To be glad that Uber will not have to pay NMW and holiday pay?

[Twogoats]

www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-tribunal-self-employed-status

Even though they plan to appeal?

This could be the start of a slippery slope. If we let one company call their employees 'self-employed', then it could snowball into other industries. I am no fan of Uber, but if they are going to exist, then they should be fair.

Is that a good thing?

This, of course, is always the dilemma. However, if they get rid of too many staff, they will hit their own profits. For me that is where some of my anger comes from - the owners make huge profits.

I completely agree Plomino, there are companies like that up and down the country, most also insisting on the 'self employed people' they are using wearing their bloody uniforms! It's not right but they all seem to get away with it.

They will appeal and win.

The decision is atrocious - the drivers are the very definition of self employed! They can choose their working hours, work for more than 1 cab firm etc

HMRC has done fuck all about all the 'contractors' working in banks.

I haven't followed this closely, but at face value I would think taxi drivers should be self-employed. From one line in the newspaper report I suspect where Uber have gone wrong is exerting too much control over the drivers.

I doubt that a consequence of this will be drivers all becoming employees, it's more likely that Uber will just reduce control so that self-employment test is passed. (Assuming control is the issue, if not they will just address whatever the issue was so that the drivers meet the legal test for self-employment.)

I agree that all this doesn't matter much, as the era of cars driven by humans is likely to end very soon.

Are Uber drivers forced to work exclusively for Uber?

I'm self-employed in the true sense of the work - I set my own rates, I work when I want to work, I can turn down work if I want to, I have no minimum or maximum hours, I can work for more than one client if I want to, I don't have to give reasons to a client if I don't want to work with them any more.

(And of course on the flip side I don't get sick pay, holiday pay and clients don't have to give me notice either).

I don't really know enough about the life of an Uber driver to know whether they are free to work and not work when they want to, or take on other work too. But if they can't, they're probably more employed than self-employed.

Uber drivers are self-employed and are free to work for other companies etc.

And we are decades away from having driverless cars. It won't happen within our lifetime

And we are decades away from having driverless cars. It won't happen within our lifetime
was it expensive this crystal ball of yours?

HMRC has done fuck all about all the 'contractors' working in banks.

I think contractors working specifically in banks are not a big loss for HMRC, as they charge VAT on their turnover that banks can't reclaim, given their own outputs are not subject to VAT. I've not done any calculations, but that must raise the average rate of tax on what the banks pay for contractor labour to circa 40%, if you exclude any money going into pensions.

Contractors working for businesses that can reclaim VAT are another matter.

I have the impression that contractors in the public sector (which presumably also can't reclaim VAT) are all about to be treated as employees. Once the tax incentive not to be a direct employee is gone, I wonder if the employers can cut VAT costs by giving direct contracts.

(I don't work for banks or public sector so my understanding of the issues may not be perfect.)

I thought über drivers were totally in charge of where when and how much to work. That's the essence of self employed.
Rather than making their drivers employees (making uber just another taxi firm with a booking app) uber ought to try letting their drivers be genuinely properly no-strings self employed.

And we are decades away from having driverless cars. It won't happen within our lifetime

I specifically googled this a month or two ago, and the consensus seemed to be it will happen in 5-10 years. There was a news item in recent months that Uber was then launching (experimental) "driverless" taxis in Pittsburgh. (There are drivers in the cars, presumably to intervene in emergencies.)

This ruling is going to financially shatter the charitable/third sector.

There are literally thousands of freelancers who invoice charities for ad-hoc hours worked - youth workers, activity coordinators, project coordinators, bid writers etc. All technically fit the definition of 'worker'.

If these employers are required to back pay holiday etc, some small charities will fold completely.

Not sure if that was clear, it is my understanding that there are experimental driverless taxis currently in operation in Pittsburgh.

Here is an article I've just found, not yet read:-

www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-08-18/uber-s-first-self-driving-fleet-arrives-in-pittsburgh-this-month-is06r7on

"was it expensive this crystal ball of yours?" given that driverless cars have been a concept now for almost a decade and we are not much further towards them becoming a viable commercial product other than one or two having been released on the roads in the U.S it's a fairly obvious conclusion.

They aren't self employed, if they were then nannies could be classed as self.employed, and they're not.

you may feel that it is unlikely WannaBe but expressing certainty...well that's just hubris, noting is certain about the future

was it expensive this crystal ball of yours?

MN is really making me laugh at the moment. It's like it used to be.

I had read that Uber had invested in the idea of driverless, the issue though is that the definition of driverless is still undefined, given that many countries have already said that they will not allow a car to be completely driverless and that a licenced driver will still need to be present in the case of emergency.

Also, while we still have cars with drivers on the roads the safety of driverless could not be assured, and not every driver is going to be able to afford to go out and buy a driverless car in the next five/ten years, and most car drivers would not adopt the concept of not owning a car and simply calling one up when they need one. People don't use public transport as it is because of reliability, and as yet the reliability of any kind of dial-a-car could not be assured and it will take considerable time to be able to do so.

digital technology has enabled new business models which require existing legislation to be re evaluated

Nannies obviously have to work as and when their employers tell them too. Ergo employees.

The original idea of über was drivers click on whenever and as much or as little as they like and are matched with customers. Anyone could do a few hours here and there or do it full time and chop and change between the two without penalty. That level of freedom does not make them employees.
Now I think it doesn't quite work like that but that was the initial concept.

most car drivers would not adopt the concept of not owning a car and simply calling one up when they need one
so sure about the future!
how can you possibly know??
did you predict the internet, the popularity of smart phones, etc etc??
you probably know exactly which businesses to invest in, you're surely minted!!

Taken from the Uber website advertising for people to sign up as drivers:

When you want to make money, just open the app and you’ll start to receive trip requests. You’ll get information about your rider and directions to their location and destination. When the trip is over, you’ll receive another nearby request. And if you're ready to get off the road, you can sign off at any time.

That's practically the definition of being self-employed, the drivers work when they want! I really can't understand the logic behind this ruling at all.

This is parallel to the Hermes 'suit'- Hermes idea of self-employment is rather different to the 'real world' of self-employment, where you are responsible for deliveries on 'your' patch 6 days a week and electronically monitored (with calls to check on you); as a self-employed person it was an 'offer' I refused.

And we are decades away from having driverless cars. It won't happen within our lifetime

I'd bet my house we will have people in them in less than 15 years. i.e. private citizens will be legally on the road with them in that time.

This, of course, is always the dilemma. However, if they get rid of too many staff, they will hit their own profits. For me that is where some of my anger comes from - the owners make huge profits.

meanwhile, half their workers no longer have jobs.

This is a bit of an accident of modern globalisation and at this point a lack of competition. Uber can make a gajillion dollars because tax law is behind the times and if you make 1 pound per ride, well over the UK that's not that much, but over the world it's a ton.

I for one am happy that the black cab monopoly is being broken. We are being asked to pay for services and regulation that nobody values.

NNChangeagain Yes, this ruling potentially will come down on some third sector working practices. And so IMHO, actually it should. Just because many debatably "self-employed" people do freelance or consultancy work for good causes doesn't mean that the workers concerned don't have families to feed. Almost everyone working in the voluntary sector knows and accepts that their remineration is less than it would be in the public or private sector equivalents, and most don't mind that. But to use the "oh but we're a good cause helping X, Y or Z" shouldn't enable them to take the piss out of workers like Uber, Deliveroo etc have been trying.

"There is a perfectly clear definition of self employment in English law, and it things like more than one client and being able to pick when you work .
"

N, I am afraid not hence the massive bugger's muddle. Instead there are the so called "badges of trade" set out in various cases which make it extremely difficult to know. You have a list of factors on one side and list on another. Clear cases would be normal employees who turn up same hours every day cannot send someone in their place etc etc. On the other side - my billing my clients as a lawyer - clearly I am not employed by them,.

But take something like a legal talk I might give - when do I become an employee? What about freelance writing?

What about cleaners in domestic houses doing 2 hours with Mrs Smith, 3 hours a week with Mr Jone etc etc.

I think the rules should be a lot clearer so people know where they stand. It is for the Government to make the law clearer.

In the construction and some other industries there are already sectoral specific tax laws whereby NI is deducted even for the self employed as they have been treated as hybrids.