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

51–60 of 387 posts

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

#51

Post by devoutsalsa »

austhrow743 wrote: post #24
habosa wrote: post #10

Really interested to see what this does to Deliveroo. I live in central London on a pretty busy street and it's really wild how many Deliveroo drivers there are. In front of most of the popular takeaway restaurants there are 3-5 drivers waiting at any given time. The increase in delivery and decrease in normal foot traffic during the pandemic has made this really stick out. Deliveroo already totally robs these restau…

20-30% to not have to have a dining area and be in a trendy location sounds pretty good.

You just described a ghost kitchen, a restaurant without a store front. Honestly, I don’t like delivered food that much. It’s usually cold, often gets screwed up (e.g. regular Pepsi instead of Diet Pepsi), and maybe low quality in general. I’m already hesitant to order with Deliveroo most of the time anyway, and if prices go up, I might just finally learn to cook.

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

#52

Post by refraincomment »

Uber drivers pay next to no taxes at the moment.. A chat with with them will confirm it.

They don't pay VAT (revenue under 80k). They are self-employed, so corporate tax does not apply. They pay a 10% in National insurance.

And on income they pay for the 10k to 30k tier, at 20%.

Compare this with a normal company hiring staff. Tax burden doubles just with addition of VAT.

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

#53

Post by a254613e »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #4

So, what next for Uber? Changed business model in the UK? Pull out entirely?

They'll probably do the same thing they did in Germany. Use subcontracting companies to handle their rides.

I don't know the economic details of it for Uber, but it works and they've been using that model for a long time now.

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

#54

Post by gjulianm »

fallingknife wrote: post #22
rogual wrote: post #6

The court made very specific arguments: 1. Uber set the fare which meant that they dictated how much drivers could earn 2. Uber set the contract terms and drivers had no say in them 3. Request for rides is constrained by Uber who can penalise drivers if they reject too many rides 4. Uber monitors a driver's service through the star rating and has the capacity to terminate the relationship if after repeated warnings t…

This doesn't make sense to me. I did some contract work a couple years ago and: 1. The company set the hourly rate which meant they dictated how much I could earn 2. The company set the contract terms 3. The company told me what features to build and could penalize me if I decided not to build some 4. The company could evaluate my performance any way they wanted and terminate the contract at any time for no cause If…

You're confusing the situation. Uber acts as an intermediary party between the contractor and the client (the passenger), so you should compare it to platforms for contract work, such as Upwork, or fiverr, or something like that. The point of Uber is that they're only an intermediate party that puts clients and drivers together. Drivers are not providing a service to Uber.

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

#55

Post by gpmcadam »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #44
fallingknife wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't make sense to me. I did some contract work a couple years ago and: 1. The company set the hourly rate which meant they dictated how much I could earn 2. The company set the contract terms 3. The company told me what features to build and could penalize me if I decided not to build some 4. The company could evaluate my performance any way they wanted and terminate the contract at any time for no cause If…

In the UK, IR35 legislation (introduction delayed because of covid) would probably designated you as a 'disguised’ employee - ie contracting only to get the tax benefits of working via an intermediary company (less tax, paying yourself as dividends etc). https://www.hiscox.co.uk/business-blog/what-is-ir35-and-what...

Except they would actually have none of the benefits and security of being an employee by choice, so that argument is total tosh if you ask me

No holidays, no sick pay, no minimum notice term, no overtime, no bonus, no 20% time, no paid lunches or benefits.

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

#56

Post by mellosouls »

fallingknife wrote: post #22
rogual wrote: post #6

The court made very specific arguments: 1. Uber set the fare which meant that they dictated how much drivers could earn 2. Uber set the contract terms and drivers had no say in them 3. Request for rides is constrained by Uber who can penalise drivers if they reject too many rides 4. Uber monitors a driver's service through the star rating and has the capacity to terminate the relationship if after repeated warnings t…

This doesn't make sense to me. I did some contract work a couple years ago and: 1. The company set the hourly rate which meant they dictated how much I could earn 2. The company set the contract terms 3. The company told me what features to build and could penalize me if I decided not to build some 4. The company could evaluate my performance any way they wanted and terminate the contract at any time for no cause If…

1. You negotiate the hourly rate, or take another contract with one of the many other clients if that is not agreed. Not an option with Uber.

2. As above.

3. Not equivalent with plenty of other drivers in the area to take the call - if the driver was dropping the passenger off halfway it would be equivalent.

4. This is fair - and the only argument in the judgement I thought weak.

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

#57

Post by vidarh »

fallingknife wrote: post #22
rogual wrote: post #6

The court made very specific arguments: 1. Uber set the fare which meant that they dictated how much drivers could earn 2. Uber set the contract terms and drivers had no say in them 3. Request for rides is constrained by Uber who can penalise drivers if they reject too many rides 4. Uber monitors a driver's service through the star rating and has the capacity to terminate the relationship if after repeated warnings t…

This doesn't make sense to me. I did some contract work a couple years ago and: 1. The company set the hourly rate which meant they dictated how much I could earn 2. The company set the contract terms 3. The company told me what features to build and could penalize me if I decided not to build some 4. The company could evaluate my performance any way they wanted and terminate the contract at any time for no cause If…

When I've done contracting (in the UK), my clients were always very careful to 1) actually negotiate, including the rate, 2) set a defined end, 3) stress that I controlled when and where the work was carried out (as long as I met agreed delivery times) and a number of other factors exactly because if it looks too much like employment, they'd run the risk that I could in fact take them to a tribunal and claim they should be forced to treat me as an employee and/or we'd both need to deal with IR35 in terms of tax treatment.

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

#58

Post by namdnay »

fallingknife wrote: post #38
apexalpha wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you truly are a contractor you have the opportunity to negotiate over your hourly rate and terms of works.

I did have that opportunity, as does an Uber driver. But, as is the case in any negotiation, the counterparty has the right to hold firm on the price.

An Uber driver has no opportunity to negotiate the rate with the customer. If in the app you said "I want to go to the airport" and then each driver interested replied with a quote, that would be rate negotiation.

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

#59

Post by gjulianm »

refurb wrote: post #39
lordnacho wrote: post #25

I don't know anything about how the law works, but it seems to accord with the reality of how people tend to think of jobs. Have you ever met an Uber driver who didn't give the impression that this was what he did all the time? I haven't, though I imagine not everyone is full time. It's quite a way from the idea that anyone with a car can give someone else a ride. For instance, I've never met a driver who happened to…

Is whether someone “does it all day” a factor in determining if they are a employee versus contractor? Plenty of contractors work all day long.

But most contractors don't work all day long, all days for the same client though. That's the point.

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

#60

Post by pfortuny »

fallingknife wrote: post #22
rogual wrote: post #6

The court made very specific arguments: 1. Uber set the fare which meant that they dictated how much drivers could earn 2. Uber set the contract terms and drivers had no say in them 3. Request for rides is constrained by Uber who can penalise drivers if they reject too many rides 4. Uber monitors a driver's service through the star rating and has the capacity to terminate the relationship if after repeated warnings t…

This doesn't make sense to me. I did some contract work a couple years ago and: 1. The company set the hourly rate which meant they dictated how much I could earn 2. The company set the contract terms 3. The company told me what features to build and could penalize me if I decided not to build some 4. The company could evaluate my performance any way they wanted and terminate the contract at any time for no cause If…

If that is the case, you might have sued that company and won.

So, maybe it is not exactly the same.

Post reply on HN