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.

Definite difference in the expectations of service by the Client and 'the expectations of the Uber Agency/Platform towards its subcontractor/employee. If there is a certain expectation that you will be 'available' for undefined periods that you are not paid, generally you are not self-employed. You could be classed as 'retained' but only if you are paid a 'retainer'.

There are mutterings amongst Antenatal teachers for a major charity about this too. They are all officially self employed despite their rates of pay entirely being set by the charity concerned, there is no ability at all to set their own rates. Whilst in theory they have freedom over where and when to teach, reality is they can only teach in areas and venues that are approved (and paid for) by the charity, they can only propose courses that are in line with a published list of requirements in terms of when and where and how long the courses must be, and they most certainly cannot send a replacement teacher.

NC because this is very close to my work

Firstly, Cameron is nothing to do with the bloke who owns Uber. He is however friends with the UK manager, Jo Bertum. There are questions over how much Boris was asked/forced to turn a blind eye to Uber riding roughshod over the rules in London, including the very generous interpretation of a meter to let them get around the rules of only black cabs being allowed to charge metered fares.

Uber have already said they will appeal this, and they will all but certainly win. However, the bigger issue for them is whether they continue the masssive tax dodge of diverting their jobs through a holding company in Holland, which means they dodge paying VAT and tax in the U.K.

They will probably be willing to horse trade with the government over this case to maintain the tax dodge, as that's worth more to them than drivers being put on zero hours contracts

But there is a much wider knock on for the way our economy is run if this ruling is upheld. Delivery charges, take away prices, taxi fares and gym memberships will all go up. Even cleaners could find themselves covered by this and in a position to claim holiday and sickness pay.

It will have to be very carefully considered...

Appealing the decision just makes uber look like greedy and abusive tax dodgers....and its not a good look!
leaves a gap wide open for a similar platform to offer fair treatment to drivers and uber will be dead in the water

As for 'prices will rise' warnings, there is enough money to go round, the problem is that the owners, the rentier class are hoarding it all, time for David to take down Goliath

As for 'prices will rise' warnings, there is enough money to go round, the problem is that the owners, the rentier class are hoarding it all, time for David to take down Goliath

That makes no sense though

If you are happy for the costs of your internet purchases to more, because the delivery costs more, then fine. But it just means business will slow for a lot of delivery-model companies. Let's not pretend this is sticking it to The Man. It just means taxi fares will go up and curries will cost a few quid more to get delivered.

It just means taxi fares will go up no it means the platform will have to settle for a smaller slice of the profits or lose out to another platform which operates for the benefit of the people who do the actual work

It's irrelevant what it will do to prices. If people are meeting the requirement for employment they shouldn't be treated as self-employed.

shining
You realise that all other taxi companies operate on the same model of self-employed drivers?
So the Uber test case applies to all other companies using the same model. So it means pizza delivery guys, parcel couriers, other taxi drivers, spin instructors, cleaners and anyone else who was previously self-employed in a similar model can now expect to be employed and receive holiday pay etc as well as having their NI etc paid
Which means costs will go up for every employer which means costs get passed on to every customer

Did you think this was just something that would impact Uber?

Antenatal teachers are "workers" or even employees under legislation IMO.

False self employment is prevalent in lots of industries.

If businesses' costs go up, that's fine. Businesses should comply with employment law.

I know full well that it has widespread implications, I'm especially interested to see how it pans out for other platforms such as e-bay, amazon

like I said it is perfectly possible to set up platforms which operate in the interests of the people who do the actual work rather than the platform owners

Wtf does EBay have to do with taxi fares?
You said in you pp that it doesn't mean that fares will go up and uber will just lose out to another platform. Can you explain what you mean by this, and how other taxi companies will get around putting fares up?

you really cant see the parallels with e-bay?
do try and keep up

Ebay is different. Ebay allows sellers to set the terms of sale, time of listing, cost, postage arrangements, etc., and simply host the listing ams provide mediation between buyer and seller in the event of dispute.

They don't insist that the seller lists a number of items per month/day (i.e. uber's availability clauses)

They don't insist they sell to people without knowing where they come from (like uber do with concealing the destination prior to pick up)

They don't offer refunds without reference to the seller.

The list goes on.

Amazon is even more of a stretch - they provide a dual service but none of the sellers could be construed as working for Amazon. They either hold stock on behalf of the seller, in which case they are acting as a distributor, or they process orders for the seller, in which case they are an agent. Their packers, etc, are employees, as they should be.

YABU this case law will have major implications for many UK business, contractors and self employed people.

Only if they are currently breaking the law . It's not difficult to understand: Earn your own Dime on your own Time = SE. Anything else = employed.

YANBU, employment rights are going down the toilet in the UK.
A friend of mine was a builder, he had a serious accident on site and suffered traumatic head injuries. He is now divorced and very badly disabled. Because he was self employed he hasnt had a penny in compensation.

Jelly, he's been very poorly advised then. Self-employed people are entitled to compensation if they are injured on a site and it's the fault of the people running it. In fact my husband (builder) has had it twice and I know plenty of other people who have done the same.

I really do want people being underpaid by Uber etc to have their rights protected. But I'm actually quite worried about this as I know other people in the construction industry and their families are. It might mean we are £650 a month worse off which we can ill afford. And all he'll get in return will be sick days. We don't want to lose £8k per year for a couple of sick days.

Plus most jobbing builders on major construction projects who are self employed have families and do it so they can take job after job in their local areas or close by with a different company for each job. If companies take on employees - they don't always have jobs in the same city so it would mean going away wherever they sent you and rarely being at home. I don't think we could manage with hugely suppressed wages plus a huge amount of travelling. Plus with 3 under 5s I wouldn't be able to go back to work as I wouldn't be able to afford the childcare I'd need if I was the only parent here. We'd be completely fucked TBH.

I hope they manage to find a way to help the Uber drivers and people like them be paid fairly without creating a situation where people who depend on the self employment option to get by suffering.

Happy with the decision and we may actually use Uber now!

The law is not clear. It should be made clearer.

What about cleaners then who are on an app - say Handy. I used some. They are self employed. They must be registered with |HMRC with a tax number and pay tax otherwise the company will not use them. They decide which jobs to take and if they will spend a day in bed and if they are prepared to trek 10 miles to someone or if not. I presume they pay their own transport costs. They may well be one off. I also used that app for some DIY - a man mended a light and various things.

It is very hard to know if that way of working is self employed or not. I come down on the whole that it is self employed. I suspect Uber will win an appeal and rightly so.

However the state might want to change the rules eg it might say that anyone earning under £20 an hour (I don't think we need protection for higher earners) where they require people to be available for certain periods (the zero hour element say) when they are not paid must pay a kind of holding fee - like a fee paid to doctors who are on call not working at home reading a book but must be near the hospital in case of a call out.

Iougle who has read the judgment and says control is at the heart if right. That has always been the HMRC test for self employment and someone else above says quite rightly that for other areas of law such as workers' rights the test can be different. We must not forget that. Tax test different from worker test. What a mess English law is (thankfully as I am a lawyer and paid to help people decide where they stand in the mess every day)......

So going with control on my cleaner example if the person contracts directly with each client and can change their hours, pay their own expenses, decide when to come then I am pretty sure they are self employed and they pay their own tax to HMRC> My cleaner is self employed. She comes and goes when she likes, the days and hours change, she doesn't come in the summer etc etc. If I had a nanny here even just part time on a regular basis and she could not send a substitute and I controller her she would rightly be employed.

Then take me... lawyer, self employed. No one is going to say that I am an employee for tax purposes most of my work. It comes in. I do it. I get no sick pay, holiday pay etc etc. It comes in from loads of different companies. I could hire someojne else to do it for me. Sometimes I'm told when it must be done for (control by the client) but not enough control to move me from self employed to employed - same with some kinds of cleaners and child minders, gardeners etc. I had a company in in the summer to cut the hedges for 3 days. They were not my employees.

I suspect the gardeners who come every week to do neighbours are not employees for tax purpose either. However if you have one person just doing your gardening all the time or even regularly 3 mornings a week and you control them eg you are Longleat those gardeners are highly like to be employed.

It has always been a very difficult test to apply and remains so. It is hard to know how we can change it however as there are so many different types of self employment services and ways of operating.

I think they will have fallen down on the definition about who does the work. Employee relationships specify that the work is done by the person given the work. Self employed means that the self employed person can get someone else to do it. if uber have a registration system that means only agreed driver must turn up that might require an employee definition.

what about 'Exploiteroo'?

I think not just that, scaryclown - there was evidence that uber took responsibility for cleaning a cab if the passenger was sick in it/soiled it/damaged it. That they expected the driver to contact Uber if a passenger left belongings behind, rather than contact the passenger themselves. That they would refund passengers if they weren't satisfied with the driver's service, which indicates vicarious liability, typical of employers. They also exercised a performance management scheme, which again suggests an employer/employee relationship.

That they would refund passengers if they weren't satisfied with the driver's service, which indicates vicarious liability, typical of employers. They also exercised a performance management scheme, which again suggests an employer/employee relationship.

These fall into the financial risk and quality test categories of the HMRC assessment - if the financial liability lies with Uber, then the person carrying out the work is likely to be an employee (or worker). Similarly, if Uber can subject the people doing the work to quality checks (through performance management ) they would be likely to fail the self-employment test.

This is currently an issue being targeted in local authorities and public bodies who contract to Personal Service companies - the law changes in April to align those arrangements with that of self employed. But at the same time, I suspect there will be a clearer definitions.

At the moment, employment/self employment status is an analogue state - it falls to the employer to decide on balance based on a series of tests, and if HMRC or an Employment Tribunal disagree, they are considered liable. There is no definitive yes or no answer - it is all about subjective assessment and willingness to take the risk. Hopefully, legislation can create a more digital definition.

I remember seeing an interview with the über bike riders when they bought this claim to court. Their issue was they weren't allowed to work for anyone else and had to work x amount of hours a week. Sounds pretty employed to me