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

111–120 of 387 posts

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

#111

Post by chrisseaton »

orlp wrote: post #48
roel_v wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel really bad for small restaurant owners. These large delivery companies totally take over their internet marketing too, registering a domain like ' - .com' and when you go to that website, you really have to pay attention to see that this is not the 'official' restaurant website and if you order through there, it's costing the restaurant a lot of money that they wouldn't miss out on if you'd order through their…

This should be straight up illegal and the companies sued to hell for. If I opened a site claiming to be a bank and accepting money on behalf of that bank, and keeping 20% I'd be behind bars for fraud in no time.

It's not fraud though, is it?

They advertise that you'll get food from Restaurant X and that's indeed what you get. It's not fraud to resell product, you don't need permission from the original seller to do it (in fact I think that's a specifically protected right), and it's not fraud or any kind of trademark violation to describe a product as being from Restaurant X if that is a fact.

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

#112

Post by secfirstmd »

Hopefully this will spread to other companies. IR35 in the UK is a very good law when enforced (usually against small businesses rather than big ones unfoet) for cutting through bullshit contract statuses that are designed to dodge employment taxes/benefits.

I hope it's extended to bigger companies and elsewhere. I know for example in Ireland lots of big companies like Facebook, Google etc have staff on 11 month contracts through third party firms in order to dodge employment law and taxes...it's ridiculous when those roles are assigned to those companies and have been the same roles for yeara

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

#113

Post by skocznymroczny »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #13
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…

I know it's popular to criticize Uber and similar apps nowadays, but when they launched, they were a breath of fresh air. It allowed you to get from point A to B in a new, clean car, without having to negotiate the price and without the risk of taxi driver scamming you for money (especially tourists who don't speak local languages fall victim to taxi drivers) or taking you on a much longer route on purpose. Also the phone app is much more convenient and safer than calling a taxi company to arrange a pickup. I don't want to go back to times before Uber, and I am glad 'traditional' taxi companies have also adopted the mobile app model.

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

#114

Post by refurb »

gjulianm wrote: post #59
refurb wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is the client Uber or the rider? In my corporate job I work with contractors who do full time for us for months at a time. They were paid by a placement agency, but we are the client.

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

#115

Post by buggeryorkshire »

ricardobayes wrote: post #84
gpmcadam wrote: post #62

Every Uber driver I speak to tells me how they prefer Uber to their previous job of a cabbie for a firm, they get flexibility, set their own hours and choose when to work Now they’re all permanent employees of Uber will they lose this flexibility? If some drivers weren’t happy with the status quo, why not take their skills and work for another firm?

This is probably a politically fuelled ruling. Boris Johnson wants to 'appeal to the masses' by making high-visibility rules like these, which sound good on paper but probably do more harm than good.

Boris had nothing to do with this ruling. Why crowbar politics into this discussion?

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

#116

Post by helsinkiandrew »

simias wrote: post #78
gpmcadam wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Disguised employees are generally advantageous for the company, not the worker.

For low paid drivers yes, but I know a lot of high paid software developers who would say otherwise.

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

#117

Post by jillesvangurp »

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…

A Dutch judge ruled on Deliveroo just a few days ago that they are not self employed and should be considered employees: https://www.nu.nl/economie/6116722/deliveroo-koeriers-zijn-o...

The consequences would be union negotiated salaries are applicable as well as other perks of being employed (sick leave, vacation, etc.) and time spent waiting at a restaurants is counted as work.

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

#118

Post by fock »

dexen wrote: post #92
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…

>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 this does not improve I sure hope they'l…

Your argument would be helped if you would actually respond to each of these points, which you don't.

Let's do it for you > 1) cities indeed in somec countries set the fare regulating taxis like a utility. it's pricy for consumers but transparent and stable for everyone. drivers can earn more money by reducing cost compared to their competition. Seems fair. 2) well, it's a public utility. So people can actually go and vote for or against taxi laws. You can't do that with uber... 3) I am not aware that a self-employed taxi-driver has to transport people? 4) as I'm not aware that cities monitor rides?

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

#119

Post by notahacker »

dexen wrote: post #92
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…

>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 this does not improve I sure hope they'l…

Licensed taxi drivers agree to provide services at the industry rate (minicab providers don't even have to do that) and follow some license conditions. They don't have an obligation to use a dispatch service which constantly alters the rate of pay they're expected to accept to maximise its own revenues. UK taxi licensing authorities aren't even allowed to make a profit on selling the licenses (the budget is ring-fenced)

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

#120

Post by chrisseaton »

roel_v wrote: post #40
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…

I feel really bad for small restaurant owners. These large delivery companies totally take over their internet marketing too, registering a domain like ' - .com' and when you go to that website, you really have to pay attention to see that this is not the 'official' restaurant website and if you order through there, it's costing the restaurant a lot of money that they wouldn't miss out on if you'd order through their…

> and if you order through there, it's costing the restaurant a lot of money

How does it cost the restaurant any money when they do this? The delivery companies can't unilaterally take a cut of the price, can they. I think you'll find the delivery companies mark up, and get their money that way, in this case where they don't have an agreement with the restaurant. The restaurant gets the price they ask for it.

Post reply on HN