ddsrph

Just saw where UK courts ruled UBER drivers are to be considered employees with full benefits. To me these gig type companies are the very definition of independent contractors and cannot survive as traditional employers.

scrubbedexpat091

How are traditional taxi drivers considered in the UK? Independent contractors or employees?

We just got Uber last year here in BC, the government wouldn't let them operate for years, and just opened it up last year with conditions which are pretty much the same as taxi drivers who have been considered independent contractors for decades, except with Uber drivers don't have to pay a daily leasing fee for their car, not sure how pay is Taxi vs Uber, Uber can't undercut much as the government has set a range of rates Uber/Lyft can charge, and need a class 4 commercial license, special insurance coverage, and a few other things, its a pain in the ass gig to get into with a lot of red tape, same as a taxi driver, and car has to be under 8 years old.

Most Uber drivers I have met seem to be former taxi drivers just using their own car now which they already have and no longer have to pay a daily lease rate for the taxi vehicle on top of their personal vehicle.

ddsrph

Thats a fair system but to have a minimum hourly or daily wage requirement is saying I want to get paid more than I actually earn. Couple that we increased accounting cost, increased liability for company employees versus independent contractors. Throw in six weeks of European standard vacation and the whole concept goes away. Just demand greater pay as independent contractors.

DaveLovesDee

You'd have to read the judgement to understand why the decision went against Uber.

Here in the UK, I use a particular taxi firm local to us. They have both kinds over drivers for their pre-booked white taxis.

There are drivers who are employed, who are paid hourly plus a percentage of the fare, but the company takes care of the vehicles other than fuel.

They also have self-employed drivers who either own their own vehicle, or who pay a weekly rate to use either another driver's or the company's vehicle. The vehcle's owner still does the maintenance, but the driver keeps what they earn.

Employed drivers work the schedules the taxi company set, self-employed drivers set their own hours.

ddsrph

[QUOTE=DaveLovesDee;12975403]You'd have to read the judgement to understand why the decision went against Uber.

I am sure it was more complicated than a news blurb could explain. The test will be if Uber continues to operate in the UK. If it is setting a precedent that will be hard to live with they have to decide if they can afford it to expand to other countries or try to stop it now. I just saw in same article where California exempted all gig type companies from having to convert independent contractors to employees.

DaveLovesDee

[QUOTE=ddsrph;12975434] Here's the actual Supreme Court judgement.

scrubbedexpat099

Admittedly many years ago there were Court cases that determined who was and who was not an Employee for Employers Liability Insurance.

I always wondered how Uber and the like skirted that, well assuming they did. Certainly from my knowledge of their operations they ticked the boxes that drivers would be employees.

Hiro11

This is standard protectionism driven by an industry under a strategic threat. The lawsuit was brought not by passengers and not by Uber contractors, it was brought by competing taxi drivers. I think that's telling. What do the actual Uber contractors think? After all, Uber drivers are apparently the "aggrieved party" under this decision due to the employee-type protections they are denied. Do Uber drivers feel they are being taken advantage of? If so, were Uber drivers unaware of the deal they were entering into? There is no indication of any of that. Who loses? Consumers seeking to get a cheaper, more convenient ride and Uber drivers trying to make some money on a low-overhead side hustle. Who wins? Private taxi companies. Follow the money.

scrubbedexpat099

This is certainly an interesting discussion, to what extent should individuals be allowed to essentially contract out of statutory provisions? Should you be able to interview for a job and say for example you waive your rights to statutory sick pay etc?

Where do you draw the line?

ddsrph

By American labor standards I think the case for independent contractor is strong. You drive your own car, you select who, when and where you choose to provide the service to. You set your own hours and can work or not work as you see fit. The Uber business model was not designed for an employee relationship. If any driver feels they are being taken advantage of they can delete the app and get a job they really like. If it can remain economically viable in the UK that will be great but it will be a different concept differing little from traditional taxi service.

scrubbedexpat099

Not just Uber of course, the Gig economy.

If there truly was that contractor relationship there may well be an argument, but it is very one sided. For example they set the fares, they actually control when you can and can not work.

To be the sign of an independent contractor is someone who sets their rates. I have come across a few people who did this sort of thing, the only one that made sense was a guy who worked near the Airport and signed on to see if he could cover his commute.

Hiro11

I'd say whenever they want. I have strong feelings here as this goes to the root of what I believe philosophically. TLDR: limiting freedom of choice = bad according to Hiro11.

My opinions: Adults should be able to weigh risk/reward and make a decision. Being able to make risk/reward decisions is central to being a free adult. This is not just about gig economy workers, even people with extremely high paying jobs where people making lots of money working for large corporations in relatively risk-free jobs routinely take risks to join start-ups for no pay, no benefits and lots of (potentially worthless, potentially jackpot) equity. Should they not be able to make that choice? I believe adults should be able to make up their own decisions about if they're willing to take the risk. Trying to reduce the risk by enacting laws dictating that capable adults aren't allowed to make those trade-offs "for their protection" does nothing but eliminate opportunity and treat everyone like children. You certainly need laws to prevent scams and criminal activity, but those exist separately.

At the risk of turning this into yet another libertarian rant from me, two other problems:
Like this situation in the UK, these legal challenges to the gig economy always have their roots in legacy industries threatened by the gig economy. It's never about "protecting people" is about getting new entrants like Uber banned so that consumer choice is limited and legacy businesses don't have to deal with competition. Similarly, this is the dirty secret behind any legislatively-required professional license: licensing is usually lobbied for vigorously by the industry requiring the license themselves. The list of industries now requiring licenses is absurd, here's Illinois' license look-up page, for example:
https://ilesonline.idfpr.illinois.go...nseLookup.aspx
You need a license to be an auctioneer, a cemetery overseer, a hairdresser, interior designer, a shorthand reporter etc. Give me a break with this crap. Taxi medallions in NYC are another great example: they are licenses to limit the supply of taxi labor and prop up prices. Also introducing barriers to entry like medallions is a great way for legacy businesses like taxi businesses to have the government shut down problematic competition. Who wins? A relatively tiny number of people aready in the industry. Who loses? everyone else, a much larger group of consumers and potential new entrants.

Another issue with this type of legislation is unintended consequences. Note that when California tried to similarly shut down the gig economy (under intense union pressure), the resulted regulation wound up hurting all contractors including highly paid people like freelance writers for show business. This subsequently resulted in a number of amendments to the law until it was evident that the goal of the law was simply to shut down Uber, Lyft and DoorDash at the behest of those companies' competitors rather than any higher purpose. After it became clear to voters that the whole thing was just a sop for businesses under threat and organized labor, California finally scraped the whole effort in November with the landslide passing of Proposition 22 which classified gig economy workers as independent contractors. This was a notable victory for free enterprise in deep blue California.

This isn't relevant in this situation. No one is being offered sick pay by Uber from the outset. People contracting with Uber are fully aware of the trade-offs.

robtuck

Didn't one of the plaintiffs get attacked, as an Uber driver, and Uber were refusing to provide any details to the authorities because to do so would imply some degree of employee/employer relationship. He then decided to pursue such a case against them. They lost because their contracts looks an awful lot like Employment contracts - it is not a true contractor relationship as they have very specific requirements around the relationship with no room for negotiation, including availability.

I'm sort of down the middle on the broader subject beyond this specific case - on the one hand, companies like Uber shake-up industries that need it - they fulfil a customer need and bring innovation that would otherwise be stifled. On the flip side, the details that do come out as these types of cases are tried, tend to support a degree of predatory behaviour, that the power dynamic is too far slanted and these companies rely on that IT innovation to too great an extent. Uber are a great example - turned the industry upside down, all taxi firms had to innovate to compete, but that early disruption and innovation seems to have quickly turned into profit at all costs, or maybe Return on Investment at al costs.

ddsrph

I think the app was a good idea. If I owned the company I would cease operations in any country or state that didn’t want it. It simply will not work with hourly pay and holidays and vacations. Was it designed as a career job for its participants? I don’t think so. If the gig type jobs are not viable then shut them down.

scrubbedexpat091

I guess one upside to BC locking Uber out for years was we ended up with a fairly good situation where Uber is regulated and not allowed to do as they please and we avoided the issues now being seen elsewhere that didn't reign Uber in and let them run wild.