Uber drivers in London are now entitled to workers’ rights

A tribunal in London today decided that Uber drivers are entitled to workers' rights such as paid holidays and the minimum wage.

Uber has argued that its drivers are their own employers, and that its app merely connects them to work—a setup that excludes the company from following laws such as those establishing a minimum wage that apply only to employees.

Treating the drivers as contractors has filled Uber's pockets with billions of $, and left drivers dissatisfied. This of course leads to high employee turn over. Uber and lift have 65 percent of active drivers had been driving for less than six months, and 18 percent had been driving for less than two months.

A tribunal in London today decided that Uber drivers are entitled to workers' rights such as paid holidays and the minimum wage.

Uber will appeal, but the tribunal says pay and treat the drivers like employees, is this good?

Staggering' implications

This is the first time that Uber has faced legal action in the UK over the status of its drivers. The firm has attempted to settle a similar case in the US.

"So I think they're going to be looking very swiftly at whether there are alternatives, whether they can change the way they operate or their contractual terms."

I imagine Uber will be scrambling to keep this gig economy rolling. Uber has made a ton of $. I would think they are really hoping to extend a legal battle until the arrival of their personal savior, a self driving car.

A blow to the "gig" economy

"This case represents the first proper legal review of whether jobs in this part of the so-called gig economy really represent a new paradigm of freedom and self-employment, or in fact are simply a new technology ploy to deny employed workers ordinary employment rights and a national minimum wage," says Maria Ludkin, legal director at the GMB

"In our view Uber's business model is underpinned by the shaky foundations of worker exploitation and tax avoidance, both of which end up being underwritten by the ordinary taxpayer."

The company insists it is simply a technology platform that links supply with demand - in this case the supply of self-employed drivers with demand for cabs. It believes that most drivers want to be self-employed. "The main reason people choose to partner with Uber is so they can become their own boss, pick their own hours and work completely flexibly. In fact two-thirds of new partner-drivers joining the Uber platform have been referred by another partner," says Jo Bertram, regional general manager for Uber UK.

This was prior to the decision that supported the drivers with min wage, breaks and holidays. This as all things boils down to $ Uber has it, and the drivers want some (more).

The arguments sound exactly like arguments that when brought up on ATS proves to be very unpopular. The fact that a large corp can pay beans, make billions and leave the tax payer holding the bill for medical, food, heat to name a few is OK by large segments of our society. I think Uber is a business model that better hope driverless cars get here soon, because they can't make the billions they are if they pay their help.

www.nbcbayarea.com...
news.fastcompany.com...
www.bbc.com...

So they should greedy #s !

Interesting to see what Uber will do here. In essence, Uber is just a software package, an app. This ruling turns an app into an employer, which is an entirely different realm of activity. It's kind of like saying eHarmony, which got you two together for a fee, is now responsible for the success of your relationship. That's a whole lot of responsibility to take on. The issue could be solved in about two seconds. Just turn off the app for the UK. Problem solved. Don't know if they have the cajones to do it. In any case, it's pretty certain the price for a ride will go up. "Benefits" aren't free.

Well, as Uber is another one of those "global" companies that pays sod-all tax in the UK, I hope this tribunal sticks and they are dragged kicking and screaming into the light of a responsible corporation.

Uber tax joke

Employment laws in the UK must be preserved.

Are you familiar with all of the lobbying taking place from all other transportation businesses?

-That Uber is destroying the inflated prices of cabs?

-That the sub contract guys who want to drive for extra money are almost everyone.

-That they are willfully signing up to drive?

-That they make their own hours, and and subsequently are self employed contractors.

-That in many places they can get a driver to you for a third the cost and a third the wait time?

This nonsense wouldn't fly here, it is an attempt to regulate them back to the prices cabbies want.

Follow the money

originally posted by: paraphi
Well, as Uber is another one of those "global" companies that pays sod-all tax in the UK, I hope this tribunal sticks and they are dragged kicking and screaming into the light of a responsible corporation.

Uber tax joke

Employment laws in the UK must be preserved.

Are they taxed like subs in the US?

Just an attempt by the taxi cartel to regulate Uber out of business.

I LOVE Uber. Only time I take a regular taxi now is if for some reason I don't have time to use the Uber app which is rarely nowadays. Uber cars are far nicer than any cab, usually cheaper, and lot more convenient.

It is absurd to say that Uber drivers are employees. Uber merely facilitates someone who wants to drive with someone who needs a ride. Nothing more.

Once self-driving cars get here, you can kiss taxi driver's good by for the most part.

Uber should be shut down.
They do not have to follow the rules of other real cab companies.

I never knew Uber was intended as a full time job?

What about eBay, should they provide paid vacations to persons selling items on eBay's site?

YouTube, should provide benefits to persons posting videos?

Are you wiling to pay a browsing fee to use eBay and YouTube if it gets benefits for the persons they exploit?

Here in the USA, private contractors don't get paid vacations?

a reply to: Mandroid7

Well the courts disagree, I don't know the ins and outs of their decision, but I agree with it. A google search will show sky high employee turn over, a sign of critical employee problems. The true cost of the ride isn't included in the fare, hence the employee turn over. The first $1000 repair/accident wakes up how the gig economy really works.

It's cool how flexible the uber jobs are, but the courts are finding major problems with with taxes and what the drivers should be considered.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Uber should be shut down.
They do not have to follow the rules of other real cab companies.

Cab companies have used regulation to keep competition out of the market. The end result is high fares, smelly drivers who barely speak english, and crappy cars.

Uber used the internet to disintermediated the cab industry just like travel agents.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
They do not have to follow the rules of other real cab companies.

The tribunal was based around the fact that Uber drivers in the UK have no employment rights. The argument is that the drivers are not self-employed, as the level of control of the drivers by Uber is "as if" they were employed staff.

Uber's business model may work in the US and other countries where employment protection practices are less important, but the UK has some decent practices that need to be preserved. If Uber is allowed to erode such employment safeguards then it makes a mockery of local (UK) laws and rights.

Sod all to do with conventional taxi companies. Everything to do with the application of local laws and principles on employment rights.

If Uber dictates and controls any or all of the following:

- the hours the drivers have to work
- if they're paid by the amount of time that they work
- if they're paid any kind of commission
- if Uber pays out any kind of allowances or reimbursements
- if the drivers do not have the freedom to pick and choose what work they will do
- if the drivers do not have the freedom to work in a manner they see fit
- if the drivers do not have the freedom to subcontract their work whenever they may deem it necessary



Then the Uber drivers have a legitimate complaint that they can take to court to prove that they are not actually self-employed contractors, but rather, are employees of Uber and are therefore entitled to employee labour standards.

Uber cannot get the best of both worlds... it doesn't work that way.

originally posted by: paraphi

Sod all to do with conventional taxi companies. Everything to do with the application of local laws and principles on employment rights.

Yet it is the taxi companies who are complaining and the unions who are facilitating. If you think this is all about "local laws and principles" you're delusional. This is politics, plain and simple. Taxis are "regulated by government' why, exactly? To keep the monopoly going. If you regulate the number of taxis available, you create a dependency on those taxis because they alone are ALLOWED by government to transport people in cars. Uber punctured that model of artificial scarcity caused by the collusion of taxi companies and government. The "local laws and principles" are just a tool of the government class to enforce that monopoly.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Mandroid7

Well the courts disagree, I don't know the ins and outs of their decision, but I agree with it. A google search will show sky high employee turn over, a sign of critical employee problems. The true cost of the ride isn't included in the fare, hence the employee turn over. The first $1000 repair/accident wakes up how the gig economy really works.

It's cool how flexible the uber jobs are, but the courts are finding major problems with with taxes and what the drivers should be considered.

Right, the courts will side with the side that benefits the state the most/easiest. Licensing and reg payments, not playing collect-a-tax from subs. It's too much work to collect, when you can hit one source, the cab co.

The "sub contract" type of work needs to be protected at all cost.

This is small business. It says I don't work for you, I am hired by you, you handle your business, I handle mine.
When handling your business, you pay your taxes and insurance, overhead maintenance, fuel etc, etc...

It is up to the driver to assess the viability of doing business with Uber, and as such asking for a raise, if it isn't worth it.

That is a free market killing move imo

Its a complicated issue and not clear cut.

I think a bigger issue is that Uber pays what a driver should be payed, and not necessarily treat him like an employee.

For example, in NYC, they came in and started charging rates that were almost half of what the Taxi drivers make. This in itself is unethical because the Taxi driver unions have fought for that rate, in fact were even dissatisfied with those rates and was planning to fight for better rates. Taxi drivers also don't pay a commission, they keep 100% of their fares (minus gas and car rental fees). Uber drivers on the other hand make only about 70% of their fares. So basically Uber drivers make just less than half the rate Yellow Taxi drivers make in NYC. This is not ethical. Uber should have to follow the same rules and not be able to set rates that are less than taxis.

I do not think treating them like employees is the answer since part of the reason people want to work for Uber is because you can be an independent contractor and work when you want.

If the drivers became employees and Uber used their own cars, then the employees will be paid crap, the same as other car service companies that use the same model. They would be paid even less than what they make now.

a reply to: nOraKat

Until the consumer is willing to pay the true cost of labor, and not worry about obtaining lots of cheap stuff, not much will change.

Still waiting for this advertising campaign. Our products are more expensive, but it keeps persons employed in our country with a living wage?

originally posted by: schuyler
Yet it is the taxi companies who are complaining and the unions who are facilitating.

Actually, the Tribunal has been brought by Uber "staff", with the support of a Trade Union.

The conventional taxi companies are nothing to do with this, although clearly they have a vested interest as the Uber business model is exploitative and undercuts legitimate companies unfairly.