I guess the idea of independence and self direction in work is antithetical to a socialist Nanny-state like the UK. Too bad for them, and uber. If they (uber et al) can game this so that one can actually have a gig economy in the uk, that'll be great. Otherwise, I guess the old models of taxi companies and self delivery can be used just like they were for decades. Only the UK will lose in the long run.
Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules
281–290 of 387 posts
Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 wo…
[deleted]
Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
"passing off" is a common law tort. If there's confusion, it could well fall under that. There's also a very large body of trademark specific law which may specifically address this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off
> The law of passing off prevents one trader from misrepresenting goods or services as being the goods and services of another, and also prevents a trader from holding out his or her goods or services as having some association or connection with another when this is not true. But the food isn't being misrepresented! It is the food of the restaurant. Passing off means pretending the product is something it isn't. Tha…
"goods and services"
The service of delivery is what is being passed off.
Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you going after the one-data-point anecdote instead of the broader picture?
The broader picture is that all of the money to pay the driver comes from the customer . If the driver-restaurant system isn’t creating enough value for the customer to pay them a living wage, they won’t get it. Either they’ll get a lesser wage, go out of business, or both. That anecdote was immediately relatable to many of us who have gotten late, soggy, cold food delivery.
No. Your premise seem to be that this anecdote is correct and that that is the inevitable result of non gig-job delivery. I'm pretty sure that there's a lot of anecdotes out there with bad Uber Eats deliveries too.
Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 o…
> 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?
If people have to pay a large markup, they may end up ordering less food. Or maybe ordering from another place because this one seems too expensive.
The offense comes from delivery companies forcefully inserting themselves between customers and the restaurant. Why not just let customers go to the delivery company's website to order, if that's what they wanted? Why is it necessary to deceive customers?
Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Let's pay them." Ok, with whose money? I am all for good pay for everyone. The problem begins when we detach the pay from the value created by the worker. In many cases worker may become too expensive to hire. So trying to force business to pay more may result in less people having job.
We pay either way. The question is whether we pay to subsidise businesses that otherwise would not be viable by compensating through the welfare system, or whether we make them actually compete on equal terms with companies that pay well enough for their workers to earn a living wage.
>or whether we make them actually compete on equal terms with companies that pay well enough for their workers to earn a living wage.
Is this what's actually happening here? Are there delivery/cab companies paying a fair wage that's being out-competed by uber? To my knowledge delivery/cab companies don't pay a fair wage in general.
Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't have the (corrupt and failed) medallion system in the UK and we certainly don't have "city" managed "taxi" drivers. This is the UK supreme court (the one where the judges have real world experience)
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.
But you don't have to buy a fabulously expensive medallion
Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
taxi drivers can reject as many rides as they want, no?
In London there are only a few specific circumstances when a taxi driver (in their taxi) can reject a ride. E.g.
- they aren’t working (eg they’re going home, this isn’t a general excuse that can always be used)
- they’re going to pick up a prearranged passenger
- they’re eating their lunch (this exemption was introduced by Churchill, hence ‘Churchill’ is cabbie slang for one’s lunch break)
Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules
#289Every 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…
This is astute. Employment law in England and Wales has a long history of regulation taking a while to catch up with 'new' ways of operating, but effectively covers everything at issue here.
Flexible hours? Absolutely fine. Flexible hours at the employer's sole discretion (zero-hour contracts)? Also absolutely fine; although there is some political pushback, it's fully legal.
Temporary employment, from one day upwards? Absolutely fine. If it consists of a series of 'temporary' contracts which in reality make up a multi-year contract, it might get deemed as permanent - but if it's genuinely temporary no problem at all.
Not actually employment, but some kind of dependent contractor status? We even have that, which was the case at issue here: some provisions (e.g. minimum wage laws) apply, but others (particularly unfair dismissal rights) don't.
We've also got caselaw covering piecework (work in my factory and get paid £1/widget), home working, working for a business you also own, and a bunch of other unusual cases.
What you can't reliably do is say 'I've found a magic form of contract wording that means that workers' rights don't apply to me'. People have tried to do that for hundreds of years and the loopholes get closed for the obvious reason.
Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules
#290Earlier 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%.
> The customer pays the extra 20%.
Which means they might order less food than they would have with lower prices. Or that they might decide it's too expensive, and order from another restaurant.