3 ms·

The UK has a “worker” [0] classification between employee and true independent contractor. It provides protections like minimum wage and time off while preservi

The UK has a “worker” [0] classification between employee and true independent contractor. It provides protections like minimum wage and time off while preserving freedom about when and how someone works. It seems like it would fit this case well, but I doubt it will ever happen. Unions are the major force pushing for gig workers to be classified as employees because they’d be able to unionize. [0] https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/worker https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/worker

3np 4y ago
I initially found the choice of the word "worker" in the headline curious but with this context it makes sense coming from the BBC. Thanks.
kwhitefoot 4y ago
> Unions are the major force pushing for gig workers to be classified as employees because they’d be able to unionize. What stops them unionising?
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  NRLB doesn't offer a clear way for contractors to unionize. By clear way, it might be "no way".
  - Jensson 4y ago
    Contractors can form a company and negotiate with other companies as a group. Happens all the time.
    - doktorhladnjak 4y ago
      This can be a form collusion that runs into anti trust law. There’s even a court case about this involving public defenders who were hired as independent contractors being unable to unionize for this reason.
Jochim 4y ago
The UK also has some of the poorest workers and working conditions when compared to neighbouring peer countries. The worker classification has resulted in a situation of extreme precarity for millions of people by explicitly creating a class of employee that do not enjoy the same rights as those who are financially/socially better off than them. Consider the following: > Workers usually are not entitled to: > minimum notice periods if their employment will be ending, for example if an employer is dismissing them > protection against unfair dismissal > the right to request flexible working > time off for emergencies > Statutory Redundancy Pay Frankly, this describes an employment class that outright refuses to acknowledge the humanity of those categorised under it. A closer look at the context of "time off for emergencies" exemplifies this. Compared with an "employee", a person classified as a worker is not legally entitled to leave work to: - Attend the birth of their child. - Respond to their partner being assaulted or mugged. - Care for their child should their school close. - Maternity/Paternity leave (They are still entitled to Maternity/Paternity pay however). Consider also that many of the protections workers are supposed to enjoy are simply not enforced and that the people who fall under the category are unlikely to have the financial means, free time, or information to bring a legal challenge should their rights be violated. Given how obviously the classification erodes employment protections, I really don't think there lies a justification for the creation of this underclass other than it being profitable for those with money.

3np 4y ago

I initially found the choice of the word "worker" in the headline curious but with this context it makes sense coming from the BBC. Thanks.

kwhitefoot 4y ago

> Unions are the major force pushing for gig workers to be classified as employees because they’d be able to unionize. What stops them unionising?

yieldcrv 4y ago
NRLB doesn't offer a clear way for contractors to unionize. By clear way, it might be "no way".
- Jensson 4y ago
  Contractors can form a company and negotiate with other companies as a group. Happens all the time.
  - doktorhladnjak 4y ago
    This can be a form collusion that runs into anti trust law. There’s even a court case about this involving public defenders who were hired as independent contractors being unable to unionize for this reason.

Jochim 4y ago

The UK also has some of the poorest workers and working conditions when compared to neighbouring peer countries. The worker classification has resulted in a situation of extreme precarity for millions of people by explicitly creating a class of employee that do not enjoy the same rights as those who are financially/socially better off than them. Consider the following: > Workers usually are not entitled to: > minimum notice periods if their employment will be ending, for example if an employer is dismissing them > protection against unfair dismissal > the right to request flexible working > time off for emergencies > Statutory Redundancy Pay Frankly, this describes an employment class that outright refuses to acknowledge the humanity of those categorised under it. A closer look at the context of "time off for emergencies" exemplifies this. Compared with an "employee", a person classified as a worker is not legally entitled to leave work to: - Attend the birth of their child. - Respond to their partner being assaulted or mugged. - Care for their child should their school close. - Maternity/Paternity leave (They are still entitled to Maternity/Paternity pay however). Consider also that many of the protections workers are supposed to enjoy are simply not enforced and that the people who fall under the category are unlikely to have the financial means, free time, or information to bring a legal challenge should their rights be violated. Given how obviously the classification erodes employment protections, I really don't think there lies a justification for the creation of this underclass other than it being profitable for those with money.