7 ms·

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 driv

by 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
    I did have that opportunity, as does an Uber driver. But, as is the case in any negotiation, the counterparty has the right to hold firm on the price.
    - namdnay 6y ago
      An Uber driver has no opportunity to negotiate the rate with the customer. If in the app you said "I want to go to the airport" and then each driver interested replied with a quote, that would be rate negotiation.
      - emteycz 6y ago
        You're negotiating with Uber, not with customers. Uber says take it or leave it, and you can work with another company if it has better terms/rate.
        vidarh 6y ago
        Uber pretends you're working for the customer, not them. That is a key element in their attempt to pretend they're not an employer.
        emteycz 6y ago
        Negotiating with Uber, not working for Uber. Uber is a middleman/platform connecting customers with providers, guaranteeing terms of contract to both parties. It works just the same with most IT contracting firms (and the same is true in other sectors too - construction, medical, etc).
        vidarh 6y ago
        A lot of IT contracting firms in the UK have in recent years had to drastically change their practices exactly because ensuring a contract does not create a relationship that would be deemed to be an employment relationship has gotten progressively harder, exactly because it was being massively abused, so this is a very poor argument in the UK. The lack of ability to negotiate prices - be it with a middleman or the actual customer - is one of several tests to that points strongly towards an employee relationship, whether you're a driver or an IT contractor. I'll note that I see you say elsewhere you're an IT contractor. If you're an IT contractor in the UK, I presume you've had to answer questions about IR35. If you haven't, then you really should have a discussion about IR35 with your accountant, because get that wrong and you risk facing a massive tax bill.
- TomGullen 6y ago
  The difference is yours would of been a short defined period, Uber is open ended. You would be entitled to sick pay, holiday etc if you are a worker in effect (if the contract is too long).
  - fallingknife 6y ago
    It ended up being several months, but the contract was actually written as open ended until notice of termination was given by either party.
    - vidarh 6y ago
      Sounds very likely it could have been deemed employment if it had lasted long enough and been taken to a tribunal (or if HMRC found out, this significantly increases the likelihood they'd find it to be within IR35). That it only lasted "several months" would reduce the chance, but if you'd e.g. stayed longer than a year, odds would increase accordingly.
- emteycz 6y ago
  I'm IT contractor and this is exactly how it works.
- kjakm 6y ago
  >> 1. The company set the hourly rate which meant they dictated how much I could earn This rate would have been negotiated by you. You then agreed to a specific rate. The price of Uber rides varies based on demand so the driver doesn't know the price in advance + even if they did they are not allowed to refuse the ride.
  - fallingknife 6y ago
    Variable pricing based on demand is definitely an unusual feature of Uber's contract, but it would also be nearly unheard of in a full time employee's pay structure. So I don't see how it could be used as a determining factor that defines this contract as an employee/employer relationship.
    - vidarh 6y ago
      The issue here is that Uber pretends the driver is contracted by the passenger. In which case the driver should be free to negotiate with the passenger. That Uber exercises control of the relationship is what is indicating that Uber is an employer here.
      - fallingknife 6y ago
        I agree that Uber is full of shit on this point. The driver is contracted with Uber.
    - kjakm 6y ago
      The case didn't determine an employee relationship - it determined a worker relationship. These are very different things legally. In terms of flexibility + rights it goes self-employed > worker > employee.
- sambe 6y ago
  The question the court is asking is "why can't the drivers?". Uber is claiming to be a third party here.
- lordnacho 6y ago
  I get the feeling the real issue is not these four points, which are legalistic and vague. The issue is whether you can pay someone way less than what they'd otherwise be paid for the same work, just by saying they're contractors. A lot of software contractors get paid quite a lot more than comparable salaried employees, so they don't complain.
- helsinkiandrew 6y ago
  In the UK, IR35 legislation (introduction delayed because of covid) would probably designated you as a 'disguised’ employee - ie contracting only to get the tax benefits of working via an intermediary company (less tax, paying yourself as dividends etc). https://www.hiscox.co.uk/business-blog/what-is-ir35-and-what-does-it-mean-for-contractors-hiscox-uk https://www.hiscox.co.uk/business-blog/what-is-ir35-and-what...
  - gpmcadam 6y ago
    Except they would actually have none of the benefits and security of being an employee by choice, so that argument is total tosh if you ask me No holidays, no sick pay, no minimum notice term, no overtime, no bonus, no 20% time, no paid lunches or benefits.
    - simias 6y ago
      Disguised employees are generally advantageous for the company, not the worker.
      - helsinkiandrew 6y ago
        For low paid drivers yes, but I know a lot of high paid software developers who would say otherwise.
        simias 6y ago
        For sure, but it's always higher risk/higher reward. If you're young and healthy you can probably earn more working that way, but if you're older, have a mortgage, have health issues, need maternity leave, have children in a nearby school and you don't want to move etc... The security and benefits of a salaried position can be worth more in the long run.
      - zajio1am 6y ago
        Depends on country. Here in Czechia due to tax advantages for self-employed the net worker income may be more than 50% bigger for self-employed than for regular emplyees with the same level of company expenses.
- learnstats2 6y ago
  It's very possible that you would have been declared employed if you took it to a tribunal or if it was otherwise challenged. This happens plenty often. It's hard to tell from the information you have given us, but it sounds like it could be an employer-employee type relationship. You can take an online test here: https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check-employment-status-for-tax/ https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check-employment-status-for-t...
- gjulianm 6y ago
  You're confusing the situation. Uber acts as an intermediary party between the contractor and the client (the passenger), so you should compare it to platforms for contract work, such as Upwork, or fiverr, or something like that. The point of Uber is that they're only an intermediate party that puts clients and drivers together. Drivers are not providing a service to Uber.
  - ricardobayes 6y ago
    So following that chain of thought freelancers through Upwork and Fiverr need to be qualified as workers too? That would be absurd and probably hurt the self-employed more than it helps.
    - gjulianm 6y ago
      Not at all. They don't control your rates, they don't stop you from getting jobs if you reject a lot, they don't set any quality minimums for your job, and they don't remove you if someone doesn't give you five stars. In other words, you're not working for these platforms, it's just a marketplace. With Uber, drivers are working for Uber, not for the passengers. However, Uber is pretending to be a marketplace, and it isn't. This sentence just proves that.
      - ricardobayes 6y ago
        Got it, thanks.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  1. You negotiate the hourly rate, or take another contract with one of the many other clients if that is not agreed. Not an option with Uber. 2. As above. 3. Not equivalent with plenty of other drivers in the area to take the call - if the driver was dropping the passenger off halfway it would be equivalent. 4. This is fair - and the only argument in the judgement I thought weak.
- vidarh 6y ago
  When I've done contracting (in the UK), my clients were always very careful to 1) actually negotiate, including the rate, 2) set a defined end, 3) stress that I controlled when and where the work was carried out (as long as I met agreed delivery times) and a number of other factors exactly because if it looks too much like employment, they'd run the risk that I could in fact take them to a tribunal and claim they should be forced to treat me as an employee and/or we'd both need to deal with IR35 in terms of tax treatment.
- pfortuny 6y ago
  If that is the case, you might have sued that company and won. So, maybe it is not exactly the same.
- baq 6y ago
  the company couldn't either, but nobody sued.
- Nursie 6y ago
  I contract/consult all the time. I don't see these the same - 1. I negotiate a rate. Sometimes I negotiate a higher rate after a few months. 2. I have frequently asked for changes to contract terms, usually after a legal review, and had those changes put in place. 3.... kinda agree with you, not sure it's exactly the same as the uber situation 4. The client company can't evaluate my performance in any way they want, at least officially, they get no say over how or when I do the work, how much I am available to work etc. Practically speaking, point 4 is usually something of a compromise, as the client needs me to deliver the work in a timely fashion, and me signing a contract then disappearing for a month wouldn't go down well! But neither would it be good business practice for me.
  - unishark 6y ago
    Your example is not as logically meaningful however. An example of something not being done (i.e., negotiation) can serve as a proof it is not necessary, assuming it was legal. The converse doesn't work. Maybe your experience is with companies who like to do legally-unnecessary things. Large companies obviously don't negotiate as much as small companies. In the US, contracting for engineering has been outlawed to a large degree, so large companies avoid doing it because the penalties are retroactive taxes and fines. And perhaps class action suits from former contractors as well. So it's mainly small companies without "by the book" behavior doing it in software. In other fields, it is completely common however.
    - Nursie 6y ago
      I'm not sure why it's not logically meaningful... the parent said that their experience as a contractor was similar to that of an Uber driver, I'm giving a counter-example in myself. > The converse doesn't work. Maybe your experience is with companies who like to do legally-unnecessary things. It's not legally necessary to negotiate a pay rate, but it is something that often happens, usually informally. The point is not that it is necessary but that it is possible - an uber driver cannot negotiate. I can and do. > In the US, contracting for engineering has been outlawed to a large degree Thankfully that's not the case here!
- dgellow 6y ago
  1. As a contractor I negotiate my rates with the companies I work with. Uber drivers cannot do this. 2. I also negotiate contract terms. Uber drivers cannot do this. 3. Uber drivers are penalized for not taking rides, which is more akin to refusing a paid opportunity than building a feature. Again as a contractor I do negotiate the work I can and want to do. 4. For this point I agree with you. I can also terminate the contract on my end. The main difference I see is the imbalance of power. As a self-employed software engineer I can decide who I work with and negotiate almost everything with them. I have my business, they have theirs, and we discuss to try to reach agreements or not. Uber drivers are not in this position. Uber can dictate everything they want, drivers can only decide to stay or leave.
  - ericmay 6y ago
    1. They kind of can. They could just only accept long rides or maybe higher paying rides like 2x at the end of a sporting event. 2. Eh kind of. You could also look at it as Uber simply doesn’t negotiate their contract. It’s like a company hiring a freeelancer and just not negotiating. 3. If a company called you up and you said yes once and then no the next 10 times I bet they’d stop calling and you’d be penalized. They might not even have an Excel sheet with notes or a rating.
  - fallingknife 6y ago
    The driver absolutely can negotiate, but Uber is not under any obligation to compromise. The following is a perfectly valid negotiation: company: Our payment terms are ABC. contractor: Can we do XYZ instead? company: Sorry, but we are not willing to do XYZ. It will need to be ABC, can you accept that? contractor: OK You are mistaking the right of the contractor to negotiate with an obligation on the company to concede, which does not exist in any situation.
    - kube-system 6y ago
      Does Uber communicate ABC entirely before a driver accepts? I have not used the app as a driver, but the screenshots I've seen suggest they might not?
- tobr 6y ago
  Getting an hourly rate and then being given tasks to accomplish is very different. Imagine if they had decided how much each complete task was worth, you had to spend a significant part of your time waiting unpaid to get tasks assigned to you, and they would terminate you if you avoided tasks where the pay vs workload was unreasonable.
- notahacker 6y ago
  The company you contracted for wasn't claiming to be a platform that let you hire your services out to other people, was it? If Upwork or a recruitment agency simply assigned you to a client at a rate they chose without telling you what it or the project was until after you had accepted and expected you to accept at least 80% of those projects unless you had previously signalled you were unavailable, they would also face issues. For your contract to be legal it would have to pass other tests, but for you it was an objectively much stronger position (your agreed a rate you thought your time was worth when you signed the contract, not whatever your client thought they could hire you out to their next customer for)
- chmod775 6y ago
  > If this company could do all of these things, which I think are pretty standard, why can't Uber? What are you trying to say? Did you take the company to court? Because Uber "could" as well, until a court said they don't.
- ssivark 6y ago
  Your argument assumes that Uber is hiring contractors and customers interact with Uber... If that were the case, Uber would have to take responsibility for the full transaction towards both drivers and riders (Eg guaranteed payment vs time, rather than possibility of rides). Uber is instead trying to represent itself as a marketplace matching drivers & riders, with riders hiring divers as contractors. And Uber doesn’t allow drivers to negotiate terms with riders, which breaks that thesis.
mellosouls 6y ago
Exactly - that was my reaction as well. This is a fair judgement. I support zero-hours contracts in a balanced and non-exploitative relationship where the "self-employed" label is not just lip-service. This was clearly not the case according to the first 3 of those observations.
dexen 6y ago
>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 I sure hope they'll declare all taxi drivers "employees of the cities they get the medallions from". With the city being equally on hook for all the insurances and other benefits for its taxi drivers. How is the relationship, as described, any different from relationship between a city-managed tax driver? Aside of the star rating system - cities, having local monopoly, have literally no interest in maintaining high quality.
- yread 6y ago
  taxi drivers can reject as many rides as they want, no?
  - dan-robertson 6y ago
    In London there are only a few specific circumstances when a taxi driver (in their taxi) can reject a ride. E.g. - they aren’t working (eg they’re going home, this isn’t a general excuse that can always be used) - they’re going to pick up a prearranged passenger - they’re eating their lunch (this exemption was introduced by Churchill, hence ‘Churchill’ is cabbie slang for one’s lunch break)
- fock 6y ago
  Your argument would be helped if you would actually respond to each of these points, which you don't. Let's do it for you > 1) cities indeed in somec countries set the fare regulating taxis like a utility. it's pricy for consumers but transparent and stable for everyone. drivers can earn more money by reducing cost compared to their competition. Seems fair. 2) well, it's a public utility. So people can actually go and vote for or against taxi laws. You can't do that with uber... 3) I am not aware that a self-employed taxi-driver has to transport people? 4) as I'm not aware that cities monitor rides?
- notahacker 6y ago
AmericanChopper 6y ago
I’ve been working as a contractor for more than 10 years, doing stuff like writing software for banks. All of those points have allied to me for most of my career. If that’s a compelling case for Uber drivers not being contractors, then it’s also a case for independent contracting in general not being legal.
- pmyteh 6y ago
  As long as you're being paid minimum wage and the other (limited) employment protections that apply to people with 'worker' status, then it won't matter at all. It's not illegal to have people as dependent contractors, it's illegal not to give them employment rights as a result. There is a whole separate question around tax status, but that's not implicated by this ruling as it's based on a separate set of caselaw.
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    Those protections don’t apply to me. I generally don’t have any employment rights at all, and the reasons given in this case for Uber drivers not being contractors would certainly also apply to most of the work I do too. If I worked in the UK, I would presume this ruling makes my kind of work illegal, and there’s very little difference between this ruling and something like AB 5, which very explicitly make my line of work illegal. Luckily my jurisdiction has very few anti-contractor laws. The only one I run into is some case law around how long and independent contractor can work for before they become a de facto employee. Which is occasionally frustrating, but not on the same level as something like this. But any time I see this sort of thing I do get concerned that my jurisdiction will eventually get around to “saving” me from the working arrangement that has been massively beneficial to me over the past 10 or so years.
wonderwonder 6y ago
These 4 points are all pretty critical to Uber's business though. 1. If the drivers set the fair, then customers have no idea what a trip will cost or if uber shows the drivers fair then why would the customer not always choose the cheapest causing a rush to the the bottom for pricing. 2. This one is open ended and I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on it. 3. If a driver is constantly rejecting rides this is going to affect the algorithm and negatively affect customers. You cant be on the clock and open to rides but consistently reject them when they are assigned. 4. It just makes sense to be able to let poor performers go. From the article "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", Mr Aslam, president of the App Drivers & Couriers Union What he is saying but maybe does not realize is that this is actually the death of the gig economy at least as it relates to Uber. If there is now a forced reduction in drivers, its a regression to taxi cabs and it reduces the ability of someone to just grab a quick shift here and there and reduces Uber's incentive to allow them too.
- hrktb 6y ago
  I think the argument is less to stop doing the 4 above, than to accept it's a employer/employee relationship and behave accordingly. If there is actual value in the service, they should be able to adjust to the decision.
  - wonderwonder 6y ago
    If its a generic employer/employee relationship then should uber not require 40 hours a week per driver? I am not opposed to that but it does kill the gig concept of the job. It will drastically remove the ability of people to just pick up shifts on the fly. Uber is currently very much a loss generating company, adding additional cost to their business plan will accelerate that. If they go out of business, even if just in specific markets, then that helps no one.
    - pmyteh 6y ago
      Lots of businesses in the UK operate with employees not working 40 hours a week. Some of them have 'zero hours' contracts where work is at the discretion of the employer, at hours of their choosing, and with little notice. If it makes more economic sense for Uber to have a pool of full-time drivers to send to jobs, then that's a model they can move to. If not (because demand is inconsistent, or not evenly spread throughout the day, or whatever) then I have no doubt they'll continue with flexible rostering (perhaps taking more control as to timetabling). And the UK is not in any way short of private hire companies or drivers. Many of them have apps, and Uber is not consistently cheaper than other cab companies. Frankly from a customer point of view it doesn't make a lot of difference whether they go out of business or not in England.
snarf21 6y ago
Wow, I'm surprised they actually show some sense. Of course, these are the very exploitative practices that make the business possible anyway. I agree that this will cause the rare person who just drives an hour a night to maybe not be on payroll but Uber actually might need them anyway or they lose too much capacity.
granzymes 6y ago
> 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. Uber isn't actually going to reclassify their drivers after this ruling because the case was about its policies as of 2016. For example, they have since removed the penalties for rejecting too many rides. Labor activists would have to go back to court for current drivers.

by rogual 6y ago

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
  I did have that opportunity, as does an Uber driver. But, as is the case in any negotiation, the counterparty has the right to hold firm on the price.
  - namdnay 6y ago
    An Uber driver has no opportunity to negotiate the rate with the customer. If in the app you said "I want to go to the airport" and then each driver interested replied with a quote, that would be rate negotiation.
    - emteycz 6y ago
      You're negotiating with Uber, not with customers. Uber says take it or leave it, and you can work with another company if it has better terms/rate.
      - vidarh 6y ago
        Uber pretends you're working for the customer, not them. That is a key element in their attempt to pretend they're not an employer.
        emteycz 6y ago
        Negotiating with Uber, not working for Uber. Uber is a middleman/platform connecting customers with providers, guaranteeing terms of contract to both parties. It works just the same with most IT contracting firms (and the same is true in other sectors too - construction, medical, etc).
        vidarh 6y ago
        A lot of IT contracting firms in the UK have in recent years had to drastically change their practices exactly because ensuring a contract does not create a relationship that would be deemed to be an employment relationship has gotten progressively harder, exactly because it was being massively abused, so this is a very poor argument in the UK. The lack of ability to negotiate prices - be it with a middleman or the actual customer - is one of several tests to that points strongly towards an employee relationship, whether you're a driver or an IT contractor. I'll note that I see you say elsewhere you're an IT contractor. If you're an IT contractor in the UK, I presume you've had to answer questions about IR35. If you haven't, then you really should have a discussion about IR35 with your accountant, because get that wrong and you risk facing a massive tax bill.
TomGullen 6y ago
The difference is yours would of been a short defined period, Uber is open ended. You would be entitled to sick pay, holiday etc if you are a worker in effect (if the contract is too long).
- fallingknife 6y ago
  It ended up being several months, but the contract was actually written as open ended until notice of termination was given by either party.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    Sounds very likely it could have been deemed employment if it had lasted long enough and been taken to a tribunal (or if HMRC found out, this significantly increases the likelihood they'd find it to be within IR35). That it only lasted "several months" would reduce the chance, but if you'd e.g. stayed longer than a year, odds would increase accordingly.
emteycz 6y ago
I'm IT contractor and this is exactly how it works.
kjakm 6y ago
>> 1. The company set the hourly rate which meant they dictated how much I could earn This rate would have been negotiated by you. You then agreed to a specific rate. The price of Uber rides varies based on demand so the driver doesn't know the price in advance + even if they did they are not allowed to refuse the ride.
- fallingknife 6y ago
  Variable pricing based on demand is definitely an unusual feature of Uber's contract, but it would also be nearly unheard of in a full time employee's pay structure. So I don't see how it could be used as a determining factor that defines this contract as an employee/employer relationship.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    The issue here is that Uber pretends the driver is contracted by the passenger. In which case the driver should be free to negotiate with the passenger. That Uber exercises control of the relationship is what is indicating that Uber is an employer here.
    - fallingknife 6y ago
      I agree that Uber is full of shit on this point. The driver is contracted with Uber.
  - kjakm 6y ago
    The case didn't determine an employee relationship - it determined a worker relationship. These are very different things legally. In terms of flexibility + rights it goes self-employed > worker > employee.
sambe 6y ago
The question the court is asking is "why can't the drivers?". Uber is claiming to be a third party here.
lordnacho 6y ago
I get the feeling the real issue is not these four points, which are legalistic and vague. The issue is whether you can pay someone way less than what they'd otherwise be paid for the same work, just by saying they're contractors. A lot of software contractors get paid quite a lot more than comparable salaried employees, so they don't complain.
helsinkiandrew 6y ago
In the UK, IR35 legislation (introduction delayed because of covid) would probably designated you as a 'disguised’ employee - ie contracting only to get the tax benefits of working via an intermediary company (less tax, paying yourself as dividends etc). https://www.hiscox.co.uk/business-blog/what-is-ir35-and-what-does-it-mean-for-contractors-hiscox-uk https://www.hiscox.co.uk/business-blog/what-is-ir35-and-what...
- gpmcadam 6y ago
  Except they would actually have none of the benefits and security of being an employee by choice, so that argument is total tosh if you ask me No holidays, no sick pay, no minimum notice term, no overtime, no bonus, no 20% time, no paid lunches or benefits.
  - simias 6y ago
    Disguised employees are generally advantageous for the company, not the worker.
    - helsinkiandrew 6y ago
      For low paid drivers yes, but I know a lot of high paid software developers who would say otherwise.
      - simias 6y ago
        For sure, but it's always higher risk/higher reward. If you're young and healthy you can probably earn more working that way, but if you're older, have a mortgage, have health issues, need maternity leave, have children in a nearby school and you don't want to move etc... The security and benefits of a salaried position can be worth more in the long run.
    - zajio1am 6y ago
      Depends on country. Here in Czechia due to tax advantages for self-employed the net worker income may be more than 50% bigger for self-employed than for regular emplyees with the same level of company expenses.
learnstats2 6y ago
It's very possible that you would have been declared employed if you took it to a tribunal or if it was otherwise challenged. This happens plenty often. It's hard to tell from the information you have given us, but it sounds like it could be an employer-employee type relationship. You can take an online test here: https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check-employment-status-for-tax/ https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check-employment-status-for-t...
gjulianm 6y ago
You're confusing the situation. Uber acts as an intermediary party between the contractor and the client (the passenger), so you should compare it to platforms for contract work, such as Upwork, or fiverr, or something like that. The point of Uber is that they're only an intermediate party that puts clients and drivers together. Drivers are not providing a service to Uber.
- ricardobayes 6y ago
  So following that chain of thought freelancers through Upwork and Fiverr need to be qualified as workers too? That would be absurd and probably hurt the self-employed more than it helps.
  - gjulianm 6y ago
    Not at all. They don't control your rates, they don't stop you from getting jobs if you reject a lot, they don't set any quality minimums for your job, and they don't remove you if someone doesn't give you five stars. In other words, you're not working for these platforms, it's just a marketplace. With Uber, drivers are working for Uber, not for the passengers. However, Uber is pretending to be a marketplace, and it isn't. This sentence just proves that.
    - ricardobayes 6y ago
      Got it, thanks.
mellosouls 6y ago
1. You negotiate the hourly rate, or take another contract with one of the many other clients if that is not agreed. Not an option with Uber. 2. As above. 3. Not equivalent with plenty of other drivers in the area to take the call - if the driver was dropping the passenger off halfway it would be equivalent. 4. This is fair - and the only argument in the judgement I thought weak.
vidarh 6y ago
When I've done contracting (in the UK), my clients were always very careful to 1) actually negotiate, including the rate, 2) set a defined end, 3) stress that I controlled when and where the work was carried out (as long as I met agreed delivery times) and a number of other factors exactly because if it looks too much like employment, they'd run the risk that I could in fact take them to a tribunal and claim they should be forced to treat me as an employee and/or we'd both need to deal with IR35 in terms of tax treatment.
pfortuny 6y ago
If that is the case, you might have sued that company and won. So, maybe it is not exactly the same.
baq 6y ago
the company couldn't either, but nobody sued.
Nursie 6y ago
I contract/consult all the time. I don't see these the same - 1. I negotiate a rate. Sometimes I negotiate a higher rate after a few months. 2. I have frequently asked for changes to contract terms, usually after a legal review, and had those changes put in place. 3.... kinda agree with you, not sure it's exactly the same as the uber situation 4. The client company can't evaluate my performance in any way they want, at least officially, they get no say over how or when I do the work, how much I am available to work etc. Practically speaking, point 4 is usually something of a compromise, as the client needs me to deliver the work in a timely fashion, and me signing a contract then disappearing for a month wouldn't go down well! But neither would it be good business practice for me.
- unishark 6y ago
  Your example is not as logically meaningful however. An example of something not being done (i.e., negotiation) can serve as a proof it is not necessary, assuming it was legal. The converse doesn't work. Maybe your experience is with companies who like to do legally-unnecessary things. Large companies obviously don't negotiate as much as small companies. In the US, contracting for engineering has been outlawed to a large degree, so large companies avoid doing it because the penalties are retroactive taxes and fines. And perhaps class action suits from former contractors as well. So it's mainly small companies without "by the book" behavior doing it in software. In other fields, it is completely common however.
  - Nursie 6y ago
    I'm not sure why it's not logically meaningful... the parent said that their experience as a contractor was similar to that of an Uber driver, I'm giving a counter-example in myself. > The converse doesn't work. Maybe your experience is with companies who like to do legally-unnecessary things. It's not legally necessary to negotiate a pay rate, but it is something that often happens, usually informally. The point is not that it is necessary but that it is possible - an uber driver cannot negotiate. I can and do. > In the US, contracting for engineering has been outlawed to a large degree Thankfully that's not the case here!
dgellow 6y ago
1. As a contractor I negotiate my rates with the companies I work with. Uber drivers cannot do this. 2. I also negotiate contract terms. Uber drivers cannot do this. 3. Uber drivers are penalized for not taking rides, which is more akin to refusing a paid opportunity than building a feature. Again as a contractor I do negotiate the work I can and want to do. 4. For this point I agree with you. I can also terminate the contract on my end. The main difference I see is the imbalance of power. As a self-employed software engineer I can decide who I work with and negotiate almost everything with them. I have my business, they have theirs, and we discuss to try to reach agreements or not. Uber drivers are not in this position. Uber can dictate everything they want, drivers can only decide to stay or leave.
- ericmay 6y ago
  1. They kind of can. They could just only accept long rides or maybe higher paying rides like 2x at the end of a sporting event. 2. Eh kind of. You could also look at it as Uber simply doesn’t negotiate their contract. It’s like a company hiring a freeelancer and just not negotiating. 3. If a company called you up and you said yes once and then no the next 10 times I bet they’d stop calling and you’d be penalized. They might not even have an Excel sheet with notes or a rating.
- fallingknife 6y ago
  The driver absolutely can negotiate, but Uber is not under any obligation to compromise. The following is a perfectly valid negotiation: company: Our payment terms are ABC. contractor: Can we do XYZ instead? company: Sorry, but we are not willing to do XYZ. It will need to be ABC, can you accept that? contractor: OK You are mistaking the right of the contractor to negotiate with an obligation on the company to concede, which does not exist in any situation.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    Does Uber communicate ABC entirely before a driver accepts? I have not used the app as a driver, but the screenshots I've seen suggest they might not?
tobr 6y ago
Getting an hourly rate and then being given tasks to accomplish is very different. Imagine if they had decided how much each complete task was worth, you had to spend a significant part of your time waiting unpaid to get tasks assigned to you, and they would terminate you if you avoided tasks where the pay vs workload was unreasonable.
notahacker 6y ago
The company you contracted for wasn't claiming to be a platform that let you hire your services out to other people, was it? If Upwork or a recruitment agency simply assigned you to a client at a rate they chose without telling you what it or the project was until after you had accepted and expected you to accept at least 80% of those projects unless you had previously signalled you were unavailable, they would also face issues. For your contract to be legal it would have to pass other tests, but for you it was an objectively much stronger position (your agreed a rate you thought your time was worth when you signed the contract, not whatever your client thought they could hire you out to their next customer for)
chmod775 6y ago
> If this company could do all of these things, which I think are pretty standard, why can't Uber? What are you trying to say? Did you take the company to court? Because Uber "could" as well, until a court said they don't.
ssivark 6y ago
Your argument assumes that Uber is hiring contractors and customers interact with Uber... If that were the case, Uber would have to take responsibility for the full transaction towards both drivers and riders (Eg guaranteed payment vs time, rather than possibility of rides). Uber is instead trying to represent itself as a marketplace matching drivers & riders, with riders hiring divers as contractors. And Uber doesn’t allow drivers to negotiate terms with riders, which breaks that thesis.

mellosouls 6y ago

Exactly - that was my reaction as well. This is a fair judgement. I support zero-hours contracts in a balanced and non-exploitative relationship where the "self-employed" label is not just lip-service. This was clearly not the case according to the first 3 of those observations.

dexen 6y ago

>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 I sure hope they'll declare all taxi drivers "employees of the cities they get the medallions from". With the city being equally on hook for all the insurances and other benefits for its taxi drivers. How is the relationship, as described, any different from relationship between a city-managed tax driver? Aside of the star rating system - cities, having local monopoly, have literally no interest in maintaining high quality.

yread 6y ago
taxi drivers can reject as many rides as they want, no?
- dan-robertson 6y ago
  In London there are only a few specific circumstances when a taxi driver (in their taxi) can reject a ride. E.g. - they aren’t working (eg they’re going home, this isn’t a general excuse that can always be used) - they’re going to pick up a prearranged passenger - they’re eating their lunch (this exemption was introduced by Churchill, hence ‘Churchill’ is cabbie slang for one’s lunch break)
fock 6y ago
Your argument would be helped if you would actually respond to each of these points, which you don't. Let's do it for you > 1) cities indeed in somec countries set the fare regulating taxis like a utility. it's pricy for consumers but transparent and stable for everyone. drivers can earn more money by reducing cost compared to their competition. Seems fair. 2) well, it's a public utility. So people can actually go and vote for or against taxi laws. You can't do that with uber... 3) I am not aware that a self-employed taxi-driver has to transport people? 4) as I'm not aware that cities monitor rides?
notahacker 6y ago

AmericanChopper 6y ago

I’ve been working as a contractor for more than 10 years, doing stuff like writing software for banks. All of those points have allied to me for most of my career. If that’s a compelling case for Uber drivers not being contractors, then it’s also a case for independent contracting in general not being legal.

pmyteh 6y ago
As long as you're being paid minimum wage and the other (limited) employment protections that apply to people with 'worker' status, then it won't matter at all. It's not illegal to have people as dependent contractors, it's illegal not to give them employment rights as a result. There is a whole separate question around tax status, but that's not implicated by this ruling as it's based on a separate set of caselaw.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  Those protections don’t apply to me. I generally don’t have any employment rights at all, and the reasons given in this case for Uber drivers not being contractors would certainly also apply to most of the work I do too. If I worked in the UK, I would presume this ruling makes my kind of work illegal, and there’s very little difference between this ruling and something like AB 5, which very explicitly make my line of work illegal. Luckily my jurisdiction has very few anti-contractor laws. The only one I run into is some case law around how long and independent contractor can work for before they become a de facto employee. Which is occasionally frustrating, but not on the same level as something like this. But any time I see this sort of thing I do get concerned that my jurisdiction will eventually get around to “saving” me from the working arrangement that has been massively beneficial to me over the past 10 or so years.

wonderwonder 6y ago

These 4 points are all pretty critical to Uber's business though. 1. If the drivers set the fair, then customers have no idea what a trip will cost or if uber shows the drivers fair then why would the customer not always choose the cheapest causing a rush to the the bottom for pricing. 2. This one is open ended and I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on it. 3. If a driver is constantly rejecting rides this is going to affect the algorithm and negatively affect customers. You cant be on the clock and open to rides but consistently reject them when they are assigned. 4. It just makes sense to be able to let poor performers go. From the article "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", Mr Aslam, president of the App Drivers & Couriers Union What he is saying but maybe does not realize is that this is actually the death of the gig economy at least as it relates to Uber. If there is now a forced reduction in drivers, its a regression to taxi cabs and it reduces the ability of someone to just grab a quick shift here and there and reduces Uber's incentive to allow them too.

hrktb 6y ago
I think the argument is less to stop doing the 4 above, than to accept it's a employer/employee relationship and behave accordingly. If there is actual value in the service, they should be able to adjust to the decision.
- wonderwonder 6y ago
  If its a generic employer/employee relationship then should uber not require 40 hours a week per driver? I am not opposed to that but it does kill the gig concept of the job. It will drastically remove the ability of people to just pick up shifts on the fly. Uber is currently very much a loss generating company, adding additional cost to their business plan will accelerate that. If they go out of business, even if just in specific markets, then that helps no one.
  - pmyteh 6y ago
    Lots of businesses in the UK operate with employees not working 40 hours a week. Some of them have 'zero hours' contracts where work is at the discretion of the employer, at hours of their choosing, and with little notice. If it makes more economic sense for Uber to have a pool of full-time drivers to send to jobs, then that's a model they can move to. If not (because demand is inconsistent, or not evenly spread throughout the day, or whatever) then I have no doubt they'll continue with flexible rostering (perhaps taking more control as to timetabling). And the UK is not in any way short of private hire companies or drivers. Many of them have apps, and Uber is not consistently cheaper than other cab companies. Frankly from a customer point of view it doesn't make a lot of difference whether they go out of business or not in England.

snarf21 6y ago

Wow, I'm surprised they actually show some sense. Of course, these are the very exploitative practices that make the business possible anyway. I agree that this will cause the rare person who just drives an hour a night to maybe not be on payroll but Uber actually might need them anyway or they lose too much capacity.

granzymes 6y ago

> 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. Uber isn't actually going to reclassify their drivers after this ruling because the case was about its policies as of 2016. For example, they have since removed the penalties for rejecting too many rides. Labor activists would have to go back to court for current drivers.