Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 387 posts

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#11

Post by objclxt »

Taurenking wrote: post #2

Interesting. I wonder what consequences this will have in the british market(IIRC it being one of their major hubs in Europe). I don't think they'll pull out at this point though, but will make it marginally impossible for new drivers to be accepted (unless demand increases dramatically but I don't see that happening either due to "current events")

> will make it marginally impossible for new drivers to be accepted

One thing worth noting is that the UK is already a little different from the US, because Uber drivers are required to have a private hire license issued by the city where you're operating.

For example, in London you'd be required to have a full criminal background check, a medical examination, and pass a "topographical skills check" (basic route planning and map reading).

So it wasn't like you could just apply to Uber and be up and running within a few days to begin with.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#12

Post by 5evOX5hTZ9mYa9E »

WannaFly wrote: post #9

They so clueless, they think that companies have a money tree and evil CEO just refuse to give them a piece of money. Uber it's an unprofitable company and workers demand more benefits, from the company that can't pay than current salary without external investments. "If we had these rights today, those drivers could at least earn a minimum wage to live on". No, you will be fired.

If your business model cannot exist without massive exploitation and perpetual VC money, then you don't have a viable business model

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#13

Post by Cthulhu_ »

WannaFly wrote: post #9

They so clueless, they think that companies have a money tree and evil CEO just refuse to give them a piece of money. Uber it's an unprofitable company and workers demand more benefits, from the company that can't pay than current salary without external investments. "If we had these rights today, those drivers could at least earn a minimum wage to live on". No, you will be fired.

Take away the gig economy part from Uber and it becomes a regular taxi market, an industry that has been around for a hundred years already, with all the checks and balances installed already (from driver and passenger rights to ride fares to maximum amount of drivers allowed to operate in a certain area to avoid oversaturating the market).

And in that environment it is not viable. Or, not viable to SF standards, in that it cannot sit on their arse and print money while their devs churn out fancy looking apps. They're competing with the local taxi company with a dozen cars and a phone number.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#14

Post by ascorbic »

WannaFly wrote: post #9

They so clueless, they think that companies have a money tree and evil CEO just refuse to give them a piece of money. Uber it's an unprofitable company and workers demand more benefits, from the company that can't pay than current salary without external investments. "If we had these rights today, those drivers could at least earn a minimum wage to live on". No, you will be fired.

If the company can't afford to pay for the legally-required benefits then they need to look at their business model. These are not optional.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#15

Post by aminozuur »

"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,"

Doesn't "oversupply" lower the prices for passengers?

I myself often check the Uber price, and decide if I want to take it, or use public transport if Uber's too expensive.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#16

Post by TLightful »

WannaFly wrote: post #9

They so clueless, they think that companies have a money tree and evil CEO just refuse to give them a piece of money. Uber it's an unprofitable company and workers demand more benefits, from the company that can't pay than current salary without external investments. "If we had these rights today, those drivers could at least earn a minimum wage to live on". No, you will be fired.

On the other hand, might as well rinse Uber while they're still trading.

To be clear, if Uber are unprofitable, that's a business model problem, not a worker problem.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#17

Post by sammorrowdrums »

Taurenking wrote: post #2

Interesting. I wonder what consequences this will have in the british market(IIRC it being one of their major hubs in Europe). I don't think they'll pull out at this point though, but will make it marginally impossible for new drivers to be accepted (unless demand increases dramatically but I don't see that happening either due to "current events")

While numerous rights are afforded to citizens via employment it certainly seems that Uber and Deliveroo (and many Amazon delivery drivers) being treated as entrepreneurs is largely an excercise in depriving them of basic entitlements.

I would be happy for such innovation in contract law if the provisions to protect citizens were less tied to employment.

I too will be interested to see how this plays out, as I think Uber would still need to stay to maintain market position, lest they end up losing UK to a competitor. But as you point out, it will certainly make them likely to be more picky in "hiring" new drivers.

I wonder if it will be a net positive for workers or not in the short and long term.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#18

Post by Cthulhu_ »

5evOX5hTZ9mYa9E wrote: post #12
WannaFly wrote: post #9

They so clueless, they think that companies have a money tree and evil CEO just refuse to give them a piece of money. Uber it's an unprofitable company and workers demand more benefits, from the company that can't pay than current salary without external investments. "If we had these rights today, those drivers could at least earn a minimum wage to live on". No, you will be fired.

If your business model cannot exist without massive exploitation and perpetual VC money, then you don't have a viable business model

Companies like that don't need to have a viable business model, they just need to go public and make a few people a ton of money. They don't care whether Uber is viable, they care about how many billions they can earn off of its perceived and inflated, short-term value.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#20

Post by mattvot »

WannaFly wrote: post #9

They so clueless, they think that companies have a money tree and evil CEO just refuse to give them a piece of money. Uber it's an unprofitable company and workers demand more benefits, from the company that can't pay than current salary without external investments. "If we had these rights today, those drivers could at least earn a minimum wage to live on". No, you will be fired.

I think that is kind of the point. If the company can’t take enough revenue to pay its way fairly, then the UK Supreme Court has, in effect, ruled it’s not a business for the UK.

Overly simplified solution: Raise prices to cover a decent wage.

Post reply on HN