3 ms·

Flex time is a common concept in workplaces since antiquity. Day work (you pick up jobs as available) is also a common concept since antiquity. > If some driv

Flex time is a common concept in workplaces since antiquity. Day work (you pick up jobs as available) is also a common concept since antiquity. > If some drivers weren’t happy with the status quo, why not take their skills and work for another firm? They did, and that firm also tried to act like they weren't employees. Uber is in the wrong here. We've set laws on how to treat employees. Their attempt to say "but they aren't employees" is only an attempt to skirt these obligations. They don't have some moral, hypothetical, capitalistic high ground here. They are just one of many scummy employers that necessitate more employment laws.

pmyteh 6y ago
This is astute. Employment law in England and Wales has a long history of regulation taking a while to catch up with 'new' ways of operating, but effectively covers everything at issue here. Flexible hours? Absolutely fine. Flexible hours at the employer's sole discretion (zero-hour contracts)? Also absolutely fine; although there is some political pushback, it's fully legal. Temporary employment, from one day upwards? Absolutely fine. If it consists of a series of 'temporary' contracts which in reality make up a multi-year contract, it might get deemed as permanent - but if it's genuinely temporary no problem at all. Not actually employment, but some kind of dependent contractor status? We even have that, which was the case at issue here: some provisions (e.g. minimum wage laws) apply, but others (particularly unfair dismissal rights) don't. We've also got caselaw covering piecework (work in my factory and get paid £1/widget), home working, working for a business you also own, and a bunch of other unusual cases. What you can't reliably do is say 'I've found a magic form of contract wording that means that workers' rights don't apply to me'. People have tried to do that for hundreds of years and the loopholes get closed for the obvious reason.

pmyteh 6y ago

This is astute. Employment law in England and Wales has a long history of regulation taking a while to catch up with 'new' ways of operating, but effectively covers everything at issue here. Flexible hours? Absolutely fine. Flexible hours at the employer's sole discretion (zero-hour contracts)? Also absolutely fine; although there is some political pushback, it's fully legal. Temporary employment, from one day upwards? Absolutely fine. If it consists of a series of 'temporary' contracts which in reality make up a multi-year contract, it might get deemed as permanent - but if it's genuinely temporary no problem at all. Not actually employment, but some kind of dependent contractor status? We even have that, which was the case at issue here: some provisions (e.g. minimum wage laws) apply, but others (particularly unfair dismissal rights) don't. We've also got caselaw covering piecework (work in my factory and get paid £1/widget), home working, working for a business you also own, and a bunch of other unusual cases. What you can't reliably do is say 'I've found a magic form of contract wording that means that workers' rights don't apply to me'. People have tried to do that for hundreds of years and the loopholes get closed for the obvious reason.