Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by wtetzner » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:35 PM UTC

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.

So just to look at this from another perspective.

If I created a chase-bank.com website, and allowed users to interact with their actual Chase account through it, but I took a percentage of all transactions, it would be fine?

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

#272

Post by wtetzner » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:38 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #120

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…

> 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.

I don't know what the OP meant, but if the customer is paying a markup for the food, then they might end up ordering less food.

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

#273

Post by mytailorisrich » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:39 PM UTC

mafuy wrote: post #169

mytailorisrich wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With on-premises service a restaurant must hire waiting staff and manage the tables (tablecloth, dishes, cutlery, etc). Preparing food for takeaway actually saves a lot and that's why restaurants that traditionally offer takeaway in addition to on-premises service often offer 10-15% discount for takeway as a matter of course. Deliveroo is not "robbing" restaurants if they charge 20%...

Are you sure the discount is not due to different taxes applying? In my country, there is a 19% tax on most goods and services, but only a 6% or so tax on food. Sitting down means you pay the high tax, and takeout means you pay the low tax.

It depends on the jurisdiction. In the UK I believe that hot food is taxed in the same way whether it is on-premises or takeaway.

Anyway, at least in the UK and some other EU countries there is no obligation to lower the price because tax is lower (since prices to consumers are inclusive of all taxes) so if tax is indeed lower it can be a bonus for the restaurant (on top of cost savings), which makes Deliveroo's fee even less of a "robbery".

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

#274

Post by mytailorisrich » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:39 PM UTC

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.

Indeed, an "oversupply" of taxis is good for consumers, but of course it is not sustainable.

Uber has been a very good thing for consumers through their own service and because they have forced taxis to improve to compete.

Taxis are fighting for their own interests that do not necessarily align with consumers' but of course it's not good for PR so they try to spin it in a different way.

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

#275

Post by MaxBarraclough » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:40 PM UTC

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.

This discussion has cropped up before.

• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24931128

• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25114024

• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20625232

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

#276

Post by youngtaff » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:42 PM UTC

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #89

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.

But they would be being 'paid' perhaps double the employee rate. Paying yourself and spouse with dividends (20% tax) rather than a salary, taking lots of business expenses, and withholding income until needed. A few years ago this was common in many London investment banking dev jobs - it appealed to both the companies and certain developers. Often those who had other business interests. I had a colleague whose contr…

> But they would be being 'paid' perhaps double the employee rate. Paying yourself and spouse with dividends (20% tax) rather than a salary, taking lots of business expenses, and withholding income until needed.

Dividends only save NI rather than tax as only first 2K is tax free, then its' 7.5% to the end of the lower rate band, and then something else in the higher one (andahdn as they come from profits corporation tax has already been paid on them)

Real savings come from avoiding NI, and having partners as co-employees / directors / shareholders so the 'income' can be split between two people rather than one

Offshore companies and gold bars is ripe for HMRC taking a closer look

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

#277

Post by Jochim » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:42 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #202

Larrikin wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Legality already is society’s measure of what’s acceptable. If you want to change the standard then you do so by changing the law.

Acceptability isn't usually a binary. Legality is the cutoff point at which we decide you should be punished for unacceptable behaviour, but it's perfectly possible for behaviour to be both unacceptable but legal.

Consider: - Cutting your grass at 8am when your neighbour works nights.

- A well off person putting their child up for adoption because they don't want the hassle.

- Payday loans given to people you know won't be able to pay them off, ensuring they pay you far more than the value of the loan.

- Banks processing payments out of order to trigger overdraft fees that would otherwise not have been collected.

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

#278

Post by gruez » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:43 PM UTC

ausbah wrote: post #235

when your business model classifies paying workers fair wages and normal benefits as a "risk", your company shouldn't exist

I don't understand this logic. Surely having a job is better than no job? The fact that they're choosing to work with uber in the first place probably means there's no better job available, so getting rid of uber or that type of job would result in the worker being worse off.

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

#279

Post by wtetzner » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:44 PM UTC

ctoth wrote: post #81

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…

It's 2021. If I were opening a restaurant in I think the bare minimum I could do would be to register the base domain? Okay, let's assume I don't. I'm still getting people ordering that wouldn't otherwise order? because I didn't have a website? Still just don't see what's wrong here. I don't want to mention that I'm blind in every frickin HN post but I'm blind, and Uber Eats and etc. are great. and there are restaura…

If you owned a restaurant called Fred's Diner, you might have a website called freds-diner.com.

If a delivery company gets the domain freds-diner-restaurant.com, then they're competing for your traffic.

And their domain might end up higher in Google search results, leading customers to order there. So I don't think it's necessarily the case that they're getting customers they otherwise wouldn't have.

Customers that are only willing to order from Uber Eats etc. aren't going to look for the restaurant's website anyway, they'll just go through the delivery company's website.

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

#280

Post by boomboomsubban » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:45 PM UTC

pmyteh wrote: post #252

boomboomsubban wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

London famously has one of the strictest requirements for licensing taxi drivers, and the rest of the Uk seems to have city managed licenses as well.

For taxis (which you can hail on the street) the fares are fixed. For private hire vehicles (which you can't) they aren't. In both cases there are 'fit and proper person' requirements to get a licence, and in London there is a famously difficult test of the driver's knowledge of city streets and routes to get a taxi (but not a private hire) licence. In no cases do we have a medallion system, though. Licences are not…

No, but you do have city managed taxi drivers where the city limits how many licenses are given out. While they aren't transferrable like the US medallions, that doesn't change the point of the post.