Uber drivers wins employer case

Uber drivers are actually workers

Didn't find your answer?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37802386

With this ruling, and the government allegedly trying to clamp down more on false self-employment, do you think rouge businesses will actually change their practices, or will continue to get around legislation? i.e. not classing workers as self-employed. 

 

Replies (18)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Harrison88
28th Oct 2016 14:52

What. A. Surprise. I am truly shocked.

I think the Government will be going down the route of if you only work for one company and your terms are set per a fixed, non-negotiable contract, then you are an employee.

Thanks (0)
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
28th Oct 2016 14:59

Rouge businesses eh?

This decision means that they are "workers", rather than "employees". There is a difference.

Thanks (4)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
Melchett
By thestudyman
28th Oct 2016 15:12

Portia Nina Levin wrote:

Rouge businesses eh?

This decision means that they are "workers", rather than "employees". There is a difference.

Thanks for the clarification, changed the sub-title.

Thanks (1)
By Duggimon
28th Oct 2016 17:01

This rouge business was certainly given cause to blush. Wonder if they'll be forced to make-up the difference to HMRC.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Duggimon:
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
28th Oct 2016 17:19

I imagine that this case is just the foundation.

Thanks (4)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
avatar
By thegreatgrumbleduke
02nd Nov 2016 08:24

Id imagine Uber will be getting a bit lippy about the verdict...

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Melody
28th Oct 2016 23:11

Some folks at Uber may be getting a bit red-faced about the verdict!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By In a Daze
29th Oct 2016 06:26

I think other companies are going to have to start worrying Hermes springs to mind.

Thanks (0)
blue sheep
By NH
29th Oct 2016 11:38

These "workers" that took Uber to the tribunal, I presume when then signed up they knew they were self employed but further down the line they have decided they would rather not be, and would like to explore the possibility of some extra short term cash.
I say short term because a) They will not be getting much more work from Uber, and b) because Uber will now change the way they work
There were 19 of them out of the 40,000 that work for Uber, so it would be interesting to know whether the other 39,981 are now cursing the 19 for ruining their lives

Thanks (0)
avatar
By David Treitel
29th Oct 2016 12:45

Uber has already lost the same case in dozens of other courts around the world. It is not surprising that the decision in the UK is the same as elsewhere. Doubtless Uber have already provided for the liability in their accounts.

The more interesting question for all of is whether our TV licence will now increase to cover the extra costs to the BBC of all of the workers it has chosen to mis-classify in the past?

Thanks (1)
Replying to David Treitel:
By SteveHa
02nd Nov 2016 15:32

Not me. No TV, no TV license.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By darrenwilliams
31st Oct 2016 10:01

This post made me look at Ubers website and according to the website the taxi drivers supply their own vehicle at the drivers expense etc.

Interested to hear if this is the actual case and how that links in with being PAYE ?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AndyC555
02nd Nov 2016 10:27

I'm baffled how this will work in practice.

Uber driver says "I'm available for work".
Uber says "There are no passengers at the moment".
Uber driver says "tough, you still owe me £7.20 an hour"?

The case was funded by the GMB and I suspect this was more an 'anti-Uber' thing than any concern for those who work with Uber.

Meantime, it's amazing how some supposed 'experts' made wide sweeping 'knowledgeable' pronouncements about what this meant without even realising that there was an interim 'worker' status between employee and self-employed.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By fgibbons
02nd Nov 2016 15:15

What is terrifying about this ruling is that the Uber drivers are probably one of the most clear-cut self-employed cases there are, which bodes poorly for all self-employed in the the ongoing war against off-payroll work. The Uber drivers own the means of production(vehicles) and should easily satisfy the SDC tests that other self-employed or limited company contractors are potentially subject to, if they are an employee than so can potentially any plumber or other contractor. What happens when an Uber driver logs into 3 different apps, which one is the employer or are they going to collect 3 paychecks for the hour. What happens in many other industries that make use of "off-payroll" services is to only do business with limited companies as dealing with self-employed individuals is a liability minefield from a tax, employment law, general liability, expense and PAYE perspective(as they found out). What many of them do not realize is that when you are an employee using your vehicle under employment will change expense handling and deductions significantly and all the complications that come with it. They also could end up in a situation like other "deemed employees" where they are employees from a tax perspective but not for employment rights, have to pay both employee and employer NI costs and are only allowed to deduct a small % for administration. Any sane company should avoid doing business with self-employed individuals in any volume and only deal with limited companies or agencies which moves these risks to the individual and not the engager.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By BelGrant
02nd Nov 2016 23:54

The term 'worker' is the shorthand and generic term for temporary worker. They've been around for a long time and are normally associated with low, hourly rated office support work (secretaries etc.). They are effectively signed up with agencies (in this case an app equivalent) engaged with no mutuality of obligation outside of an assignment, but once they have taken one up they are under the direction and control of the client for however long the assignment lasts and can be terminated without notice. In other words, regarding working practices, they are the same personal service company owners who are working inside IR35 - except that temps / workers do not have to submit their own tax returns. Instead, they are paid PAYE by their hirer. Those with a PSC who are working inside IR35 for an assignment are, for want of a better phrase - self employed temps, even if they are in the same end-client location for years on end. I used to temp through an agency years ago and it was not uncommon to find temps who had been in the same 'job' for years. That was back in the 1980s.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By BelGrant
02nd Nov 2016 23:52

The term 'worker' is the shorthand and generic term for temporary worker. They've been around for a long time and are normally associated with low, hourly rated office support work (secretaries etc.). They are effectively signed up with agencies (in this case an app equivalent) engaged with no mutuality of obligation outside of an assignment, but once they have taken one up they are under the direction and control of the client for however long the assignment lasts and can be terminated without notice. In other words, regarding working practices, they are the same personal service company owners who are working inside IR35 - except that temps / workers do not have to submit their own tax returns. Instead, they are paid PAYE by their hirer. Those with a PSC who are working inside IR35 for an assignment are, for want of a better phrase - self employed temps.

Thanks (0)
Replying to BelGrant:
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
03rd Nov 2016 10:33

Absolute crap. The term worker is defined, and distingushed from an employee, in ERA 1996, section 230.

Essentially all employees are workers, but it also includes people that are engaged under contracts that are not contracts of service, but where the contract requires the personal performance of the individual. There is absolutely nothing about direction and control, which is only in the tax legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/230?view=plain

Thanks (0)
RegASinclair
By RegASinclair
27th Apr 2018 12:24

Uber has won a legal battle in France over the employment status of one of its drivers after a labour tribunal said the ride hailing app was “in the business of intermediation and not that of a transportation service” and therefore did not act as an employer.

Thanks (0)