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.

Not living in London, Black cabs don't affect me much. I think I last took a London taxi in 1973!

Also though Uber's face has changed so to speak. When they hit the market they were novel, they had their own app, you could get a cab and pay for it through the app without having to engage with some taxi office somewhere or hale a cab from the side of the road. It's why so many taxi firms objected to them - because they were so successful.

But as time has gone on the novelty has worn off for some, they've introduced things like uber surge which means if there's a demand then their prices will go up significantly, and many of the other cab companies have synce introduced their own apps.

So I'd imagine that many of the drivers who joined way back were probably making a living driving for them on their terms. Probably not a fortune as taxi driving will never make you a fortune, but enough to live on. And as time has gone on that income has likely trickled down and now some are objecting. But truth is that if the same drivers were driving for any other company they would still be self-employed.

Uber were closed down in Sweden this year after an investigation for tax evasion and being an unregistered taxi business

A Swedish investigation also found that Uber does not properly vet the drivers it employs - 25% had criminal convictions including drug crimes, assault and drunk driving. In addition 3% of the Uber cars in Sweden were found to be subject to driving prohibitions - meaning that they were unroadworthy and had no insurance

Luna - don't listed to Uber's bumph. Same with Deliveroo, they want to have their cake and eat it. It is no means as simple as Uber make out. This ruling is the right one. IIRC Dan Francisco made a similar ruling.

Uber own a driverless freight company, Otto, which made the first driverless delivery of a articulated lorry of Budweiser beer in Colorado this week.

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

The rules used to be clear on this - they were employees, but there was a simplified PAYE scheme for domestic workers. They were employed by Mrs Smith for 2 hours, Mr Jones for 3. I don't know what the rules are now since I left HMRC a good few years ago.

I'd imagine that cleaners would depend very much on how they worked, same with childminders etc. So if you're a cleaner working for yourself then Mrs Smith would employ you for two hours a week, Ms Jones for three hours and so on and they would pay you directly. Whereas if you worked for an agency the agency would pay you and they would take their cut.

Same with e.g. Childminders where the parents pay the CM directly, but a nanny working for an agency would be employed.

Uber is not interested in the welfare or rights of it's employees
they are just useful for now to enable the company to grow in it's initial phase, the long term goal is automation, no drivers necessary all profits go to the owners of the platform.

"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

Isn't it though?

HMRC define Self employment in one way, through a series of tests. However, Employment Law has a different definition, so you can be deemed self employed for tax purposes, but win a tribunal for "worker" status against an employer.

if you're a cleaner working for yourself then Mrs Smith would employ you for two hours a week, Ms Jones for three hours and so on and they would pay you directly.

But if Mrs Jones insists you come on a Tues morning, and objects when you send a replacement because you're on holiday, then you could be considered a "worker".

One of the tests for self employment is the ability to send a substitute. As is being able to choose when and where you work.

Financial risk is also assessed - does the person doing the work take any financial risk (do they have a need for liability/indemnity insurance or is it covered by the client/employer).

I am not in any way defending exploitative behaviour by über or deliveroo or similar. But ax a self employed sole trader it is essential to my livelihood that rules brought in to deal with these exploitations do not make genuine self employment impossible or even just too difficult to be feasible.

I don't know any cleaners apart from big companies that are registered and not paid cash in hand.

Cms have to be far more careful as breaking a vase while dusting really doesn't equate to injuring a child while driving.

I would bet many mumsnetters pay cleaners cash in hand.

Registered as businesses

dontpanic how would you know? There's not a public register of self employed people.

Most people assume I'm employed by the various charities and small businesses I work for. I'm not - I invoice them for the work I do and complete a self assessment every year.

Hopefully loopholes will be closed, not just for drivers but for other companies.

There's a major phone company and a laundry company that are taking advantage of this.
They have people standing on the street, surrounded by all their advertisement. Have booths with company names. Clipboards, pens etc. The people have to meet in a location before 8 where they are told where they will spend the day, which finishes at 6 or 7pm. 6 days a week. The poor sods are not employed, but self employed. Trying to explain why they aren't self employed is like talking to a brick wall.

The difference though with the cleaner is that if MS Jones were suddenly required to pay holiday and sick pay she just wouldn't bother hiring that cleaner and would likely go to an agency because she only pays that one off payment every week for her three hours of cleaning.

The one thing these uber drivers have potentially unleashed though is that Uber could easily turn around now and declare that as of now their employees will be on a flat rate only with set hours and terms, and given it is much harder for taxi drivers to earn a living now just going to another company wouldn't be that simple for many of them.

TBH I'm not personally a fan of uber, they have a shocking reputation for disabled access refusals both in the states but also in Manchester/Leeds/Birmingham so I am aware they are by no means perfect, but I still don't agree with the ruling.

Uber states it's a "digital business" - that driver/car owners sign up to. Uber and Hermes represent the 'extreme' of pseudo self-employment - it's been going on a long time...I recall 'subcontracting' (aka being employed by at my own expense) to National Milk Records in the 1990s as well as other 'casual' employments. I remember when NMW first came in - the very efficient ladies at my local sub-PO had their hours reduced to cope with the increase on their £2ph, a pitiful wage for their responsibility. This 'other economy' - not illegal - is what allows lots of 'other people' with Contracts, etc to have larger salaries, there's only so much to share around. I haven't a solution to this.....yet.

I would bet many mumsnetters pay cleaners cash in hand.

I pay my cleaner cash, but I have no reason to suspect that she in not registered as self-employed and pays her tax and NI. There is nothing illegal in paying a self-employed person in cash, the onus is on the self-employed person to be properly registered with HMRC. She always comes to me for 3 hours at the same time every week, but does have the flexibility to tell me she's not coming one week or equally I tell her she's not needed that week. She has lots of other people she works for too.

When I invoice my clients and they pay me it's exactly the same. The transfer of money is electronic, but they have to take my word for it that i'm on the right side of the law. If i were not registered with HMRC and were pocketing the cash then that's not the client's fault and doesn't reflect badly on them in any way.

If i were not registered with HMRC and were pocketing the cash then that's not the client's fault and doesn't reflect badly on them in any way.

Quite, but if your client provided you with a mobile phone or email address to carry out business for them, if you were required to wear a uniform or branding, or if you acted as a spokesperson on behalf of the client, then you could be considered a worker or employee and they could be liable for paying you accrued holiday pay etc.

It's a stupidly complicated system.

they've introduced things like uber surge

Surge has been there like, for ever.

The idea is it gets more drivers on the streets when they are needed. Apparently. I had to pay 1.7x on Saturday night :-(

Self-employed Cleaners who are paid upon Invoice or even by cash that the Client must assume they declare is not the same as the Uber situation at all. That would be like comparing your Bricklayer/Electrician/Windowcleaner/Baker tothe Uber case too.

I would bet many mumsnetters pay cleaners cash in hand.

Bank transfer, actually. And she sends invoices.

That would be like comparing your Bricklayer/Electrician/Windowcleaner/Baker tothe Uber case too.

Legally, there's no difference (except the bricklayer, who may be subject to construction industry tax rules)

Reading the judgement, it seems the issue is to do with who is exerting operational control. For genuine self-employment, the driver would have to make a contract with the passenger. However this cannot be because:

• The driver only has 10 seconds to decide whether to take an assignment.

-The driver isn't told the destination prior to pick up (only the pick up location) so can't decide whether it's a 'good job' or not.

• The driver doesn't decide the price and can only negotiate down, not up, on the original price.
• The driver is given a route and if he deviates from it has to be able to justify it or risk a deduction
• If the customer complains, Uber decides whether to refund/partial refund and deducts the money without consulting the driver.

-Drivers get logged out for 10 minutes if they turn down 3 consecutive jobs.

The list goes on....Uber control the terms of work through and through. The only thing the driver controls is whether they are 'driving' at any time. They can't even look at a job and say 'I don't fancy a 45 minute trip each way, I'll turn that job down....'

Uber said that the contract is between driver and passenger, with them as agent. But the reality is that it's a complex passenger -- uber driver uber - passenger --- driver mesh.

There are loads of companies that do this and it is disgusting! A lot of care workers fall under th 'self employed' status also, they normally are paid NMW but employees have to file their own taxes and they don't get sick or holiday pay.

Your title is awful btw it looks like you support this but apart from that YANBU

Bank transfer here too for our (fantastic) cleaner.