5 ms·

The judgment is clear that these are not mutually exclusive. In this case they've ruled that a driver is a worker during the period when they are logged-in to t

The judgment is clear that these are not mutually exclusive. In this case they've ruled that a driver is a worker during the period when they are logged-in to the app and ready to accept rides. They're still able to close the app, at which point they are no longer working.

dkhenry 10y ago
Which doesn't make sense for an employer to continue to allow. If I have to pay start to pay for the fringe benefits of being an employee then I want the guarantees that come along with that. So I am going to want to have tighter control over when and where you are working and dictate more of your working conditions. The beauty of the independent contractor model is that it gives the contractor freedom. If I have to pay you a minimum wage when you have your app on then you better believe I won't allow you to have two apps running at the same time. This is a net loss for people who were just trying to make some money being a driver.
- ascorbic 10y ago
  The point of this ruling is that Uber already does loads of things that only an employer would normally be able to do. That independent contractor flexibility just isn't there anyway. It sure as hell isn't employment law stopping Uber from setting a rule that prevents drivers from running two apps at once. In any case that's not really an issue in the UK, where there aren't any direct competitors such as Lyft.
  - dkhenry 10y ago
    I would disagree with the assertion that they do things only an employer can do ( which I understand means I am firmly wrong in the sight of UK law ), I would rather Uber can set additional rules in exchange for additional flexibility for the contractor. What I see in this ruling is that the "solution" seems to be make the contractors employees instead of give the contractors liberty to self direct more.
    - pmyteh 10y ago
      If Uber wrote a new contract, with greater autonomy and less direction for its drivers, it's quite possible that it would be upheld as genuine self-employment; the ruling covers the workers' current arrangements. So that route is feasible if Uber is willing to cede its control. I think that somewhat unlikely.
- IanCal 10y ago
  If they control more, they're likely to move the relationship from "worker" to "employee" which comes with a lot more responsibilities on ubers part. > The beauty of the independent contractor model is that it gives the contractor freedom. Which is fine, if they actually have the freedom. The problem is that uber want freedom on their side, but then heavily control the workers, that's why the ruling came through like this.

dkhenry 10y ago

Which doesn't make sense for an employer to continue to allow. If I have to pay start to pay for the fringe benefits of being an employee then I want the guarantees that come along with that. So I am going to want to have tighter control over when and where you are working and dictate more of your working conditions. The beauty of the independent contractor model is that it gives the contractor freedom. If I have to pay you a minimum wage when you have your app on then you better believe I won't allow you to have two apps running at the same time. This is a net loss for people who were just trying to make some money being a driver.

ascorbic 10y ago
The point of this ruling is that Uber already does loads of things that only an employer would normally be able to do. That independent contractor flexibility just isn't there anyway. It sure as hell isn't employment law stopping Uber from setting a rule that prevents drivers from running two apps at once. In any case that's not really an issue in the UK, where there aren't any direct competitors such as Lyft.
- dkhenry 10y ago
  I would disagree with the assertion that they do things only an employer can do ( which I understand means I am firmly wrong in the sight of UK law ), I would rather Uber can set additional rules in exchange for additional flexibility for the contractor. What I see in this ruling is that the "solution" seems to be make the contractors employees instead of give the contractors liberty to self direct more.
  - pmyteh 10y ago
    If Uber wrote a new contract, with greater autonomy and less direction for its drivers, it's quite possible that it would be upheld as genuine self-employment; the ruling covers the workers' current arrangements. So that route is feasible if Uber is willing to cede its control. I think that somewhat unlikely.
IanCal 10y ago
If they control more, they're likely to move the relationship from "worker" to "employee" which comes with a lot more responsibilities on ubers part. > The beauty of the independent contractor model is that it gives the contractor freedom. Which is fine, if they actually have the freedom. The problem is that uber want freedom on their side, but then heavily control the workers, that's why the ruling came through like this.