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

161–170 of 387 posts

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

#161

Post by chrisseaton »

roenxi wrote: post #150
chrisseaton wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

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

#162

Post by raverbashing »

roel_v wrote: post #40
habosa wrote: post #10

Really interested to see what this does to Deliveroo. I live in central London on a pretty busy street and it's really wild how many Deliveroo drivers there are. In front of most of the popular takeaway restaurants there are 3-5 drivers waiting at any given time. The increase in delivery and decrease in normal foot traffic during the pandemic has made this really stick out. Deliveroo already totally robs these restau…

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…

Haven't this done by any company in Europe, and yes, it is despicable

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

#163

Post by chrisseaton »

twoslide wrote: post #159
chrisseaton wrote: post #120

Earlier 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.

> An owner of a local restaurant told me he pays about 30% revenue to share to Deliveroo, as part of his agreement with them.

If they've agreed to it, what's the problem?

The parent comment was complaining about Deliveroo setting up without an agreement. When they do that they have to mark up - they can't take a 30% cut of the restaurant's price as the restaurant charges Deliveroo full price.

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

#164

Post by jessesoo »

habosa wrote: post #10

Really interested to see what this does to Deliveroo. I live in central London on a pretty busy street and it's really wild how many Deliveroo drivers there are. In front of most of the popular takeaway restaurants there are 3-5 drivers waiting at any given time. The increase in delivery and decrease in normal foot traffic during the pandemic has made this really stick out. Deliveroo already totally robs these restau…

This question has been bothering me for a very long time now, does a food delivery platform really require the 20-30% fee to operate? If so, what justifies it? Or is it because of the spike in demand due to the pandemic so they can get away with it?

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

#165

Post by chrisseaton »

bombcar wrote: post #148
chrisseaton wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This situation is no different to any other resale situation - you address your complaint to the person your transaction was with.

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

#166

Post by blippage »

Whenever I hear the words "gig economy", I mentally substitute the words "shite economy". It's basically just low-paid shite that is exploitative.

A few years back I came across a site that was looking for technical writers. They'd be editors, and you'd have to rework bits that they weren't pleased with. You'd give them the copyright, too. Yeah, right, like I'm going to write a book for a grand and let them have exclusive rights to it. I felt like writing back to these clowns telling me that they were insulting my intelligence.

I would rather write documentation and give away for free than accept their terms. (I do do the odd bit of tech writing, strictly small-scale amateur stuff, of course).

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

#167

Post by AniseAbyss »

stefs wrote: post #127
kukx wrote: post #64

Earlier 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.

i'd be interested to see how much the pay of the delivery rider could be increased, while keeping the company profitable, if you only reduced “key management personnel” compensation to a manageable level. is it really normal for a CEO to earn a thousand times more than a normal employee? a hundred times?

Where I live being a delivery driver is not really a job for an adult. It ranges from 15 year old kids on ebikes to 25 year old students on scooters. Minimum wage for this group is pretty low it wouldn't make that much of a difference.

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

#168

Post by vidarh »

kukx wrote: post #64
habosa wrote: post #10

Really interested to see what this does to Deliveroo. I live in central London on a pretty busy street and it's really wild how many Deliveroo drivers there are. In front of most of the popular takeaway restaurants there are 3-5 drivers waiting at any given time. The increase in delivery and decrease in normal foot traffic during the pandemic has made this really stick out. Deliveroo already totally robs these restau…

"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.

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

#169

Post by mafuy »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #103
tchalla wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if, both options exist. Option A - 100% for a dining area at a trendy location Option B - 80% w/o dining area at a trendy location There are many cases where people say it is Option B but Option A doesn't exist.

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.

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

#170

Post by fallingfrog »

This is great news, hopefully we get some similar protections in the United States. Labor laws exist for a reason. I think the key difference is ownership- if you own everything you need to do a job- the “means of production”- maybe you’re an independent contractor. But if you don’t own the network and you are reliant on some organization for the work then I think that makes you an employee. I’ll admit that there is some grey area in between. But basically there is an unbalanced power relationship between an employer and employee that makes labor laws necessary. The whole business model of Uber and other gig economy businesses is to save money on labor costs by hacking labor laws.
Post reply on HN