doing jobs while driving round with the gf etc..) that don’t fit with an hourly rate.

 

[potatolord]

Here we go , massive can of worms about to be opened .

This won’t just effect London Uber drivers .

https://news.sky.com/story/uber-los...n-drivers-rights-in-gig-economy-test-12222531

No further right of appeal .

Will have implications for all Gigg economy workers .

To me, it feels like a good thing. Appreciate i am not an user driver who could see my income fall as a result of this, though!

Ultimately, everyone wants public services, but they have to be paid for somehow.

Much of the disruptor services leech off existing infrastructure without paying in. I don't see that as a viable long-term situation for any taxpayer.