4 ms·
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 j
by 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 agoI 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 agoIf 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.