5 ms·

There are a lot of commenters who are misunderstanding the implications for this. This doesn't mean that every platform is now an employer. This case just happe

There are a lot of commenters who are misunderstanding the implications for this. This doesn't mean that every platform is now an employer. This case just happens to have many, many reasons that point to the drivers being workers not contractors. It's worth reading the judgment, but they have a useful summary of the points: The contradiction in the Rider Terms between the fact that ULL purports to be the drivers' agent and its assertion of "sole and absolute discretion" to accept or decline bookings. The fact that Uber interviews and recruits drivers. The fact that Uber controls the key information (in particular the passenger's surname contact details and intended destination) and excludes the driver from it The fact that Uber requires drivers to accept trips and/or not to cancel trips, and enforces the requirement by logging off drivers who breach those requirements. The fact that Uber sets the (default) route and the driver departs from it at his peril. The fact that UBV fixes the fare and the driver cannot agree a higher sum with the passenger. (The supposed freedom to agree a lower fare is obviously nugatory.) The fact that Uber imposes numerous conditions on drivers (such as the limited choice of acceptable vehicles), instructs drivers as to how to do their work and, in numerous ways, controls them in the performance of their duties. The fact that Uber subjects drivers through the rating system to what amounts to a performance management/disciplinary procedure. The fact that Uber determines issues about rebates, sometimes without even involving the driver whose remuneration is liable to be affected. The guaranteed earnings schemes (albeit now discontinued). The fact that Uber accepts the risk of loss which, if the drivers were genuinely in business on their own account, would fall upon them. The fact that Uber handles complaints by passengers, including complaints about the driver. The fact that Uber reserves the power to amend the drivers' terms unilaterally. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/aslam-and-farrar-v-uber-reasons-20161028.pdf https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/asla...

nickff 10y ago
I think the issue that many readers have difficulties with is that rulings like this show how arbitrary and potentially political the regulations are. For instance, many heavily regulated professions in the USA (and probably the UK) could be classified as government employees by this definition, but they are not. Taxi drivers could even be seen as employees of their cities, as I know that London taxi cab drivers suffer conditions 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, and 13 at the hands of their local government.
- IanCal 10y ago
  It's very important to understand here that they are not employees but workers. There is a significant distinction in UK law. https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/worker https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/worker
  - SilasX 10y ago
    Do I understand this right, that "worker" status is somewhere between employee and contractor, in terms of the employer obligation to them? Less obligations than to an employee, but more than to a contractor?
    - IanCal 10y ago
      Pretty much, yes. It's the lowest level of rights given to a worker pretty much, whereas someone who is self-employed is essentially treated as a company with a contract. There's a big difference in both rights and freedoms.
sfifs 10y ago
Why would you put interesting information in a pre tag? This is what your comment looks like on mobile - completely unreadable http://i.imgur.com/GKkF44j.jpg http://i.imgur.com/GKkF44j.jpg
- ascorbic 10y ago
  I didn't put it in a pre tag. HN did that because there are spaces at the beginning of the lines that I copied and pasted from the OCR text.
  - eridius 10y ago
    You chose to post it like that.
    - ascorbic 10y ago
      Mate, I read the judgment and when I realised lots of people misunderstood the ruling I went to the trouble of finding the most informative section. I then OCR'd the page (which was a scan, so I couldn't cut and paste) so I could share it. Pardon me for not then spending even more time manually reformatting a whole page of text. If you find it so hard, you're welcome to click on the link to the original that I also included.
      - eridius 10y ago
        You did all that work and couldn't bother to take the 5 seconds it needs for any half-decent text editor to re-wrap your paragraphs?
smsm42 10y ago
Pretty much these facts would apply to any value-add collaboration platform that serves as middle-man between customer and whoever executes the task. Most of them screen their contractors and have preconditions, have ratings, many of them have provisions to shield both sides from dishonest players, many of them have incentives and rebates to attract customers, most of them handle complaints (of course they do, the customer paid money to them, who they'd complain to if something is wrong? Whoever got the money!), etc. That means pretty much any added-value marketplace is now considered employer in UK, thus the whole model becomes infeasible.
- IanCal 10y ago
  If the platform controls how and when the work is done, doesn't allow subcontracting, and is in full control of the price, then that sounds like the platform isn't a middle man but an employer. > That means pretty much any added-value marketplace is now considered employer in UK, thus the whole model becomes infeasible. No, only ones that have a large degree of control over how the work is done and over the interaction with the customer, including all pricing. Fiverr, for example, really doesn't meet these and nor would etsy. And really, the requirements on employing workers isn't much. Paid holiday (pro-rata, there are already easy ways of calculating the amount owed to irregular workers), rest breaks, minimum wage and possibly a contribution to a pension scheme. These are all requirements of small employers at the moment so it's not a huge thing.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    > If the platform controls how and when the work is done, doesn't allow subcontracting, and is in full control of the price, then that sounds like the platform isn't a middle man but an employer. The client controls how and when the work is done. Uber can't just send a driver to drive somebody - somebody has to actually ask to be driven. Most collaboration platforms - like TaskRabbit for example - don't allow subcontracting. And for a reason - if I asked for John, 5*, proficient in electrical work and general handyman work, many positive reviews, and Anthony shows up instead, I don't want him - I don't know him and don't trust him. > is in full control of the price Many such platforms have pre-set hourly or per-task rates. Such us Fiverr. > Fiverr, for example, really doesn't meet these Fiverr is literally named after a fixed $5 rate. > And really, the requirements on employing workers isn't much. Especially if you're not the one paying them.

nickff 10y ago

I think the issue that many readers have difficulties with is that rulings like this show how arbitrary and potentially political the regulations are. For instance, many heavily regulated professions in the USA (and probably the UK) could be classified as government employees by this definition, but they are not. Taxi drivers could even be seen as employees of their cities, as I know that London taxi cab drivers suffer conditions 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, and 13 at the hands of their local government.

IanCal 10y ago
It's very important to understand here that they are not employees but workers. There is a significant distinction in UK law. https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/worker https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/worker
- SilasX 10y ago
  Do I understand this right, that "worker" status is somewhere between employee and contractor, in terms of the employer obligation to them? Less obligations than to an employee, but more than to a contractor?
  - IanCal 10y ago
    Pretty much, yes. It's the lowest level of rights given to a worker pretty much, whereas someone who is self-employed is essentially treated as a company with a contract. There's a big difference in both rights and freedoms.

sfifs 10y ago

Why would you put interesting information in a pre tag? This is what your comment looks like on mobile - completely unreadable http://i.imgur.com/GKkF44j.jpg http://i.imgur.com/GKkF44j.jpg

ascorbic 10y ago
I didn't put it in a pre tag. HN did that because there are spaces at the beginning of the lines that I copied and pasted from the OCR text.
- eridius 10y ago
  You chose to post it like that.
  - ascorbic 10y ago
    Mate, I read the judgment and when I realised lots of people misunderstood the ruling I went to the trouble of finding the most informative section. I then OCR'd the page (which was a scan, so I couldn't cut and paste) so I could share it. Pardon me for not then spending even more time manually reformatting a whole page of text. If you find it so hard, you're welcome to click on the link to the original that I also included.
    - eridius 10y ago
      You did all that work and couldn't bother to take the 5 seconds it needs for any half-decent text editor to re-wrap your paragraphs?

smsm42 10y ago

Pretty much these facts would apply to any value-add collaboration platform that serves as middle-man between customer and whoever executes the task. Most of them screen their contractors and have preconditions, have ratings, many of them have provisions to shield both sides from dishonest players, many of them have incentives and rebates to attract customers, most of them handle complaints (of course they do, the customer paid money to them, who they'd complain to if something is wrong? Whoever got the money!), etc. That means pretty much any added-value marketplace is now considered employer in UK, thus the whole model becomes infeasible.

IanCal 10y ago
If the platform controls how and when the work is done, doesn't allow subcontracting, and is in full control of the price, then that sounds like the platform isn't a middle man but an employer. > That means pretty much any added-value marketplace is now considered employer in UK, thus the whole model becomes infeasible. No, only ones that have a large degree of control over how the work is done and over the interaction with the customer, including all pricing. Fiverr, for example, really doesn't meet these and nor would etsy. And really, the requirements on employing workers isn't much. Paid holiday (pro-rata, there are already easy ways of calculating the amount owed to irregular workers), rest breaks, minimum wage and possibly a contribution to a pension scheme. These are all requirements of small employers at the moment so it's not a huge thing.
- smsm42 10y ago
  > If the platform controls how and when the work is done, doesn't allow subcontracting, and is in full control of the price, then that sounds like the platform isn't a middle man but an employer. The client controls how and when the work is done. Uber can't just send a driver to drive somebody - somebody has to actually ask to be driven. Most collaboration platforms - like TaskRabbit for example - don't allow subcontracting. And for a reason - if I asked for John, 5*, proficient in electrical work and general handyman work, many positive reviews, and Anthony shows up instead, I don't want him - I don't know him and don't trust him. > is in full control of the price Many such platforms have pre-set hourly or per-task rates. Such us Fiverr. > Fiverr, for example, really doesn't meet these Fiverr is literally named after a fixed $5 rate. > And really, the requirements on employing workers isn't much. Especially if you're not the one paying them.