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

141–150 of 387 posts

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

#141

Post by dan1234 »

aminozuur wrote: post #15

"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.

In my city, Uber (especially with their surge pricing) is usually more expensive than the traditional private hire cabs (all of whom now have apps of at least acceptable quality).

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

#142

Post by whelming_wave »

chrisseaton wrote: post #111
orlp wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The objectionable behavior is that they represent themselves as being restaurant X, or at least present themselves in such a way that finding out that they aren’t actually restaurant X but a reseller is difficult.

edit: This got way more discussion than I anticipated. I think that even if there was a massive banner on the top of the site that told you GenericDeliveryCo was operating this website as a front for the restaurant, we are not them, etc, this behavior by GenericDeliveryCo is still damaging to the businesses they are creating websites of because they tend to absolutely bury the real website via better SEO. There’s an argument to be made that some restaurants would enjoy having a website made for them - for business or whatever other reason - but there’s no reason GenericDeliveryCo couldn’t... ask first.

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

#143

Post by cameronh90 »

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...

Nothing I can see in his comment would exclude him from contracting outside of IR35.

There's a questionnaire you can do here:

https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check-employment-status-for-t...

It seems more likely to come down to setting your own hours, can you pay other people to do work for you, can you have other clients, are you using your own equipment, etc.

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

#144

Post by dgellow »

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. As a contractor I negotiate my rates with the companies I work with. Uber drivers cannot do this.

2. I also negotiate contract terms. Uber drivers cannot do this.

3. Uber drivers are penalized for not taking rides, which is more akin to refusing a paid opportunity than building a feature. Again as a contractor I do negotiate the work I can and want to do.

4. For this point I agree with you. I can also terminate the contract on my end.

The main difference I see is the imbalance of power. As a self-employed software engineer I can decide who I work with and negotiate almost everything with them. I have my business, they have theirs, and we discuss to try to reach agreements or not. Uber drivers are not in this position. Uber can dictate everything they want, drivers can only decide to stay or leave.

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

#145

Post by chrisseaton »

whelming_wave wrote: post #142
chrisseaton wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The objectionable behavior is that they represent themselves as being restaurant X, or at least present themselves in such a way that finding out that they aren’t actually restaurant X but a reseller is difficult. edit: This got way more discussion than I anticipated. I think that even if there was a massive banner on the top of the site that told you GenericDeliveryCo was operating this website as a front for the re…

Ok but see how we've slipped down from full-on 'fraudulent' to just 'objectionable'? People are allowed to be objectionable if they want to.

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

#146

Post by gjulianm »

refurb wrote: post #114
gjulianm wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the contractors who do full time work are paid by a placement agency to be a full-time employee, that's possibly fraud...

In the case of Uber, it's very clear that the contractors work for Uber, as it's Uber the one that sets the conditions of the job.

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

#147

Post by tobr »

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…

Getting an hourly rate and then being given tasks to accomplish is very different. Imagine if they had decided how much each complete task was worth, you had to spend a significant part of your time waiting unpaid to get tasks assigned to you, and they would terminate you if you avoided tasks where the pay vs workload was unreasonable.

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

#148

Post by bombcar »

chrisseaton wrote: post #125
MatekCopatek wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but you could always do that and be delivery-only without paying anyone. I think the service you're getting here is primarily the exposure of being on a popular platform. That and them handling the order process.

> but you could always do that and be delivery-only without paying anyone Ok so if that's an option then what's the problem?! I don't get the fury here. Restaurants are free to partner with delivery companies. Restaurants are free to not partner with delivery companies. Delivery companies are free to buy and resell product from restaurants and add their own markup. Restaurants are free to decline to sell product to d…

A number of people don’t like it because the delivery company messes up the order (delivers cold, etc) and the restaurant takes the blame.

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

#149

Post by ctoth »

tobr wrote: post #134
ctoth wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a response to the first sentence of my comment, which I strongly appreciate. But I don't understand how it fits with the rest of my questions? I understand your friends think a social media website is enough. This doesn't mean they need to accept having a website created for them. It sucks that they have to opt out of local delivery services, but it also sucks I have to opt out of junk mail. I still don't und…

Why would a response have to address everything in a comment, especially when it goes rambling like that? EDIT: Note, the comment I’m replying to grew by about 300% after I posted this.

It totally doesn't! Excepting the case where the first sentence introduces an idea and the rest expand upon it.

Let's assume that restaurants don't want people to order their food through delivery. Why don't they just opt out? If they aren't opting out, then clearly the people buying the delivery are paying the same as any other takeout customer? Where is the problem here? What is the thing that gets people so very offended on behalf of restaurant owners? I actively want to understand this!

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

#150

Post by roenxi »

chrisseaton wrote: post #145
whelming_wave wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The objectionable behavior is that they represent themselves as being restaurant X, or at least present themselves in such a way that finding out that they aren’t actually restaurant X but a reseller is difficult. edit: This got way more discussion than I anticipated. I think that even if there was a massive banner on the top of the site that told you GenericDeliveryCo was operating this website as a front for the re…

Ok but see how we've slipped down from full-on 'fraudulent' to just 'objectionable'? People are allowed to be objectionable if they want to.

Mr. Wave may have meant legally objectionable as in "the objection that would be the core of the legal case" or "the legal system objects to this". Similar to how a legal complaint doesn't mean someone whining.
Post reply on HN