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

371–380 of 387 posts

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

#371

Post by zajio1am »

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.

Depends on country. Here in Czechia due to tax advantages for self-employed the net worker income may be more than 50% bigger for self-employed than for regular emplyees with the same level of company expenses.

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

#372

Post by meowface »

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.

On the apps I use, they now have a disclosure about this before you press "Order".

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

#373

Post by ggm »

(From a flagged duplicate i submitted)

It was a six nil unanimous decision. It back dates to 2016.

They may be liable for millions in compensation.

Workers are not employees but have more rights than independent contractors.

Declaration: i hate uber and refuse to use them for myself, I've never run the app. I have nothing against the drivers who seem nice people. The company is a scofflaw, and sucks income and driver renumeration into a Californian VC suck hole.

I know the taxi industry was broken before Uber.

Somebody then asked "how does it suck money, its never been in profit" to which i want to reply, its valued at $100b, it has $25b of assets and 11b of revenue, and its using transfer pricing and intellectual property law to suck money out of every economy worldwide. The VCs and principals must be laughing themselves sick because by the time it falls over their WORST outcome is billions, not tens of billions, of retained value, to them. They won.

To me, this is a nail in the coffin of the gig economy. Its fundamentally flawed. It's bad, it marginalised people, killed people, and broke the law.

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

#374

Post by yomly »

cloudfifty wrote: post #199
yomly wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This comes across to me as very self-centered. Perfect service over having the drivers earning a livable wage?

Why? Because I wanted the meal I paid for to be on time and hot? For the record, I tip extremely generously on the delivery apps as I recognise the importance the riders are doing during the pandemic.

I will never ever willingly tolerate that two hour delivery again. At any price or discount. It was a week night and we were starving by the time the food arrived and it screwed up our routine for the day.

I would pay a reasonable premium to have that meal delivered to me on time and hot.

So really, deliveroo/uber eats created entirely new business. A friend who runs a restaurant said he thought they were the devil and was never going to join them until the pandemic but he said he is now a believer. Adapt or die.

As for drivers earning a liveable wage, I am for that and maybe regulation is required, who knows but you bet your ass the more efficient business with huge economies of scale will have more power to pay their drivers properly than indie mum n dad restaurants.

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

#375

Post by cloudfifty »

yomly wrote: post #374
cloudfifty wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comes across to me as very self-centered. Perfect service over having the drivers earning a livable wage?

Why? Because I wanted the meal I paid for to be on time and hot? For the record, I tip extremely generously on the delivery apps as I recognise the importance the riders are doing during the pandemic. I will never ever willingly tolerate that two hour delivery again. At any price or discount. It was a week night and we were starving by the time the food arrived and it screwed up our routine for the day. I would pay a…

> bet your ass the more efficient business with huge economies of scale will have more power to pay their drivers properly than indie mum n dad restaurants.

The only thing we've seen these "economies of scale" doing the last decade is the exact opposite, namely using all their muscles to pay workers as little as possible.

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

#376

Post by FeepingCreature »

pessimizer wrote: post #314
FeepingCreature wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I'm saying the notion of illegality does not apply, and in fact leads to absurd consequences. For instance, if you make it illegal for the accused to lack representation in court, you can then sue them for not having representation, a suit from which they cannot defend themselves, lacking representation, which then opens them up to another suit, ad infinitum! I think there's some conflation of "regulating" and "ma…

You get to choose who you apply laws to when you write them. If I make it illegal for a court to proceed if they do not provide representation to a defendant who desires it, I don't have to arrest the defendant.

Yeah but then you haven't made not having representation illegal, you've made not providing representation illegal.

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

#378

Post by dgellow »

cactus2093 wrote: post #356
dgellow wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

I don't get why you're so focused on the negotiation part. I'm guessing your services happen to be very in demand, which is great and gives you the ability to successfully negotiate. There are lots of other contractors that fail to negotiate and end up accepting a client's first offer. Are they not actually contractors? For #3, drivers may be penalized for being logged in and rejecting rides (though even that may hav…

Because as I say, the main difference I see is the imbalance of power.

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

#379

Post by nnurmanov »

This actually raises questions regarding validity of whole delivery economy. In this article they say about bad working conditions, no insurance, no work hours or vacations. Should the delivery companies be regulated? https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/world/amp-stori...

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

#380

Post by phatfish »

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.

I agree, the UK is on a fast track to a judiciary corrupted by useless politicians like Johnson. But I have a little more faith than you in the system as it stands currently. There is even a chance of saving it with a little more push back against the behaviour of Johnson and his fellow Conservative party members.
Post reply on HN