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

291–300 of 387 posts

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

#291

Post by wtetzner »

chrisseaton wrote: post #125
MatekCopatek wrote: post #45

Earlier 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.

> 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…

> Delivery companies are free to buy and resell product from restaurants and add their own markup.

Which is fine. I think the problem is that they are representing themselves as if they are the restaurant, not a reseller. Customers might go to the website the delivery company setup (restaurant-name-location.com instead of restaurant-name.com or whatever their pattern is) instead of the restaurant's website, see the high prices, and decide to try a cheaper place.

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

#292

Post by dexen »

pessimizer wrote: post #197
dexen wrote: post #92

Earlier 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…

Are you seriously asking how the relationship is different between a driver and Uber and a driver and the city they live and work in? The difference is both Uber and drivers are subject to the rule of law, whereas the rule of law isn't subject to Uber or the drivers except through the legislative process, which this is an article about. Nobody is saying that Uber can't apply whatever terms they want to the relationsh…

I am unhappy with your mis-representation of my post. I'm not asking beyond a clear "rhetorical question" used to emphasize the incredulity of the situation, quite the opposite: I am pointing out that the points, as described, are equivalent. That's not a contentious issue here.

Obviously different points could be raised and argued - as per other posts in this thread. However the specific points on which the court decision was based do match the relationship between cities and (regular) taxi drivers. If UK was a nation of laws, this ruling would also change the relationship between cities and taxi drivers.

But we know that won't happen - because public entities get an extra leeway with laws.

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

#293

Post by pmyteh »

ricardobayes wrote: post #232
HatchedLake721 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's Boris has to do with this? It's the Supreme Court's decision, not Cabinet's. The same Supreme court who ruled that Boris Johnson broke the law by suspending the parliament.

I would argue judicial independence would only exist in a scenario if the judge is not human, but a rule-based bot.

The judges are definitely human, but their biases are very strongly those of the judicial system, not those of the executive. They're all well-off lawyers, and mostly privately educated, white, and male - so there is an 'establishment' tinge to their viewpoints (though individual judges vary widely). But as far as politics goes, the predominant view is that justice is (and judges are) important, not that the government should have any particular influence.

For a small example, there was a recent case where an MP of the governing party (Charlie Elphicke) was convicted of sexual assault. As part of the sentencing process, defendants can submit character references ("He's a hugely charitable, reliable, all round good person and this offence is entirely out of character", that kind of thing) and several Conservative MPs sent them on his behalf, but asked for them to be kept confidential (presumably to avoid political damage at the upcoming election).

The judiciary were having none of it. The trial judge released the letters anyway, and the Lord Chief Justice (head of the criminal courts) rebuked the MPs for trying to influence the decision of a judge.[0] And this for something (character references) which are pretty mundane.

They really do not like bowing to political whims.

[0]: https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/character-references-cr...

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

#294

Post by pmyteh »

nemo44x wrote: post #157
saddlerustle wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who decides which drivers are allowed to drive and which should get no income at all?

They’ll form a union and distribute work based on seniority so anyone young and ambitious but without union connections is blocked out.

Just FWIW this isn't at all how British unions work. Closed shops are illegal and workers are selected by the employer, not by the union. Seniority might come into play if a workplace with a union recognition agreement wants to implement redundancies, but even then the old 'last in, first out' principle is rarely used because employers would normally rather shed their expensive older workers.

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

#295

Post by pmyteh »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #280
pmyteh wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not in London (which is mostly where Uber works) and the number of private hire licences (again, the category which Uber operates in) are not IIRC limited anywhere. And in practice the value of a taxi over a private hire licence not much higher anywhere except London because there's much less street hailing and a car is only a phonecall (or app click) away.

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

#296

Post by sokoloff »

cloudfifty wrote: post #284
sokoloff wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I did (and do) not argue it’s inevitable, but it is quite common in my experience.

My solution to their failure is to go pick it up myself, including purchasing some of those red insulated delivery boxes for our family use. It makes takeout much more enjoyable when the timing is predictable and the food almost as high-quality as if served on-site.

As a customer, my concern is with a goods and services I’m buying. The restaurant’s relationship with its employees, food suppliers, and power company is their concern, not mine. If a restaurant wants to pay $100/hr or any other legal wage, that’s their business, not mine.

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

#297

Post by michaelt »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #237
michaelt wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every Uber driver I speak to tells me how they prefer Uber to their previous job Of course they do - they're not going to get many five-star reviews if passengers leave the car feeling bad or complicit in exploitation.

What's a rating have to do with them complaining about the job? If someone gives them a low rating because of their thoughts on how they work, that person is a jerk.

The fact they're a jerk for rating you low doesn't erase the low rating.

You may well have enough presence of mind that a driver can tell you a bunch of upsetting things and you can get out the car feeling upset and still rate it as a great ride. Alas, many people in the service industry seem to have learned not to expect such insight from their customers.

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

#298

Post by pbhjpbhj »

chrisseaton wrote: post #181
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.

And I'd hate to live in a world where you can drag anyone you want before a judge because you don't like what they're doing. I don't like the colour of your shirt, so I'm going to say it's objectionable. It doesn't break any laws or infringe any regulations, but I want a judge's opinion on it anyway. See?

Why would you hate that? The judge's opinion would be "the shirt is not unlawful" and "you're wasting court time, have a fine". How would that harm you?

In the case of passing off a service you offer as begin the service of another company, there is a clear legal case to answer. And as I recall this is settled caselaw in the UK and the people pretending to be other companies are in the wrong.

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

#299

Post by kingaillas »

sokoloff wrote: post #241
Shish2k wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they've agreed to it, what's the problem? They’re in a position where the options are pretty much “agree to this” or “go out of business” (To which I guess the free-market response is “That’s not a problem - an independent restaurant SHOULD go out of business if they can’t compete with a website company when it comes to websites”?)

So Deliveroo is helping these restaurants survive the pandemic is your main argument? Or that they’d do just fine if no one had a website offering their food, but the Deliveroo website is an arms-race bleed-them-dry move?

Sometimes middlemen serve a useful purpose.

For example, I like grocery stores because they deal with farmers and food distribution and save me from driving out to source my own produce from growers.

Sometimes they... might not. It's all relative the cut they demand.

So here, are food delivery companies worth ~30% of cost?

Yes, all sort of anecdotes are possible to drum up in this situation. Long term, across the entire food industry, can a ~30% cost be absorbed? Somebody is paying that, you or the restaurant, because it sure as heck isn't the delivery company.

Will the service provided by delivery (and advertising/marketing) increase volume to offset ~30%?

I don't think so, which means that because of their oh-so-useful help, means prices go up. This is needed because either customers pay more, restaurants make less, or somehow the delivery/advertising/marketing company drives more volume so they can turn around and immediately take that as their cut.

If the customers don't like higher prices, they'll stop spending. If the restaurants don't make profit after this new expense, they'll shut down.

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

#300

Post by cloudfifty »

sokoloff wrote: post #296
cloudfifty wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I did (and do) not argue it’s inevitable , but it is quite common in my experience. My solution to their failure is to go pick it up myself, including purchasing some of those red insulated delivery boxes for our family use. It makes takeout much more enjoyable when the timing is predictable and the food almost as high-quality as if served on-site. As a customer, my concern is with a goods and services I’m buying. Th…

> is their concern, not mine.

Well. This is self-centered to me. I don't want to buy anything from anyone who doesn't treat people with dignity.

Post reply on HN