The world would be a lot better if we had a reasonable minimum economic floor and unrestricted zero hours at will employment. We're band-aiding over artificial problems we created for ourselves instead of actually redesigning policy and law to fit 21st century technology and the opportunities it presents.
Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules
171–180 of 387 posts
Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules
#172Every 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?
Flex time is a common concept in workplaces since antiquity.
Day work (you pick up jobs as available) is also a common concept since antiquity.
> If some drivers weren’t happy with the status quo, why not take their skills and work for another firm?
They did, and that firm also tried to act like they weren't employees.
Uber is in the wrong here. We've set laws on how to treat employees. Their attempt to say "but they aren't employees" is only an attempt to skirt these obligations. They don't have some moral, hypothetical, capitalistic high ground here. They are just one of many scummy employers that necessitate more employment laws.
Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
An owner of a local restaurant told me he pays about 30% revenue to share to Deliveroo, as part of his agreement with them. He also runs his own delivery service, and encourages customers to use that (phoning in) rather than Deliveroo.
A Chinese restaurant in Lambeth tried disabling uber eats a few years back and running their own delivery service.
Our food arrived TWO HOURS after ordering and cold.
I'd really rather NOT go back to the old way.
Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If they did then what do they think is the infraction or offence that is being committed? They're being objectionable by committing or infracting... what? What law or regulation would they be breaking?
Trademark law, mostly. If I open an Apple Store, I'm gonna get a lot of lawsuits headed my way in no time. You can't just use another company's logo and name without their permission.
Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not having access to the justice because of shortage of money should be illegal instead.
You can't make a circumstance illegal.
But everybody should be equally able to defend themselves, or sue before a court of law, which is clearly not the case today in UK and most countries on the planet. The legislator has created complex laws that only benefit people with a lot of money thus lawyers. Which means that citizens do not have equal rights in a court of law and can't get a fair trial.
It's just like tax avoidance. It's expensive to set up but ultimately it results in rich people paying LESS taxes/wealth than poor people for those who can afford it.
Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules
#176Earlier 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.
So do it? I really don't see the problem. I get that Deliveroo puts you on their platform even if you don't agree (the apps where I live don't do this), but if that's the case the restaurant is still getting the full price for selling their food. The customer pays the extra 20%.
Some restaurant owners don't like this. It gives the impression that the restaurant is charging that extra money.
Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If they did then what do they think is the infraction or offence that is being committed? They're being objectionable by committing or infracting... what? What law or regulation would they be breaking?
I would hate to live in the world you imagine where every single awful thing that isn't obviously illegal is considered acceptable by society.
Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules
#178Earlier 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…
Agree that Deliveroo fees seem high on both ends (customer and restaurant). Wonder if this means they (a) they are inefficient (b) they have large profit margins or (c) it is actually more expensive to run than one might think. If (a) or (b), the conditions for lower priced alternatives seem high.
The answer is somewhere between A and C depending on what you call inefficiency - Assuming 20 minutes per order (3 per hour) at a minimum wage of c£9 per hour pre-holiday and any other benefits, you are talking about £3 per delivery. They need to pay more than this, as many drive and the fee needs to cover fuel, so call it £4 per delivery or something like that, it's somewhere between £3-£4 probably.
So then you add the cost of user aquisition - which is usually giving out £5 - £10 vouchers and for most of those customers to only use the service once. Clearly the first delivery is a massive loss. Then following that lots of orders are done on a free-or-low delivery cost basis (incl. Deliveroo Plus).
These companies are in a land grab still so it's low margin and high competition between them and Uber Eats. Uber Eats is technically a better cost model (i.e. more efficient) than Deliveroo assuming car delivery, as you can interleave deliveries and cab rides.
Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules
#179They 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.
Somehow, taxi companies have been making this work for 100 years.
Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they did then what do they think is the infraction or offence that is being committed? They're being objectionable by committing or infracting... what? What law or regulation would they be breaking?
Trademark law, mostly. If I open an Apple Store, I'm gonna get a lot of lawsuits headed my way in no time. You can't just use another company's logo and name without their permission.
> You can't just use another company's logo and name without their permission.
I'm afraid I think you're mistaken.
You're allowed to use someone's trademark to factually describe the product you're selling. You don't need the owner's permission to do that.
If you're selling an actual Apple laptop, you can use the trademarks 'Apple' and the Apple logo to describe it.
If you're selling an actual Bob's Burger, you can use that trademark and logo to describe it.