15 ms·

Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

403 points by BellLabradors 6y ago

Taurenking 6y ago
Interesting. I wonder what consequences this will have in the british market(IIRC it being one of their major hubs in Europe). I don't think they'll pull out at this point though, but will make it marginally impossible for new drivers to be accepted (unless demand increases dramatically but I don't see that happening either due to "current events")
- disiplus 6y ago
  what uber is dooing in some countries is having partner company hire a driver, so the driver does not directly work for uber but for a partner, so uber does not have a problem.
- objclxt 6y ago
  > will make it marginally impossible for new drivers to be accepted One thing worth noting is that the UK is already a little different from the US, because Uber drivers are required to have a private hire license issued by the city where you're operating. For example, in London you'd be required to have a full criminal background check, a medical examination, and pass a "topographical skills check" (basic route planning and map reading). So it wasn't like you could just apply to Uber and be up and running within a few days to begin with.
  - Taurenking 6y ago
    >So it wasn't like you could just apply to Uber and be up and running within a few days to begin with. From the way some of the drivers manage some trips I've been on, I'd say that was definitely the case ahaha
- sammorrowdrums 6y ago
  While numerous rights are afforded to citizens via employment it certainly seems that Uber and Deliveroo (and many Amazon delivery drivers) being treated as entrepreneurs is largely an excercise in depriving them of basic entitlements. I would be happy for such innovation in contract law if the provisions to protect citizens were less tied to employment. I too will be interested to see how this plays out, as I think Uber would still need to stay to maintain market position, lest they end up losing UK to a competitor. But as you point out, it will certainly make them likely to be more picky in "hiring" new drivers. I wonder if it will be a net positive for workers or not in the short and long term.
dt3ft 6y ago
The title of the article is something I'd expect to see in a comedy movie. Yet, this is real.
- bjoli 6y ago
  Why? I would argue this ruling is a good thing, since in countries with labour laws the "gig economy" seems like a great way for employers to avoid responsibility. People end up doing the same job as they did before, but with worse conditions. I applaud the gig idea in many respects. Connecting people that want services with people that want to work is positive, however I am not sure that is all Uber did. Taxi market regulation has a purpose, and doing it the way Uber does is what got us the rules in the first place.
- throwaway_19sz 6y ago
  No one suggested that driving a cab is not work. The ruling was about whether they are employed by Uber or self-employed contractors.
- Mauricebranagh 6y ago
  Sorry what exactly do you mean by this? Its a perfectly good description of what the Judgement is. For information "worker" has a specific legal meaning here its similar but not exactly the same as "employee"
AndrewDucker 6y ago
So, what next for Uber? Changed business model in the UK? Pull out entirely?
- a254613e 6y ago
  They'll probably do the same thing they did in Germany. Use subcontracting companies to handle their rides. I don't know the economic details of it for Uber, but it works and they've been using that model for a long time now.
rogual 6y ago
The court made very specific arguments: 1. Uber set the fare which meant that they dictated how much drivers could earn 2. Uber set the contract terms and drivers had no say in them 3. Request for rides is constrained by Uber who can penalise drivers if they reject too many rides 4. Uber monitors a driver's service through the star rating and has the capacity to terminate the relationship if after repeated warnings this does not improve Even if this does hurt Uber short-term, it sounds like the gig economy will be just fine, as long as companies change their behaviour with respect to the above points.
- Xunjin 6y ago
  If you look at these arguments really looks like more an employee-worker relationship instead of any other trendy word about "be your own boss"
- fallingknife 6y ago
  This doesn't make sense to me. I did some contract work a couple years ago and: 1. The company set the hourly rate which meant they dictated how much I could earn 2. The company set the contract terms 3. The company told me what features to build and could penalize me if I decided not to build some 4. The company could evaluate my performance any way they wanted and terminate the contract at any time for no cause If this company could do all of these things, which I think are pretty standard, why can't Uber?
  - apexalpha 6y ago
    If you truly are a contractor you have the opportunity to negotiate over your hourly rate and terms of works.
    - emteycz 6y ago
      No, very often it's a yes/no and there are many people in the line behind you who will take the job.
    - fallingknife 6y ago
troist 6y ago
As far as I can tell there have been similar rulings in other countries and it hasn't caused issues. Germany and Spain have fleets who take the responsibility (Cabify in Spain if you want to look it up). I assume a similar model will pop up in London, they definitely won't want to pull out of the market.
struct 6y ago
Link to the actual judgement: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0029-judgment.pdf https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0029-judgme... It’s interesting the level of control that Uber has (i.e. rejecting a driver application based on the make and model of car, renting smartphones to run the app).
- ricardobayes 6y ago
  I don't think it's bad to have high standards. Taxi companies have much higher standards on cars all around Europe.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    It's not bad at all, but the point is that in the UK, the less control you have, the more likely it is that your relationship to the company you drive for will be considered employment.
WannaFly 6y ago
They so clueless, they think that companies have a money tree and evil CEO just refuse to give them a piece of money. Uber it's an unprofitable company and workers demand more benefits, from the company that can't pay than current salary without external investments. "If we had these rights today, those drivers could at least earn a minimum wage to live on". No, you will be fired.
- 5evOX5hTZ9mYa9E 6y ago
  If your business model cannot exist without massive exploitation and perpetual VC money, then you don't have a viable business model
  - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    Companies like that don't need to have a viable business model, they just need to go public and make a few people a ton of money. They don't care whether Uber is viable, they care about how many billions they can earn off of its perceived and inflated, short-term value.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Take away the gig economy part from Uber and it becomes a regular taxi market, an industry that has been around for a hundred years already, with all the checks and balances installed already (from driver and passenger rights to ride fares to maximum amount of drivers allowed to operate in a certain area to avoid oversaturating the market). And in that environment it is not viable. Or, not viable to SF standards, in that it cannot sit on their arse and print money while their devs churn out fancy looking apps. They're competing with the local taxi company with a dozen cars and a phone number.
  - unishark 6y ago
    > Take away the gig economy part from Uber and it becomes a regular taxi market, an industry that has been around for a hundred years already, with all the checks and balances installed already (from driver and passenger rights to ride fares to maximum amount of drivers allowed to operate in a certain area to avoid oversaturating the market). Let's not forget that in that world uber drivers are unemployed while taxi drivers make more money.
habosa 6y ago
Really interested to see what this does to Deliveroo. I live in central London on a pretty busy street and it's really wild how many Deliveroo drivers there are. In front of most of the popular takeaway restaurants there are 3-5 drivers waiting at any given time. The increase in delivery and decrease in normal foot traffic during the pandemic has made this really stick out. Deliveroo already totally robs these restaurants. Even for a click and collect order where I get the food myself Deliveroo takes ~20-30%. I assume this will cause Deliveroo to either increase fees or reduce service which may inspire more restuarants to hire their own delivery people again. Overall I think this is a good thing, especially now. These gig workers have been absolutely essential to society over the past year. People have been able to safely shelter in their home while these guys (it's mostly guys) go out and take all the risks. Let's pay them.
- austhrow743 6y ago
  20-30% to not have to have a dining area and be in a trendy location sounds pretty good.
  - MatekCopatek 6y ago
    Sure, but you could always do that and be delivery-only without paying anyone. I think the service you're getting here is primarily the exposure of being on a popular platform. That and them handling the order process.
    - nebolo 6y ago
      So do it? I really don't see the problem. I get that Deliveroo puts you on their platform even if you don't agree (the apps where I live don't do this), but if that's the case the restaurant is still getting the full price for selling their food. The customer pays the extra 20%.
      - Kneecaps07 6y ago
        Some restaurant owners don't like this. It gives the impression that the restaurant is charging that extra money.
aminozuur 6y ago
"This is a win-win-win for drivers, passengers and cities. It means Uber now has the correct economic incentives not to oversupply the market with too many vehicles and too many drivers," Doesn't "oversupply" lower the prices for passengers? I myself often check the Uber price, and decide if I want to take it, or use public transport if Uber's too expensive.
- kjakm 6y ago
  Oversupply might mean lower prices (or easier to get a ride) but it also means it's almost impossible for any driver to make a living. That leaves you with drivers who can only drive part time/as a second job while old fashioned full-time/one job taxi drivers slowly get driven out of the market. What's good for some consumers isn't always good for society.
  - saddlerustle 6y ago
    Who decides which drivers are allowed to drive and which should get no income at all?
    - nemo44x 6y ago
      They’ll form a union and distribute work based on seniority so anyone young and ambitious but without union connections is blocked out.
      - pmyteh 6y ago
        Just FWIW this isn't at all how British unions work. Closed shops are illegal and workers are selected by the employer, not by the union. Seniority might come into play if a workplace with a union recognition agreement wants to implement redundancies, but even then the old 'last in, first out' principle is rarely used because employers would normally rather shed their expensive older workers.
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  >Doesn't "oversupply" lower the prices for passengers? If oversupply means drivers have to work very long hours to make a living, they're more likely to be tired and thus get in to an accident with me in the car.
stickupkid 6y ago
I wonder if they'll try and make[1] Uber drivers opt out of the maximum weekly working time limit and would they even be paid for overtime? 1. Officially your employer can't make you opt out.
lordnacho 6y ago
I don't know anything about how the law works, but it seems to accord with the reality of how people tend to think of jobs. Have you ever met an Uber driver who didn't give the impression that this was what he did all the time? I haven't, though I imagine not everyone is full time. It's quite a way from the idea that anyone with a car can give someone else a ride. For instance, I've never met a driver who happened to be going where I was going, or someone who thought they'd just make few extra bucks on their day off. They must exist but it seems to not be the norm. At the same time, we're shoehorning old ideas of what's work into a modern setting, because it's reasonably quick to become a driver, and communications with the employer are minimal. Uber doesn't seem like the kind of firm where drivers might have a teambuilding excursion, though perhaps I'm wrong.
- hef19898 6y ago
  So Uber really is more like a huge Taxi company with freelance drivers and an app.
- refurb 6y ago
  Is whether someone “does it all day” a factor in determining if they are a employee versus contractor? Plenty of contractors work all day long.
  - gjulianm 6y ago
    But most contractors don't work all day long, all days for the same client though. That's the point.
    - refurb 6y ago
      Is the client Uber or the rider? In my corporate job I work with contractors who do full time for us for months at a time. They were paid by a placement agency, but we are the client.
      - gjulianm 6y ago
        If the contractors who do full time work are paid by a placement agency to be a full-time employee, that's possibly fraud... In the case of Uber, it's very clear that the contractors work for Uber, as it's Uber the one that sets the conditions of the job.
garyclarke27 6y ago
Not sure if this still allows Uber to use Zero Hour employment contacts? Probably. These are controversial in the UK but still legal, and seems to me like a way for Uber to have it both ways apart from having to pay minimum wage.
- Mauricebranagh 6y ago
  I have worked on zero hour contracts and we got an enhanced rate compared to full timers doing the same job to cover this.
maxehmookau 6y ago
Of course they are. Everyone knows this. Uber just had good enough lawyers to put this moment off for as long as possible. They had to know it was coming.
- rrrazdan 6y ago
  I don’t know this. I have chatted with plenty of Uber drivers who are part timers who don’t know this or think this way about them as well.
  - maxehmookau 6y ago
    You can be a part-time worker and still be protected by your employer and paid a minimum wage for your labor.
refraincomment 6y ago
Uber drivers pay next to no taxes at the moment.. A chat with with them will confirm it. They don't pay VAT (revenue under 80k). They are self-employed, so corporate tax does not apply. They pay a 10% in National insurance. And on income they pay for the 10k to 30k tier, at 20%. Compare this with a normal company hiring staff. Tax burden doubles just with addition of VAT.
- bluesign 6y ago
  how can VAT be related to drivers tax? VAT is taken from customer and going to government directly.
gpmcadam 6y ago
Every Uber driver I speak to tells me how they prefer Uber to their previous job of a cabbie for a firm, they get flexibility, set their own hours and choose when to work Now they’re all permanent employees of Uber will they lose this flexibility? If some drivers weren’t happy with the status quo, why not take their skills and work for another firm?
- baq 6y ago
  i'm confident the only thing that needs changing now is uber paying more tax.
- ricardobayes 6y ago
  This is probably a politically fuelled ruling. Boris Johnson wants to 'appeal to the masses' by making high-visibility rules like these, which sound good on paper but probably do more harm than good.
  - HatchedLake721 6y ago
    What's Boris has to do with this? It's the Supreme Court's decision, not Cabinet's. The same Supreme court who ruled that Boris Johnson broke the law by suspending the parliament.
    - ricardobayes 6y ago
      I would argue judicial independence would only exist in a scenario if the judge is not human, but a rule-based bot.
      - pmyteh 6y ago
        The judges are definitely human, but their biases are very strongly those of the judicial system, not those of the executive. They're all well-off lawyers, and mostly privately educated, white, and male - so there is an 'establishment' tinge to their viewpoints (though individual judges vary widely). But as far as politics goes, the predominant view is that justice is (and judges are) important, not that the government should have any particular influence. For a small example, there was a recent case where an MP of the governing party (Charlie Elphicke) was convicted of sexual assault. As part of the sentencing process, defendants can submit character references ("He's a hugely charitable, reliable, all round good person and this offence is entirely out of character", that kind of thing) and several Conservative MPs sent them on his behalf, but asked for them to be kept confidential (presumably to avoid political damage at the upcoming election). The judiciary were having none of it. The trial judge released the letters anyway, and the Lord Chief Justice (head of the criminal courts) rebuked the MPs for trying to influence the decision of a judge.[0] And this for something (character references) which are pretty mundane. They really do not like bowing to political whims. [0]: https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/character-references-criminal-trials-are-not-confidential-and-should-be-released-media https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/character-references-cr...
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 6y ago
There are apps that do everything Uber does except they don't handle the payments - pax pays the driver directly, in cash or by card via QR code. So the company does not transfer any money to the driver. It would be nearly impossible to argue the driver is an employee in this case. Sure, it's harder to collect commissions with this arrangement, but it's possible.
secfirstmd 6y ago
Hopefully this will spread to other companies. IR35 in the UK is a very good law when enforced (usually against small businesses rather than big ones unfoet) for cutting through bullshit contract statuses that are designed to dodge employment taxes/benefits. I hope it's extended to bigger companies and elsewhere. I know for example in Ireland lots of big companies like Facebook, Google etc have staff on 11 month contracts through third party firms in order to dodge employment law and taxes...it's ridiculous when those roles are assigned to those companies and have been the same roles for yeara
- Mauricebranagh 6y ago
  No its not - why should some one doing a 9 month cover for maternity leave be treated as an employee. When "self employed" lawyers can work on the same case for years. Note that ir35 is not uniformly applied - unfortunately its bad employers like Uber et all that fuck it up for professionals like us.
  - secfirstmd 6y ago
    That's different. FAANG has thousands of contractors doing roles that are internal and integral to their company deliberately on 11 month contracts and then rolling them over. The same positions existing for years and not meeting IR35 requirements. What you describe is totally something else.
    - Mauricebranagh 6y ago
      That would be in the USA where yes this is absolutely disguised employment. But in the UK if say came in and did a 1 year engagement to sort out a major brands web presence - I would be considered inside ir35 (unless of course I was mate of Dominic Cummings)
blippage 6y ago
Whenever I hear the words "gig economy", I mentally substitute the words "shite economy". It's basically just low-paid shite that is exploitative. A few years back I came across a site that was looking for technical writers. They'd be editors, and you'd have to rework bits that they weren't pleased with. You'd give them the copyright, too. Yeah, right, like I'm going to write a book for a grand and let them have exclusive rights to it. I felt like writing back to these clowns telling me that they were insulting my intelligence. I would rather write documentation and give away for free than accept their terms. (I do do the odd bit of tech writing, strictly small-scale amateur stuff, of course).
fallingfrog 6y ago
This is great news, hopefully we get some similar protections in the United States. Labor laws exist for a reason. I think the key difference is ownership- if you own everything you need to do a job- the “means of production”- maybe you’re an independent contractor. But if you don’t own the network and you are reliant on some organization for the work then I think that makes you an employee. I’ll admit that there is some grey area in between. But basically there is an unbalanced power relationship between an employer and employee that makes labor laws necessary. The whole business model of Uber and other gig economy businesses is to save money on labor costs by hacking labor laws.
rorykoehler 6y ago
The world would be a lot better if we had a reasonable minimum economic floor and unrestricted zero hours at will employment. We're band-aiding over artificial problems we created for ourselves instead of actually redesigning policy and law to fit 21st century technology and the opportunities it presents.
- cloudfifty 6y ago
  What recent technological changes mandates reverting labour laws? To me that argument just sounds like throwing some buzzword in front of legislators that are scared of being perceived as obsolete.
  - rorykoehler 6y ago
    We need to unburden ourselves of having so many laws. Especially laws that are to fix inherent flaws of our economic system design. Better to change the systems design. Labour laws are only necessary because most people are in dire financial straits if they aren’t working. Give people the power to turn down employment without risking ruin and the whole power dynamic that makes these labour laws necessary goes away.
    - cloudfifty 6y ago
      If what you are referring to is a proper UBI that covers all necessities I would agree with you. But that would indeed change the power dynamic radically in favour of workers so I'm not sure how that would be passed without more or less a revolution.
      - ChrisKingWebDev 6y ago
        Revolution it is then!
ElectricMind 6y ago
I think Uber should shut down UK business. Already I saw in India, union of drivers creating havoc on roads for greed of money. If this rules goes global, Uber will be in lot of mess.
ausbah 6y ago
when your business model classifies paying workers fair wages and normal benefits as a "risk", your company shouldn't exist
- gruez 6y ago
  I don't understand this logic. Surely having a job is better than no job? The fact that they're choosing to work with uber in the first place probably means there's no better job available, so getting rid of uber or that type of job would result in the worker being worse off.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
Uber as a company has really seen a variety of semantics challenges to laws in various jurisdictions that really show how much many legal frameworks can be issues of semantics until the courts settle the semantic debates. There is little doubt in my mind that a different court, and most of all a court whose members have different political leanings, would have settled the semantics debate differently given the exact same letter of the law.
zthrowaway 6y ago
Did we all forget Uber operates at a massive revenue loss every year? This whole thread is filled with virtuous cheering yet not realizing Uber isn’t an endless stream of money. This will impact their business severely if it happens in the US. They will basically cease to exist, or become as shitty as regular taxi services where you have to wait an hour for one. I remember when everyone on here cheered that they were disrupting the taxi system and making it better. For some reason we want now hold them to the rules of that legacy industry, and the cost of such will change what made them popular to begin with. All with the virtuous idea of defending the drivers. You aren’t helping the drivers, you’re going to hurt them the most.
- anonymousab 6y ago
  >They will basically cease to exist If their business is unprofitable even with their exploitation of workers, then it was never a viable business to begin with. There are endless potential businesses that would become equally VC cash-vacuum-viable with specific worker deregulations and affordances. We do not do so simply because we see those values and protections as more important to societal good than those businesses (and their jobs) existing. If Uber ends up joining that set then so be it.
- 1986 6y ago
  My understanding was that Uber is profitable in many of its markets. Furthermore that in those markets where they are not yet profitable, this is largely due to spending on incentives, marketing, etc in order to grow the network (on both sides of the market). That being said, if Uber truly can only be profitable by breaking the law, or by creating its own laws (Prop 22), perhaps it doesn't deserve to do so.
- JamesSwift 6y ago
  If there is a real demand for what they do then the market will absorb the drivers. If that demand is actually just artificial because of VC subsidized rides, then it will not. This is not a moral dilemma.
eplanit 6y ago
I guess the idea of independence and self direction in work is antithetical to a socialist Nanny-state like the UK. Too bad for them, and uber. If they (uber et al) can game this so that one can actually have a gig economy in the uk, that'll be great. Otherwise, I guess the old models of taxi companies and self delivery can be used just like they were for decades. Only the UK will lose in the long run.
strictnein 6y ago
> Will we pay more for Uber rides? > That remains to be seen, but it could potentially happen. It's weird that they answered it that way, even ignoring the double weasel words in use. The answer is clearly yes.
SllX 6y ago
Off topic: You know, I know it’s a new institution, but has Her Majesty’s Supreme Court adopted a useful acronym yet? SCOTUK or HMSC perhaps?
sn_master 6y ago
Please put UK Supreme Court in the title. If this was the US Supreme court, the implications would be way higher for Uber.
dennis_jeeves 6y ago
Another blow for the free market. Now we just have to wait for the unintended consequences. Just like minimum wage laws are put in with good intent but will backfire, so will this decision.
- phatfish 6y ago
  The UK has had a national minimum wage since 1998. The only significant "blow" to the free market i can think of happened in 2008 with the proof that millionaire bankers have no accountability and will have their jobs saved by the state, no matter the cost.
ggm 6y ago
(From a flagged duplicate i submitted) It was a six nil unanimous decision. It back dates to 2016. They may be liable for millions in compensation. Workers are not employees but have more rights than independent contractors. Declaration: i hate uber and refuse to use them for myself, I've never run the app. I have nothing against the drivers who seem nice people. The company is a scofflaw, and sucks income and driver renumeration into a Californian VC suck hole. I know the taxi industry was broken before Uber. Somebody then asked "how does it suck money, its never been in profit" to which i want to reply, its valued at $100b, it has $25b of assets and 11b of revenue, and its using transfer pricing and intellectual property law to suck money out of every economy worldwide. The VCs and principals must be laughing themselves sick because by the time it falls over their WORST outcome is billions, not tens of billions, of retained value, to them. They won. To me, this is a nail in the coffin of the gig economy. Its fundamentally flawed. It's bad, it marginalised people, killed people, and broke the law.
ApoorvaG 6y ago
https://www.igmguru.com/data-science-bi/msbi-certification-training/ https://www.igmguru.com/data-science-bi/msbi-certification-t...
nnurmanov 6y ago
This actually raises questions regarding validity of whole delivery economy. In this article they say about bad working conditions, no insurance, no work hours or vacations. Should the delivery companies be regulated? https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/world/amp-stories/food-delivery-dangers-china/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/world/amp-stori...

403 points by BellLabradors 6y ago

Interesting. I wonder what consequences this will have in the british market(IIRC it being one of their major hubs in Europe). I don't think they'll pull out at this point though, but will make it marginally impossible for new drivers to be accepted (unless demand increases dramatically but I don't see that happening either due to "current events")

disiplus 6y ago
what uber is dooing in some countries is having partner company hire a driver, so the driver does not directly work for uber but for a partner, so uber does not have a problem.
objclxt 6y ago
> will make it marginally impossible for new drivers to be accepted One thing worth noting is that the UK is already a little different from the US, because Uber drivers are required to have a private hire license issued by the city where you're operating. For example, in London you'd be required to have a full criminal background check, a medical examination, and pass a "topographical skills check" (basic route planning and map reading). So it wasn't like you could just apply to Uber and be up and running within a few days to begin with.
- Taurenking 6y ago
  >So it wasn't like you could just apply to Uber and be up and running within a few days to begin with. From the way some of the drivers manage some trips I've been on, I'd say that was definitely the case ahaha
sammorrowdrums 6y ago
While numerous rights are afforded to citizens via employment it certainly seems that Uber and Deliveroo (and many Amazon delivery drivers) being treated as entrepreneurs is largely an excercise in depriving them of basic entitlements. I would be happy for such innovation in contract law if the provisions to protect citizens were less tied to employment. I too will be interested to see how this plays out, as I think Uber would still need to stay to maintain market position, lest they end up losing UK to a competitor. But as you point out, it will certainly make them likely to be more picky in "hiring" new drivers. I wonder if it will be a net positive for workers or not in the short and long term.

dt3ft 6y ago

The title of the article is something I'd expect to see in a comedy movie. Yet, this is real.

bjoli 6y ago
Why? I would argue this ruling is a good thing, since in countries with labour laws the "gig economy" seems like a great way for employers to avoid responsibility. People end up doing the same job as they did before, but with worse conditions. I applaud the gig idea in many respects. Connecting people that want services with people that want to work is positive, however I am not sure that is all Uber did. Taxi market regulation has a purpose, and doing it the way Uber does is what got us the rules in the first place.
throwaway_19sz 6y ago
No one suggested that driving a cab is not work. The ruling was about whether they are employed by Uber or self-employed contractors.
Mauricebranagh 6y ago
Sorry what exactly do you mean by this? Its a perfectly good description of what the Judgement is. For information "worker" has a specific legal meaning here its similar but not exactly the same as "employee"

AndrewDucker 6y ago

So, what next for Uber? Changed business model in the UK? Pull out entirely?

a254613e 6y ago
They'll probably do the same thing they did in Germany. Use subcontracting companies to handle their rides. I don't know the economic details of it for Uber, but it works and they've been using that model for a long time now.

rogual 6y ago

The court made very specific arguments: 1. Uber set the fare which meant that they dictated how much drivers could earn 2. Uber set the contract terms and drivers had no say in them 3. Request for rides is constrained by Uber who can penalise drivers if they reject too many rides 4. Uber monitors a driver's service through the star rating and has the capacity to terminate the relationship if after repeated warnings this does not improve Even if this does hurt Uber short-term, it sounds like the gig economy will be just fine, as long as companies change their behaviour with respect to the above points.

Xunjin 6y ago
If you look at these arguments really looks like more an employee-worker relationship instead of any other trendy word about "be your own boss"
fallingknife 6y ago
This doesn't make sense to me. I did some contract work a couple years ago and: 1. The company set the hourly rate which meant they dictated how much I could earn 2. The company set the contract terms 3. The company told me what features to build and could penalize me if I decided not to build some 4. The company could evaluate my performance any way they wanted and terminate the contract at any time for no cause If this company could do all of these things, which I think are pretty standard, why can't Uber?
- apexalpha 6y ago
  If you truly are a contractor you have the opportunity to negotiate over your hourly rate and terms of works.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    No, very often it's a yes/no and there are many people in the line behind you who will take the job.
  - fallingknife 6y ago

troist 6y ago

As far as I can tell there have been similar rulings in other countries and it hasn't caused issues. Germany and Spain have fleets who take the responsibility (Cabify in Spain if you want to look it up). I assume a similar model will pop up in London, they definitely won't want to pull out of the market.

struct 6y ago

Link to the actual judgement: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0029-judgment.pdf https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0029-judgme... It’s interesting the level of control that Uber has (i.e. rejecting a driver application based on the make and model of car, renting smartphones to run the app).

ricardobayes 6y ago
I don't think it's bad to have high standards. Taxi companies have much higher standards on cars all around Europe.
- vidarh 6y ago
  It's not bad at all, but the point is that in the UK, the less control you have, the more likely it is that your relationship to the company you drive for will be considered employment.

WannaFly 6y ago

They so clueless, they think that companies have a money tree and evil CEO just refuse to give them a piece of money. Uber it's an unprofitable company and workers demand more benefits, from the company that can't pay than current salary without external investments. "If we had these rights today, those drivers could at least earn a minimum wage to live on". No, you will be fired.

5evOX5hTZ9mYa9E 6y ago
If your business model cannot exist without massive exploitation and perpetual VC money, then you don't have a viable business model
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Companies like that don't need to have a viable business model, they just need to go public and make a few people a ton of money. They don't care whether Uber is viable, they care about how many billions they can earn off of its perceived and inflated, short-term value.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
Take away the gig economy part from Uber and it becomes a regular taxi market, an industry that has been around for a hundred years already, with all the checks and balances installed already (from driver and passenger rights to ride fares to maximum amount of drivers allowed to operate in a certain area to avoid oversaturating the market). And in that environment it is not viable. Or, not viable to SF standards, in that it cannot sit on their arse and print money while their devs churn out fancy looking apps. They're competing with the local taxi company with a dozen cars and a phone number.
- unishark 6y ago
  > Take away the gig economy part from Uber and it becomes a regular taxi market, an industry that has been around for a hundred years already, with all the checks and balances installed already (from driver and passenger rights to ride fares to maximum amount of drivers allowed to operate in a certain area to avoid oversaturating the market). Let's not forget that in that world uber drivers are unemployed while taxi drivers make more money.

habosa 6y ago

Really interested to see what this does to Deliveroo. I live in central London on a pretty busy street and it's really wild how many Deliveroo drivers there are. In front of most of the popular takeaway restaurants there are 3-5 drivers waiting at any given time. The increase in delivery and decrease in normal foot traffic during the pandemic has made this really stick out. Deliveroo already totally robs these restaurants. Even for a click and collect order where I get the food myself Deliveroo takes ~20-30%. I assume this will cause Deliveroo to either increase fees or reduce service which may inspire more restuarants to hire their own delivery people again. Overall I think this is a good thing, especially now. These gig workers have been absolutely essential to society over the past year. People have been able to safely shelter in their home while these guys (it's mostly guys) go out and take all the risks. Let's pay them.

austhrow743 6y ago
20-30% to not have to have a dining area and be in a trendy location sounds pretty good.
- MatekCopatek 6y ago
  Sure, but you could always do that and be delivery-only without paying anyone. I think the service you're getting here is primarily the exposure of being on a popular platform. That and them handling the order process.
  - nebolo 6y ago
    So do it? I really don't see the problem. I get that Deliveroo puts you on their platform even if you don't agree (the apps where I live don't do this), but if that's the case the restaurant is still getting the full price for selling their food. The customer pays the extra 20%.
    - Kneecaps07 6y ago
      Some restaurant owners don't like this. It gives the impression that the restaurant is charging that extra money.

aminozuur 6y ago

"This is a win-win-win for drivers, passengers and cities. It means Uber now has the correct economic incentives not to oversupply the market with too many vehicles and too many drivers," Doesn't "oversupply" lower the prices for passengers? I myself often check the Uber price, and decide if I want to take it, or use public transport if Uber's too expensive.

kjakm 6y ago
Oversupply might mean lower prices (or easier to get a ride) but it also means it's almost impossible for any driver to make a living. That leaves you with drivers who can only drive part time/as a second job while old fashioned full-time/one job taxi drivers slowly get driven out of the market. What's good for some consumers isn't always good for society.
- saddlerustle 6y ago
  Who decides which drivers are allowed to drive and which should get no income at all?
  - nemo44x 6y ago
    They’ll form a union and distribute work based on seniority so anyone young and ambitious but without union connections is blocked out.
    - pmyteh 6y ago
      Just FWIW this isn't at all how British unions work. Closed shops are illegal and workers are selected by the employer, not by the union. Seniority might come into play if a workplace with a union recognition agreement wants to implement redundancies, but even then the old 'last in, first out' principle is rarely used because employers would normally rather shed their expensive older workers.
M2Ys4U 6y ago
>Doesn't "oversupply" lower the prices for passengers? If oversupply means drivers have to work very long hours to make a living, they're more likely to be tired and thus get in to an accident with me in the car.

stickupkid 6y ago

I wonder if they'll try and make[1] Uber drivers opt out of the maximum weekly working time limit and would they even be paid for overtime? 1. Officially your employer can't make you opt out.

lordnacho 6y ago

I don't know anything about how the law works, but it seems to accord with the reality of how people tend to think of jobs. Have you ever met an Uber driver who didn't give the impression that this was what he did all the time? I haven't, though I imagine not everyone is full time. It's quite a way from the idea that anyone with a car can give someone else a ride. For instance, I've never met a driver who happened to be going where I was going, or someone who thought they'd just make few extra bucks on their day off. They must exist but it seems to not be the norm. At the same time, we're shoehorning old ideas of what's work into a modern setting, because it's reasonably quick to become a driver, and communications with the employer are minimal. Uber doesn't seem like the kind of firm where drivers might have a teambuilding excursion, though perhaps I'm wrong.

hef19898 6y ago
So Uber really is more like a huge Taxi company with freelance drivers and an app.
refurb 6y ago
Is whether someone “does it all day” a factor in determining if they are a employee versus contractor? Plenty of contractors work all day long.
- gjulianm 6y ago
  But most contractors don't work all day long, all days for the same client though. That's the point.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Is the client Uber or the rider? In my corporate job I work with contractors who do full time for us for months at a time. They were paid by a placement agency, but we are the client.
    - gjulianm 6y ago
      If the contractors who do full time work are paid by a placement agency to be a full-time employee, that's possibly fraud... In the case of Uber, it's very clear that the contractors work for Uber, as it's Uber the one that sets the conditions of the job.

garyclarke27 6y ago

Not sure if this still allows Uber to use Zero Hour employment contacts? Probably. These are controversial in the UK but still legal, and seems to me like a way for Uber to have it both ways apart from having to pay minimum wage.

Mauricebranagh 6y ago
I have worked on zero hour contracts and we got an enhanced rate compared to full timers doing the same job to cover this.

maxehmookau 6y ago

Of course they are. Everyone knows this. Uber just had good enough lawyers to put this moment off for as long as possible. They had to know it was coming.

rrrazdan 6y ago
I don’t know this. I have chatted with plenty of Uber drivers who are part timers who don’t know this or think this way about them as well.
- maxehmookau 6y ago
  You can be a part-time worker and still be protected by your employer and paid a minimum wage for your labor.

refraincomment 6y ago

Uber drivers pay next to no taxes at the moment.. A chat with with them will confirm it. They don't pay VAT (revenue under 80k). They are self-employed, so corporate tax does not apply. They pay a 10% in National insurance. And on income they pay for the 10k to 30k tier, at 20%. Compare this with a normal company hiring staff. Tax burden doubles just with addition of VAT.

bluesign 6y ago
how can VAT be related to drivers tax? VAT is taken from customer and going to government directly.

gpmcadam 6y ago

Every Uber driver I speak to tells me how they prefer Uber to their previous job of a cabbie for a firm, they get flexibility, set their own hours and choose when to work Now they’re all permanent employees of Uber will they lose this flexibility? If some drivers weren’t happy with the status quo, why not take their skills and work for another firm?

baq 6y ago
i'm confident the only thing that needs changing now is uber paying more tax.
ricardobayes 6y ago
This is probably a politically fuelled ruling. Boris Johnson wants to 'appeal to the masses' by making high-visibility rules like these, which sound good on paper but probably do more harm than good.
- HatchedLake721 6y ago
  What's Boris has to do with this? It's the Supreme Court's decision, not Cabinet's. The same Supreme court who ruled that Boris Johnson broke the law by suspending the parliament.
  - ricardobayes 6y ago
    I would argue judicial independence would only exist in a scenario if the judge is not human, but a rule-based bot.
    - pmyteh 6y ago
      The judges are definitely human, but their biases are very strongly those of the judicial system, not those of the executive. They're all well-off lawyers, and mostly privately educated, white, and male - so there is an 'establishment' tinge to their viewpoints (though individual judges vary widely). But as far as politics goes, the predominant view is that justice is (and judges are) important, not that the government should have any particular influence. For a small example, there was a recent case where an MP of the governing party (Charlie Elphicke) was convicted of sexual assault. As part of the sentencing process, defendants can submit character references ("He's a hugely charitable, reliable, all round good person and this offence is entirely out of character", that kind of thing) and several Conservative MPs sent them on his behalf, but asked for them to be kept confidential (presumably to avoid political damage at the upcoming election). The judiciary were having none of it. The trial judge released the letters anyway, and the Lord Chief Justice (head of the criminal courts) rebuked the MPs for trying to influence the decision of a judge.[0] And this for something (character references) which are pretty mundane. They really do not like bowing to political whims. [0]: https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/character-references-criminal-trials-are-not-confidential-and-should-be-released-media https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/character-references-cr...

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 6y ago

There are apps that do everything Uber does except they don't handle the payments - pax pays the driver directly, in cash or by card via QR code. So the company does not transfer any money to the driver. It would be nearly impossible to argue the driver is an employee in this case. Sure, it's harder to collect commissions with this arrangement, but it's possible.

secfirstmd 6y ago

Hopefully this will spread to other companies. IR35 in the UK is a very good law when enforced (usually against small businesses rather than big ones unfoet) for cutting through bullshit contract statuses that are designed to dodge employment taxes/benefits. I hope it's extended to bigger companies and elsewhere. I know for example in Ireland lots of big companies like Facebook, Google etc have staff on 11 month contracts through third party firms in order to dodge employment law and taxes...it's ridiculous when those roles are assigned to those companies and have been the same roles for yeara

Mauricebranagh 6y ago
No its not - why should some one doing a 9 month cover for maternity leave be treated as an employee. When "self employed" lawyers can work on the same case for years. Note that ir35 is not uniformly applied - unfortunately its bad employers like Uber et all that fuck it up for professionals like us.
- secfirstmd 6y ago
  That's different. FAANG has thousands of contractors doing roles that are internal and integral to their company deliberately on 11 month contracts and then rolling them over. The same positions existing for years and not meeting IR35 requirements. What you describe is totally something else.
  - Mauricebranagh 6y ago
    That would be in the USA where yes this is absolutely disguised employment. But in the UK if say came in and did a 1 year engagement to sort out a major brands web presence - I would be considered inside ir35 (unless of course I was mate of Dominic Cummings)

blippage 6y ago

Whenever I hear the words "gig economy", I mentally substitute the words "shite economy". It's basically just low-paid shite that is exploitative. A few years back I came across a site that was looking for technical writers. They'd be editors, and you'd have to rework bits that they weren't pleased with. You'd give them the copyright, too. Yeah, right, like I'm going to write a book for a grand and let them have exclusive rights to it. I felt like writing back to these clowns telling me that they were insulting my intelligence. I would rather write documentation and give away for free than accept their terms. (I do do the odd bit of tech writing, strictly small-scale amateur stuff, of course).

fallingfrog 6y ago

This is great news, hopefully we get some similar protections in the United States. Labor laws exist for a reason. I think the key difference is ownership- if you own everything you need to do a job- the “means of production”- maybe you’re an independent contractor. But if you don’t own the network and you are reliant on some organization for the work then I think that makes you an employee. I’ll admit that there is some grey area in between. But basically there is an unbalanced power relationship between an employer and employee that makes labor laws necessary. The whole business model of Uber and other gig economy businesses is to save money on labor costs by hacking labor laws.

rorykoehler 6y ago

The world would be a lot better if we had a reasonable minimum economic floor and unrestricted zero hours at will employment. We're band-aiding over artificial problems we created for ourselves instead of actually redesigning policy and law to fit 21st century technology and the opportunities it presents.

cloudfifty 6y ago
What recent technological changes mandates reverting labour laws? To me that argument just sounds like throwing some buzzword in front of legislators that are scared of being perceived as obsolete.
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  We need to unburden ourselves of having so many laws. Especially laws that are to fix inherent flaws of our economic system design. Better to change the systems design. Labour laws are only necessary because most people are in dire financial straits if they aren’t working. Give people the power to turn down employment without risking ruin and the whole power dynamic that makes these labour laws necessary goes away.
  - cloudfifty 6y ago
    If what you are referring to is a proper UBI that covers all necessities I would agree with you. But that would indeed change the power dynamic radically in favour of workers so I'm not sure how that would be passed without more or less a revolution.
    - ChrisKingWebDev 6y ago
      Revolution it is then!

ElectricMind 6y ago

I think Uber should shut down UK business. Already I saw in India, union of drivers creating havoc on roads for greed of money. If this rules goes global, Uber will be in lot of mess.

ausbah 6y ago

when your business model classifies paying workers fair wages and normal benefits as a "risk", your company shouldn't exist

gruez 6y ago
I don't understand this logic. Surely having a job is better than no job? The fact that they're choosing to work with uber in the first place probably means there's no better job available, so getting rid of uber or that type of job would result in the worker being worse off.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

Uber as a company has really seen a variety of semantics challenges to laws in various jurisdictions that really show how much many legal frameworks can be issues of semantics until the courts settle the semantic debates. There is little doubt in my mind that a different court, and most of all a court whose members have different political leanings, would have settled the semantics debate differently given the exact same letter of the law.

zthrowaway 6y ago

Did we all forget Uber operates at a massive revenue loss every year? This whole thread is filled with virtuous cheering yet not realizing Uber isn’t an endless stream of money. This will impact their business severely if it happens in the US. They will basically cease to exist, or become as shitty as regular taxi services where you have to wait an hour for one. I remember when everyone on here cheered that they were disrupting the taxi system and making it better. For some reason we want now hold them to the rules of that legacy industry, and the cost of such will change what made them popular to begin with. All with the virtuous idea of defending the drivers. You aren’t helping the drivers, you’re going to hurt them the most.

anonymousab 6y ago
>They will basically cease to exist If their business is unprofitable even with their exploitation of workers, then it was never a viable business to begin with. There are endless potential businesses that would become equally VC cash-vacuum-viable with specific worker deregulations and affordances. We do not do so simply because we see those values and protections as more important to societal good than those businesses (and their jobs) existing. If Uber ends up joining that set then so be it.
1986 6y ago
My understanding was that Uber is profitable in many of its markets. Furthermore that in those markets where they are not yet profitable, this is largely due to spending on incentives, marketing, etc in order to grow the network (on both sides of the market). That being said, if Uber truly can only be profitable by breaking the law, or by creating its own laws (Prop 22), perhaps it doesn't deserve to do so.
JamesSwift 6y ago
If there is a real demand for what they do then the market will absorb the drivers. If that demand is actually just artificial because of VC subsidized rides, then it will not. This is not a moral dilemma.

eplanit 6y ago

I guess the idea of independence and self direction in work is antithetical to a socialist Nanny-state like the UK. Too bad for them, and uber. If they (uber et al) can game this so that one can actually have a gig economy in the uk, that'll be great. Otherwise, I guess the old models of taxi companies and self delivery can be used just like they were for decades. Only the UK will lose in the long run.

strictnein 6y ago

> Will we pay more for Uber rides? > That remains to be seen, but it could potentially happen. It's weird that they answered it that way, even ignoring the double weasel words in use. The answer is clearly yes.

SllX 6y ago

Off topic: You know, I know it’s a new institution, but has Her Majesty’s Supreme Court adopted a useful acronym yet? SCOTUK or HMSC perhaps?

sn_master 6y ago

Please put UK Supreme Court in the title. If this was the US Supreme court, the implications would be way higher for Uber.

dennis_jeeves 6y ago

Another blow for the free market. Now we just have to wait for the unintended consequences. Just like minimum wage laws are put in with good intent but will backfire, so will this decision.

phatfish 6y ago
The UK has had a national minimum wage since 1998. The only significant "blow" to the free market i can think of happened in 2008 with the proof that millionaire bankers have no accountability and will have their jobs saved by the state, no matter the cost.

ggm 6y ago

(From a flagged duplicate i submitted) It was a six nil unanimous decision. It back dates to 2016. They may be liable for millions in compensation. Workers are not employees but have more rights than independent contractors. Declaration: i hate uber and refuse to use them for myself, I've never run the app. I have nothing against the drivers who seem nice people. The company is a scofflaw, and sucks income and driver renumeration into a Californian VC suck hole. I know the taxi industry was broken before Uber. Somebody then asked "how does it suck money, its never been in profit" to which i want to reply, its valued at $100b, it has $25b of assets and 11b of revenue, and its using transfer pricing and intellectual property law to suck money out of every economy worldwide. The VCs and principals must be laughing themselves sick because by the time it falls over their WORST outcome is billions, not tens of billions, of retained value, to them. They won. To me, this is a nail in the coffin of the gig economy. Its fundamentally flawed. It's bad, it marginalised people, killed people, and broke the law.

ApoorvaG 6y ago

https://www.igmguru.com/data-science-bi/msbi-certification-training/ https://www.igmguru.com/data-science-bi/msbi-certification-t...

nnurmanov 6y ago

This actually raises questions regarding validity of whole delivery economy. In this article they say about bad working conditions, no insurance, no work hours or vacations. Should the delivery companies be regulated? https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/world/amp-stories/food-delivery-dangers-china/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/world/amp-stori...