4 ms·

Uber drivers are workers not self-employed, Supreme Court rules

13 points by mikesabbagh 6y ago

anshumankmr 6y ago
There's goes Uber's bottom line.
- elmerfud 6y ago
  Being a UK ruling, I'm fairly sure this won't destroy their bottom line.
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    Courts in many countries often look at precedents in other places when NIN are available or when one case is sufficiently big, this could also be used in other common law countries, and even in Europe this ruling would quite likely going to be used in any future arguments regarding Uber and similar gig economy companies.
    - dustymcp 6y ago
      They are already illegal in multiple european countries because of this issue.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    The tax implication is a big deal, and other countries will be looking at that with interest.
jgwil2 6y ago
Good for them. We really need to nip this "contractor" trend in the bud before it comes for us all.
- dexterdog 6y ago
  Yes, it's better to make contractual relationships more complicated so that people are not able to decide how to sell their employable hours.
  - gtf21 6y ago
    This isn't really about that though: the debate in the UK has been around the fact that Uber constrains its "contractors" as though they were employees, while not affording them the rights employees would normally have. They have all the disadvantages and none of the advantages of employment. I realise some might argue that there are some advantages of looser employment for those workers, and that may be the case, but we have employment law for a reason, and it's to protect workers from abusive practices.
    - dexterdog 6y ago
      If they're putting restrictions on their contractors outside of paid-for contract hours that is a different situation.
cycomanic 6y ago
My impression has been that this has always been the modus operandi for the gig economy. The disruption is pretty much always based on skirting around all the regulations, taxes and labour laws of the "traditional" economy and making large profits (although they don't even manage that) for the shareholders/investors and push all costs onto society. I mean by not paying VAT they essentially get 20%"discount" compared to all other providers, or is it the drivers who have to pay VAT?

13 points by mikesabbagh 6y ago

anshumankmr 6y ago

There's goes Uber's bottom line.

elmerfud 6y ago
Being a UK ruling, I'm fairly sure this won't destroy their bottom line.
- dogma1138 6y ago
  Courts in many countries often look at precedents in other places when NIN are available or when one case is sufficiently big, this could also be used in other common law countries, and even in Europe this ruling would quite likely going to be used in any future arguments regarding Uber and similar gig economy companies.
  - dustymcp 6y ago
    They are already illegal in multiple european countries because of this issue.
- DanBC 6y ago
  The tax implication is a big deal, and other countries will be looking at that with interest.

jgwil2 6y ago

Good for them. We really need to nip this "contractor" trend in the bud before it comes for us all.

dexterdog 6y ago
Yes, it's better to make contractual relationships more complicated so that people are not able to decide how to sell their employable hours.
- gtf21 6y ago
  This isn't really about that though: the debate in the UK has been around the fact that Uber constrains its "contractors" as though they were employees, while not affording them the rights employees would normally have. They have all the disadvantages and none of the advantages of employment. I realise some might argue that there are some advantages of looser employment for those workers, and that may be the case, but we have employment law for a reason, and it's to protect workers from abusive practices.
  - dexterdog 6y ago
    If they're putting restrictions on their contractors outside of paid-for contract hours that is a different situation.

cycomanic 6y ago

My impression has been that this has always been the modus operandi for the gig economy. The disruption is pretty much always based on skirting around all the regulations, taxes and labour laws of the "traditional" economy and making large profits (although they don't even manage that) for the shareholders/investors and push all costs onto society. I mean by not paying VAT they essentially get 20%"discount" compared to all other providers, or is it the drivers who have to pay VAT?