6 ms·

I have a US perspective so I'm interested in why this ruling was made. If the driver doesn't want to drive on a given day, there's no one he has to call. There'

I have a US perspective so I'm interested in why this ruling was made. If the driver doesn't want to drive on a given day, there's no one he has to call. There's no approval of the time off. He just won't get paid because he isn't doing work. In the US, one central tenant of being an employee vs a contractor is that your employer has power over your schedule, working location, and your work methods, which I see none of in Uber (which I did drive for back in 2016.) Uber drivers are allowed to drive for other groups and have other jobs. So what basis was this decision made, if not "they are complaining and the right thing to do is something, plus Uber=bad?"

dazc 9y ago
Rules on whether you are employed or self-employed are a bit grey in the UK and open to interpretation. https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/selfemployed-contractor https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/selfemployed-contractor
cmdkeen 9y ago
My (limited) understanding, and quoting from the article is that is is around: "holiday pay, paid rest breaks and the minimum wage". The first essentially boils down to extra money - if you work X days you get another days pay to simulate a paid holiday day. I'd imagine the second two would combine - if Uber accepts your app connecting and being "for hire" they guarantee you at least the minimum wage, and after a set period of working you get a paid break.
Cthulhu_ 9y ago
The other side of the coin is that of exploitation - no Uber rides, no income. Sick? No income. Accident while driving for Uber? Your problem, you pay for everything. If they're employees, they get a lot of rights and protections that maybe aren't common at all in the US. Companies like Uber (and e.g. construction companies, marketing agencies, etc) will push people to become self-employed so that the employer has no obligations or responsibilities whatsoever to the employee. This will allow them to out-compete the companies (like Black Cab in London) heavily, at the cost of the workers.
- jstanley 9y ago
  If it's truly at the cost of the workers, why do the workers put up with it? If it's so easy to go and work for Black Cab in London, wouldn't they just do that instead? Or perhaps Uber are actually providing a useful source of work to drivers who otherwise wouldn't be working at all?
  - Silhouette 9y ago
    If it's so easy to go and work for Black Cab in London, wouldn't they just do that instead? It is not easy to go and work as a traditional taxi driver in London. There are various regulations on taxis and taxi drivers in the UK anyway, and in addition, in London taxi drivers are required to pass an infamously difficult test known as The Knowledge proving that they can navigate effectively around London streets. One of the big objections to Uber and the like is that they attempt to bypass some of those regulations and that training, and the regulations and training are there for a reason. To the extent that this confers a competitive advantage to Uber drivers over black-cabbies, it's a rather unfair one.
    - zlynx 9y ago
      If the rules "are there for a reason" then black cabs would be obviously superior and wouldn't be at a competitive disadvantage. So, obviously those rules don't matter as much to customers as convenience, price and availability do.
      - Silhouette 9y ago
        If the rules "are there for a reason" then black cabs would be obviously superior and wouldn't be at a competitive disadvantage. In some ways, black cabs are obviously superior. To pick a few examples, their pricing is regulated by local authorities, they are required to be wheelchair accessible, and their drivers are required to have The Knowledge along with various other qualifications before being licensed. To the extent that black cabs may be at a competitive disadvantage compared to Uber's standard (non-surge) pricing, that is in part because Uber's current financial model seems to be subsidising every journey using the vast amounts of funding they have accepted. That is not sustainable. It is also in part because of exactly the sort of issues we're talking about today, where they've been cutting their costs at the expense of their drivers in legally questionable ways, which again is hardly playing on a level field.
doctor_fact 9y ago
On what basis? “92. ... The drivers provide the skilled labour through which the organisation delivers its services and earns its profits. We base our assessment ... in particular on the following considerations. (1) 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. (2) The fact that Uber interviews and recruits drivers. (3) 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. (4) 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. (5) The fact that Uber sets the (default) route and the driver departs from it at his peril. (6) 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.) (7) 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. (8) The fact that Uber subjects drivers through the rating system to what amounts to a performance management/disciplinary procedure. (9) The fact that Uber determines issues about rebates, sometimes without even involving the driver whose remuneration is liable to be affected. (10) The guaranteed earnings scheme (albeit now discontinued). (11) 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. (12) The fact that Uber handles complaints by passengers, including complaints about the driver. (13) The fact that Uber reserves the power to amend the drivers’ terms unilaterally.”
- tom_mellior 9y ago
  Is that from the current ruling that is the topic of this article? Do you have a link?
  - doctor_fact 9y ago
    The judgement. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a046b06e5274a0ee5a1f171/Uber_B.V._and_Others_v_Mr_Y_Aslam_and_Others_UKEAT_0056_17_DA.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a046b06e5274...
jasode 9y ago
>I have a US perspective so I'm interested in why this ruling was made. Your "USA perspective" reminded me of a concept called "court rulings as informal tariffs". Basically, when a foreign company is tried in the courts, the rulings will often favor the side that's aligned with the country's own court. (In this case, it's the UK drivers.) The idea is, we can't objectively analyze rulings purely on its legal merits. Instead, there's always a country's (unstated) self-interest that's entangled in the judgement. (E.g. our home-grown London drivers deserve more money instead of USA's Uber executives.) The USA would have the same bias. If a Korean company like Samsung is being sued by American company like Apple in a USA court, it's likely that Apple will win. Likewise, an American company like Google will lose more rulings by the EU than EU companies. Again, it doesn't mean Uber is innocent. It's an observation that we didn't see the same government scrutiny about UK ride-sharing services like Hailo (subsequently absorbed by Mytaxi) about classifying contractors as workers. UK taxi drivers are generally contractors[1] but Uber attracted the ire that other ride-sharing apps didn't. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-notice-70025-taxis-and-private-hire-cars/vat-notice-70025-taxis-and-private-hire-cars#drivers-of-taxis-and-private-hire-cars https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-notice-70025-... (EDIT: thanks for correction kbart. I was reading about Lexus and had Japan on my brain.)
- kbart 9y ago
  Just a nitpick, but Samsung is Korean company.
- vidarh 9y ago
  Hailo provided an ability for people who are largely already contractors an additional channel for bookings. The fact that these people are already operating a business and Hailo just provided an additional marketing and booking channel for them makes for a very different situation.
  - jasode 9y ago
    >largely already contractors But why were they "already contractors"? Doesn't that beg the question?[1] Take a look at section 2.1 of the link I cited. Just based on the text alone, it's not obvious why that "self-employed" criteria doesn't apply to Uber. Yes, the courts are free to interpret beyond the literal text but there doesn't seem to be objective consistency to it. The traditional UK taxi companies and the other ride sharing apps all seem to be misclassifying workers. I'm not familiar with Hailo. Are you saying that a person who didn't drive a taxi before can't sign up on the Hailo platform and immediately offer their services? Did they have to be associated with a traditional taxi company first as prerequisite? In what situations would drivers prefer Hailo over Uber and vice versa? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
saas_co_de 9y ago
> US perspective i.e. perspective of country where labor laws are not actually enforced.
- alistairSH 9y ago
  I get the impression they are enforced, when they exist. But are less likely to exist in the first place. IE, much of the US is right-to-work with little employee protection.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Labor laws aren't rigorously enforced. Especially at low end jobs. People aren't necessarily aware of their rights and can't afford the potential disruption from filing complaints.
akhatri_aus 9y ago
What you've described is basically a zero hours employment contract, except that Uber conveniently sidesteps minimum wage by using the 'contractor' designation. I wonder if you've been sold the bill of goods reading your Uber=bad comment.
rayiner 9y ago
At least in the U.S., it's a multi-factor test, with schedule being only one part of it. Uber doesn't control when and where you work, but it definitely controls the customer relationship and quality of service. For example, it doesn't merely allow customers to rate drivers, it kicks out anyone who doesn't achieve a relatively high rating. It imposes pretty specific requirements on what kind of car you can drive. Uber's business needs are somewhat at odds with its legal case here. From a branding standpoint, Uber wants you to think of yourself as interfacing with Uber, not individual drivers. They want you to believe that if you call an Uber, you're going to get a certain level and quality of service. Contrast something like HomeAdvisor, which is undoubtedly an aggregator for contractors. Home Advisor doesn't tell its contractors what kind of equipment to use, it doesn't kick off contractors who don't achieve a 4-star rating, etc. It's explicitly marketed as a service for finding contractors, not a company that performs the service directly.
- pas 9y ago
  > from a branding standpoint, Uber wants you to think of yourself as interfacing with Uber, not individual drivers. That doesn't really matter. Nor is it really true, since you inevitably interact with the driver. And it's understood that drivers are humans, and they are different. McDonalds operates a franchise, you got the same thing, but still, different companies. Yes, Uber had not structured itself as a franchise, but the use of [sub]contractors to provide a service with a controlled and sort of guaranteed (and well marketed and branded) quality - in itself - doesn't make the drivers employees. I think the line between contracting and employment is up to the host society to draw. Usually tax authorities have a few simple rules and if you are in compliance of at least half of them (or if you break at least X of them), then you are a contractor (or disguised employee). For example exclusivity is important here, the rule states that if a contractor gets more than 50% of its income from one entity, then that's one strike (and there are 5 other rules). Of course it seems in UK law the drivers have standing, so it means there must be some statute about when a contractor is to be treated like employees. (For example, let's say you can't use temp workers, contractors like regular full time employees and not give them free cafeteria, if your regular employees have that perk.)
  - 9y ago
IanCal 9y ago
Uber have significant control over the drivers and the way in which they work, enough to make the drivers workers but not employees. The original decision is here 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... Here's a quote someone on Reddit pulled out > Since it is essential to that case that there is no contract for the provision of transportation services between the driver and any Uber entity, the Partner Terms and the New Terms require the driver to agree that a contract for such services (whether a ‘worker’ contract or otherwise) exists between him and the passenger, and the Rider Terms contain a corresponding provision. > Uber’s case is that the driver enters into a binding agreement with a person whose identity he does not know (and will never know) and who does not know and will never know his identity, to undertake a journey to a destination not told to him until the journey begins, by a route prescribed by a stranger to the contract (UBV) from which he is not free to depart (at least not without risk), for a fee which (a) is set by the stranger, and (b) is not known by the passenger (who is only told the total to be paid), (c) is calculated by the stranger (as a percentage of the total sum) and (d) is paid to the stranger. Uber’s case has to be that if the organisation became insolvent, the drivers would have enforceable rights directly against the passengers. And if the contracts were ‘worker’ contracts, the passengers would be exposed to potential liability as the driver’s employer … The absurdity of these propositions speaks for itself.
- fstuff 9y ago
  Lol those conditions almost sound like a silk road darknet market transaction. In that you're making a transaction with stranger and pay the stranger

dazc 9y ago

Rules on whether you are employed or self-employed are a bit grey in the UK and open to interpretation. https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/selfemployed-contractor https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/selfemployed-contractor

cmdkeen 9y ago

My (limited) understanding, and quoting from the article is that is is around: "holiday pay, paid rest breaks and the minimum wage". The first essentially boils down to extra money - if you work X days you get another days pay to simulate a paid holiday day. I'd imagine the second two would combine - if Uber accepts your app connecting and being "for hire" they guarantee you at least the minimum wage, and after a set period of working you get a paid break.

Cthulhu_ 9y ago

The other side of the coin is that of exploitation - no Uber rides, no income. Sick? No income. Accident while driving for Uber? Your problem, you pay for everything. If they're employees, they get a lot of rights and protections that maybe aren't common at all in the US. Companies like Uber (and e.g. construction companies, marketing agencies, etc) will push people to become self-employed so that the employer has no obligations or responsibilities whatsoever to the employee. This will allow them to out-compete the companies (like Black Cab in London) heavily, at the cost of the workers.

jstanley 9y ago
If it's truly at the cost of the workers, why do the workers put up with it? If it's so easy to go and work for Black Cab in London, wouldn't they just do that instead? Or perhaps Uber are actually providing a useful source of work to drivers who otherwise wouldn't be working at all?
- Silhouette 9y ago
  If it's so easy to go and work for Black Cab in London, wouldn't they just do that instead? It is not easy to go and work as a traditional taxi driver in London. There are various regulations on taxis and taxi drivers in the UK anyway, and in addition, in London taxi drivers are required to pass an infamously difficult test known as The Knowledge proving that they can navigate effectively around London streets. One of the big objections to Uber and the like is that they attempt to bypass some of those regulations and that training, and the regulations and training are there for a reason. To the extent that this confers a competitive advantage to Uber drivers over black-cabbies, it's a rather unfair one.
  - zlynx 9y ago
    If the rules "are there for a reason" then black cabs would be obviously superior and wouldn't be at a competitive disadvantage. So, obviously those rules don't matter as much to customers as convenience, price and availability do.
    - Silhouette 9y ago
      If the rules "are there for a reason" then black cabs would be obviously superior and wouldn't be at a competitive disadvantage. In some ways, black cabs are obviously superior. To pick a few examples, their pricing is regulated by local authorities, they are required to be wheelchair accessible, and their drivers are required to have The Knowledge along with various other qualifications before being licensed. To the extent that black cabs may be at a competitive disadvantage compared to Uber's standard (non-surge) pricing, that is in part because Uber's current financial model seems to be subsidising every journey using the vast amounts of funding they have accepted. That is not sustainable. It is also in part because of exactly the sort of issues we're talking about today, where they've been cutting their costs at the expense of their drivers in legally questionable ways, which again is hardly playing on a level field.

doctor_fact 9y ago

On what basis? “92. ... The drivers provide the skilled labour through which the organisation delivers its services and earns its profits. We base our assessment ... in particular on the following considerations. (1) 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. (2) The fact that Uber interviews and recruits drivers. (3) 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. (4) 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. (5) The fact that Uber sets the (default) route and the driver departs from it at his peril. (6) 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.) (7) 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. (8) The fact that Uber subjects drivers through the rating system to what amounts to a performance management/disciplinary procedure. (9) The fact that Uber determines issues about rebates, sometimes without even involving the driver whose remuneration is liable to be affected. (10) The guaranteed earnings scheme (albeit now discontinued). (11) 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. (12) The fact that Uber handles complaints by passengers, including complaints about the driver. (13) The fact that Uber reserves the power to amend the drivers’ terms unilaterally.”

tom_mellior 9y ago
Is that from the current ruling that is the topic of this article? Do you have a link?
- doctor_fact 9y ago
  The judgement. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a046b06e5274a0ee5a1f171/Uber_B.V._and_Others_v_Mr_Y_Aslam_and_Others_UKEAT_0056_17_DA.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a046b06e5274...

jasode 9y ago

>I have a US perspective so I'm interested in why this ruling was made. Your "USA perspective" reminded me of a concept called "court rulings as informal tariffs". Basically, when a foreign company is tried in the courts, the rulings will often favor the side that's aligned with the country's own court. (In this case, it's the UK drivers.) The idea is, we can't objectively analyze rulings purely on its legal merits. Instead, there's always a country's (unstated) self-interest that's entangled in the judgement. (E.g. our home-grown London drivers deserve more money instead of USA's Uber executives.) The USA would have the same bias. If a Korean company like Samsung is being sued by American company like Apple in a USA court, it's likely that Apple will win. Likewise, an American company like Google will lose more rulings by the EU than EU companies. Again, it doesn't mean Uber is innocent. It's an observation that we didn't see the same government scrutiny about UK ride-sharing services like Hailo (subsequently absorbed by Mytaxi) about classifying contractors as workers. UK taxi drivers are generally contractors[1] but Uber attracted the ire that other ride-sharing apps didn't. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-notice-70025-taxis-and-private-hire-cars/vat-notice-70025-taxis-and-private-hire-cars#drivers-of-taxis-and-private-hire-cars https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-notice-70025-... (EDIT: thanks for correction kbart. I was reading about Lexus and had Japan on my brain.)

kbart 9y ago
Just a nitpick, but Samsung is Korean company.
vidarh 9y ago
Hailo provided an ability for people who are largely already contractors an additional channel for bookings. The fact that these people are already operating a business and Hailo just provided an additional marketing and booking channel for them makes for a very different situation.
- jasode 9y ago
  >largely already contractors But why were they "already contractors"? Doesn't that beg the question?[1] Take a look at section 2.1 of the link I cited. Just based on the text alone, it's not obvious why that "self-employed" criteria doesn't apply to Uber. Yes, the courts are free to interpret beyond the literal text but there doesn't seem to be objective consistency to it. The traditional UK taxi companies and the other ride sharing apps all seem to be misclassifying workers. I'm not familiar with Hailo. Are you saying that a person who didn't drive a taxi before can't sign up on the Hailo platform and immediately offer their services? Did they have to be associated with a traditional taxi company first as prerequisite? In what situations would drivers prefer Hailo over Uber and vice versa? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

saas_co_de 9y ago

> US perspective i.e. perspective of country where labor laws are not actually enforced.

alistairSH 9y ago
I get the impression they are enforced, when they exist. But are less likely to exist in the first place. IE, much of the US is right-to-work with little employee protection.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Labor laws aren't rigorously enforced. Especially at low end jobs. People aren't necessarily aware of their rights and can't afford the potential disruption from filing complaints.

akhatri_aus 9y ago

What you've described is basically a zero hours employment contract, except that Uber conveniently sidesteps minimum wage by using the 'contractor' designation. I wonder if you've been sold the bill of goods reading your Uber=bad comment.

rayiner 9y ago

At least in the U.S., it's a multi-factor test, with schedule being only one part of it. Uber doesn't control when and where you work, but it definitely controls the customer relationship and quality of service. For example, it doesn't merely allow customers to rate drivers, it kicks out anyone who doesn't achieve a relatively high rating. It imposes pretty specific requirements on what kind of car you can drive. Uber's business needs are somewhat at odds with its legal case here. From a branding standpoint, Uber wants you to think of yourself as interfacing with Uber, not individual drivers. They want you to believe that if you call an Uber, you're going to get a certain level and quality of service. Contrast something like HomeAdvisor, which is undoubtedly an aggregator for contractors. Home Advisor doesn't tell its contractors what kind of equipment to use, it doesn't kick off contractors who don't achieve a 4-star rating, etc. It's explicitly marketed as a service for finding contractors, not a company that performs the service directly.

pas 9y ago
> from a branding standpoint, Uber wants you to think of yourself as interfacing with Uber, not individual drivers. That doesn't really matter. Nor is it really true, since you inevitably interact with the driver. And it's understood that drivers are humans, and they are different. McDonalds operates a franchise, you got the same thing, but still, different companies. Yes, Uber had not structured itself as a franchise, but the use of [sub]contractors to provide a service with a controlled and sort of guaranteed (and well marketed and branded) quality - in itself - doesn't make the drivers employees. I think the line between contracting and employment is up to the host society to draw. Usually tax authorities have a few simple rules and if you are in compliance of at least half of them (or if you break at least X of them), then you are a contractor (or disguised employee). For example exclusivity is important here, the rule states that if a contractor gets more than 50% of its income from one entity, then that's one strike (and there are 5 other rules). Of course it seems in UK law the drivers have standing, so it means there must be some statute about when a contractor is to be treated like employees. (For example, let's say you can't use temp workers, contractors like regular full time employees and not give them free cafeteria, if your regular employees have that perk.)
- 9y ago

IanCal 9y ago

Uber have significant control over the drivers and the way in which they work, enough to make the drivers workers but not employees. The original decision is here 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... Here's a quote someone on Reddit pulled out > Since it is essential to that case that there is no contract for the provision of transportation services between the driver and any Uber entity, the Partner Terms and the New Terms require the driver to agree that a contract for such services (whether a ‘worker’ contract or otherwise) exists between him and the passenger, and the Rider Terms contain a corresponding provision. > Uber’s case is that the driver enters into a binding agreement with a person whose identity he does not know (and will never know) and who does not know and will never know his identity, to undertake a journey to a destination not told to him until the journey begins, by a route prescribed by a stranger to the contract (UBV) from which he is not free to depart (at least not without risk), for a fee which (a) is set by the stranger, and (b) is not known by the passenger (who is only told the total to be paid), (c) is calculated by the stranger (as a percentage of the total sum) and (d) is paid to the stranger. Uber’s case has to be that if the organisation became insolvent, the drivers would have enforceable rights directly against the passengers. And if the contracts were ‘worker’ contracts, the passengers would be exposed to potential liability as the driver’s employer … The absurdity of these propositions speaks for itself.

fstuff 9y ago
Lol those conditions almost sound like a silk road darknet market transaction. In that you're making a transaction with stranger and pay the stranger