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.

Let's not pretend this is sticking it to The Man
you are quite right...albeit inadvertently

in this case 'the man' is the state, and the man is acting in the interests of the people.
Uber is a transnational company, playing fast and loose with the state and it's citizens, gaming the system by , on the one hand siphoning out of the economy the wealth created by the hard work of the drivers

and on the other hand not handing over a fair share of tax revenue to the govt of the countries whose infrastructure it relies on make a profit

predatory companies like this are 'gaming' all of us and it's quite right that they be forced to be accountable

agree.

Uber is valued at 60 billion:its loosing about 5/10 Billion per year, at the moment it subsidizes anyone using the service selling rides for less then competitors, the reason it can raise 10 billion per year and loose that type of money is the belief they can put everyone else out of business and control the taxi business.
Of course they are employees, they have to drive a particular plate car, they have to be available at set times and have to do X amount of jobs per week, they also raise and lower prices depending on market conditions the driver has no say in any of this.

"Appealing the decision just makes uber look like greedy and abusive tax dodgers...."

they are unquestionably, but no one gives a shit, because they are cheaper

"leaves a gap wide open for a similar platform to offer fair treatment to drivers and uber will be dead in the water"

um, no.

So eventually they will drive out others, have a monopoly and cease to be cheap.

It was a case which could hvae gone either way so not surprising if it's appealed. This is a case not about whetehr the drivers are empoloyees by the way - both sides accept they are self employed for tax purposes. It is instead a case about a third category of person called a worker - these can be employees or not employees but still be entitled to workers' rights in a way many of the self employed like I am are not.

When we have Brexit this is the sort of EU law point we will have to decide if we want to retain or not. Interesting times.

it's all moot
the future is (very probably) driverless

shining you're right. But I work in the engineering dept of a top Uni who are driving that and they say it will be 25-30 years minimum.

Interesting Bill, and I acknowledge that the engineering dept of a top Uni would certainly be best placed to make predictions on this matter!

Even so there could well be unforeseen and unforeseeable breakthroughs or setbacks which bring things closer or push them farther away

the future is largely unforeseeable, and because of this even experts have a pretty low success rate...but it's fun to speculate

It is instead a case about a third category of person called a worker - these can be employees or not employees but still be entitled to workers' rights in a way many of the self employed like I am are not.

I agree that the debate is whether they are workers or self employed - they certainly do not fit the category of employee.

However, my understanding is that if an individual is a "worker" then the employer is liable for tax/NI etc. There is no option to be a self employed worker.

If you are protected by some employment law I think you can still be self employed for tax purposes. That is because EU law has extended those people who are protected beyond mere employees.

In fact some commentators have written this week that the UK is ahead of the curve in having this modern category called worker.

The Government has quite a good summary of the various categories at www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/employment-status which includes this for workers:

"Worker

A worker is any individual who works for an employer, whether under a contract of employment, or any other contract where an individual undertakes to do personally any work or services.

Workers are entitled to core employment rights and protections. The following groups of people are likely to be workers but not employees:

most agency workers
short term casual workers
some freelancers

Rights of workers

Providing any other qualifying conditions are met, all workers have rights to:

the National Minimum Wage
rest breaks, paid holiday and limits on night work
protection against unauthorised deductions from pay
maternity, paternity and adoption pay (but not leave)
protection against less favourable treatment if you make a disclosure in the public interest (often called ‘whistleblowing’)
not be discriminated against unlawfully"

IMO it seems very unlikely that if you're a "worker" under employment law you're self employed for tax purposes.

Wonder if HMRC will pursue Uber for PAYE.

Wonder if HMRC will pursue Uber for PAYE.

Undoubtedly. Currently, they are cracking down on personal service companies in the public sector, but all businesses are equally likely to be investigated if there is suspicion.

The HMRC approach is unequivocal - if they believe that an individual should be an employee, not self-employed, then they will start tax fraud proceedings against the employer - seeking to recoup all tax and NI that the employer should have paid (including employee contributions) and issue a penalty for incorrect tax administration.

The fact that the "employees" may have already paid tax and national insurance on their earnings is irrelevant to HMRC - the employer is deemed liable and, unlike in a court of law, the burden of proof lies with the employer to argue the HMRC is wrong in its assessment.

It's causing a lot of headaches in the charitable and public sectors at the moment - a change in law was hinted at by Theresa May at the Party Conference in her speech about corporations avoiding tax.

One of the drivers in question (the Irish one) is my cousin. Just thought I'd add that!

Dozer for the reasons I set out this case is about these people being workers. It is not about their being self employed for tax purposes. So it is unlikely HMRC will think they are employees in my view. Workers is a third category. The case is about workers.

I really think people are confused about this. Of course some people treated as self e4mployed are employees but this case was nothing about tax status of Uber drivers at all. It was about workers' rights - an EU derived concept about issues such as holiday pay. It is not about the distinction between employed and self employed for tax purposes.

If they are really self employed they should be allowed to set their own rates.

If you are self employed you need to earn enough extra money for it to be worth losing employment rights/benefits.

Being 'self employed' on the minimum wage has got to be exploitation as the employer is saving a load of money by not paying your holiday pay etc. (Plus not paying employers NI which is quite a large sum).

Being employed is protection for low paid workers to give them security if they are off sick etc.

this case was nothing about tax status of Uber drivers at all.

Well, of course not, because those cases are between HMRC and the Employer - the workers don't get involved at all.
I am certain that the HMRC have already begun an investigation into Uber - but it won't make the headlines.

driverless cars come along, as soon as that happens no one will make money driving and no one will want to personally own a car

I'll want both, please, own a car and use driverless.

Why should we have a situation where people can be self employed for tax purposes, but have worker's rights?

Wouldn't it be easier to have it all or nothing?

What am I missing (apart from the "that's the way we've always done it" argument)?

Are they not self employed? They can choose when they work.

Are they not self employed? They can choose when they work.

and that's about it. They can't choose the jobs they take (the destination is hidden until they accept it) and they have no power to amend the rate charged or the method of payment.

Calling a cat a dog - even though both are 4-legged carnivores commonly kept in a domestic settings - won't suddenly make all cats eat Pedigree Chum and chase parked cars. Repeatedly calling a cat a dog, and being surprised at the stubborn lack of canine characteristics starts to make the caller look a tad deranged.

On the driverless car thing, DH's company invests in tech and he believes that our children (under 5 at the moment) will never have a driving licence. But then he also thinks that we are less than 10 years from a large % of many professional jobs, like lawyers doing conveyancing for example, being redundant due to AI. We'll all be like the humans in Wall-E, I reckon!!

Thank God for Brexit giving me work for the next 20 years...

On the driverless car thing, DH's company invests in tech and he believes that our children (under 5 at the moment) will never have a driving licence.

That's where my strategy is headed too.

Will the insurance market for a start.

I predict in 30 years, private motor car ownership will be as rare as private carriage ownership was in the 1800s.