4 ms·

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 i

by 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.
- DanBC 6y ago
  Uber is cheaper because they're avoiding tax. When Uber claims that they do not employ the drivers they're also saying that the drivers (as independent businesses) are responsible for charging VAT and paying that to HMRC. You only have to register for VAT if your vattable income exceeds £85,000 per year, so most drivers haven't registered for or charged VAT.

by hrktb 6y ago

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.
DanBC 6y ago
Uber is cheaper because they're avoiding tax. When Uber claims that they do not employ the drivers they're also saying that the drivers (as independent businesses) are responsible for charging VAT and paying that to HMRC. You only have to register for VAT if your vattable income exceeds £85,000 per year, so most drivers haven't registered for or charged VAT.