Uber drivers win key employment case against Uber.

[Citadelen]

34 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

-snip-

For some people, it's all they've got. Do they deserve under minimum wage?

Unlike in the US, our Trade Unions actually have a chance at making people's lives better.

[SansVarnic]

38 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

Thank you! Somebody on here with an actual functioning mind.

I am also going to add;

If London (UK) had an problem with Uber's business model they would not have not allow the business to operate in the first place or at the very least made Uber change their model before starting operations. The whole premise of this ruling is social engineering at work. Forcing Uber into business model that was not part of the design or the Agreement that was drawn up by Uber and then SIGNED by the drivers. An agreement of terms are just that, an accord to operate within the bounds of the agreement between the facilitator [Uber} and the driver [self employed]. Uber is not a direct employer, they are an entity that provides a service to those that wish to self-employ as "cabbys" , in other words Uber is a broker.

[tlink]

2 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

I am also going to add;

If London (UK) had an problem with Uber's business model they would not have not allow the business to operate in the first place or at the very least made Uber change their model before starting operations. The whole premise of this ruling is social engineering at work. Forcing Uber into business model that was not part of the design or the Agreement that was drawn up by Uber and then SIGNED by the drivers. An agreement of terms are just that, an accord to operate within the bounds of the agreement between the facilitator [Uber} and the driver [self employed]. Uber is not a direct employer, they are a service that provides service to those that wish to self-employ as "cabbys" , in other words Uber is a broker.

the problem is that that agreement is essentially a employment contract without the burdens that come with employing people. this is exactly why they ruled it not legal. the problem is that it looks different on paper but is not different in the real world from an employment contract.

[Citadelen]

4 hours ago, CoffeeBlack said:

-snip-

 

 

A bit under thought out (which is ironic) maybe, but not entitled, and we both know what he meant, it makes enough sense to understand what he's trying to say.

[SansVarnic]

1 minute ago, tlink said:

its very simple, you either have depression or you don't. its not going to make more sense because it's said more times, it's going to make sense once the underlying processes are explained. this requires a psychological, biochemical, physics, and physiological understanding of how the brain and the senses function and respond.

You make zero sense. 

Making a personal attack against me or anyone else does not help your position in any way and it diminish's your credibility ... and its against Community Standards

Quote

No harassment, discrimination or abuse of any kind.

• This includes insults

I strongly suggest that if you continue to post here you should follow decorum and present a proper counter argument that doesn't include insulting me especially since my reply did not include the like. 

 

3 minutes ago, tlink said:

the problem is that that agreement is essentially a employment contract without the burdens that come with employing people. this is exactly why they ruled it not legal. the problem is that it looks different on paper but is not different in the real world from an employment contract.

Then my reply is holds all the more truth.

Quote

If London (UK) had an problem with Uber's business model they would not have not allow the business to operate in the first place or at the very least made Uber change their model before starting operations.

This ruling should never had taken place if there was an initial issue to begin with. The fact that so many people agreed to utilize the service tells me that there are that many people that are to thick headed to pay attention to what they are agreeing to. Business is business. A contract signed is a legal binding deal.

How this went down and why is why this is bad. Backwards politics at play with entitlement at its core. This should not have reached this point without raising a red flag somewhere, so this tells me that London or the UK allowed this to go on to position themselves for some reason [and no I am not going all tin hat here, conspiracy crap]. This could have been handled much different and earlier on before Uber became so popular. 

[tlink]

39 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

You make zero sense. 

Making a personal attack against me or anyone else does not help your position in any way and it diminish's your credibility ... and its against Community Standards

I strongly suggest that if you continue to post here you should follow decorum and present a proper counter argument that doesn't include insulting me especially since my reply did not include the like. 

nothing you quoted was a personal attack, and it was never meant as such. if you feel insulted than i sincerely am sorry, i never wanted to insult you and would never want to imply that that was my intention. the reason it doesn't make sense is because you seem to lack the understanding of the deeper processes. conversation of energy simply dictates that the brain is deterministic. you can't create a reaction out of nothing. saying "why don't they just leave" is exactly like asking why someone with depression "isn't just happy". because the complex chemical and electrical reactions on which our brains function don't allow things to "just change". they are all set on rails, but if quantum mechanics can truly be random than they might be a wildcard in this and that would make this not truly deterministic, but that would still mean that we as an entity can not change those processes because they are truly random. it would be like saying to tv static "why are they not just a pretty picture". its an oversimplification of the processes involved. free choice as people think of it is not real. our choices are never free because we will ALWAYS be influenced by our environment, from who you're going to vote too what socks you're going to wear. just like how depression is caused by our environment. just like how PTSD is caused by our environment. who you are, your entire being, your entire decision making process. consists of 3 "parts", your DNA, your environment, and the current state of your brain (although dna could technically fit under there i didn't for simplicity's sake). your environment inputs stuff into your senses trough your spinal cord into your brain, which then based on your DNA and current connections in the brain redirects those impulses into a decision, or it is stored into memory until it can be further resolved. lots of things stored there are an ongoing process, such as who am i or the book you're writing or whatever. but the essence of it all still relies on that one simple rule, energy(thermodynamics) can not be created or destroyed. and therefore information can not be created or destroyed because information(entropy) describes energy. these rules, makes it impossible for us to "just do things".

 

edit: sorry if this all is very hard to read, english isn't my first language and i'm REALLLYLYLYLY dyslectic. this is pretty advanced stuff of which i often don't know the correct translations for examples or complex contextual writing.

[SansVarnic]

7 minutes ago, tlink said:

nothing you quoted was a personal attack, and it was never meant as such. if you feel insulted than i sincerely am sorry, i never wanted to insult you and would never want to imply that that was my intention. the reason it doesn't make sense is because you seem to lack the understanding of the deeper processes. conversation of energy simply dictates that the brain is deterministic. <snip>

Apology accepted.  

Yes I do fully understand the point you just made. I thing is I do not agree fully. One can chose to go against their environment, I see it happen and I know it is possible. Also the point you made has a smaller impact with the issue at hand than you make out. If people wanted to be self employed they should also be understanding enough to take the necessary steps to become educated in what it means to be self employed. Uber is the scapegoat here plain and simple. People wanted to be imbursed [not re-imbused as this would imply that Uber had agreed to make available funds for vehicle maintenance for which they do not] by Uber for their own incurred expenses that they did not think ahead and plan for, they wanted to be paid more for services they are rendering. There is more to it and I understand this but the point I am making is people need to take the necessary steps to improve the situation themselves not go after a service for something that does not provide what they want under the agreement that initially was taken under consideration. Leave Uber and go solo or sign up with another service. Competition is a thing and Uber's flat rates provide a rather competitive edge but then again this is backwards thinking in a socialist economy...  The other thing is, along with my previously made point is this could have and should have been handled quite differently. London is essentially attempting the make a private business change its practices after the fact [all the while because a bunch of union turds got together to amp up an issue they didn't like with the political blow-hearts approval] when it should have focused on making Uber change the practice before the business became established. To little to late. Honestly it is pretty sad if you think about it, bunch of adults acting like children because they no longer like the situation they themselves put them selves into [definition of a union]. 

(I obviously have little regard toward unions)

[Thunderpup]

1 hour ago, Citadelen said:

For some people, it's all they've got. Do they deserve under minimum wage?

Unlike in the US, our Trade Unions actually have a chance at making people's lives better.

If i had to venture a guess i would say that the cab companies have more to do with this legal challenge than the trade unions or even the politicians.

 

Here in the states Uber has become a large thorn in the side of traditional taxi companies taking both business and drivers away from them.  As a result most of the legal challenges have been banked rolled by the cab companies.

 

Similar opposition has sprung up against other companies in different industries that operate using the same model.  Air BnB for instance has been forced to defend itself against the hotel industry bankrolling lawsuits against them. 

[rattacko123]

6 hours ago, Orangeator said:

I did think before I spoke... You should try it.

 

This ruling is completely unjust, if someone doesn't like Uber's business practice then don't work for them. It's really that simple. Don't work for a company then complain about how much they are paying you, if you don't like it get another job. Stop with this entitlement bullshit.

yeah uber is like freelancer work, not wage, I don't agree with the court ruling either

[bob345]

If you are doing work for uber, you are not an employee. You are doing contract work for uber. That means you are your own boss. If you are lazy and dont drive enough to pay off your bill's that's your own damn fault. All these cases come from people who want to work an hour a day and get paid full time for it. Thats just not going to happen. If you dont do the work you dont get paid. Simple as that. Main difference is that you dont get fired for being lazy with uber, you just dont get paid.

[tlink]

11 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Apology accepted.  

Yes I do fully understand the point you just made. I thing is I do not agree fully. One can chose to go against their environment, I see it happen and I know it is possible. <snip>

you may disagree, but thats just not scientific nor rational. and that was my entire point  so there is not much use arguing it if you do not want to listen to the science behind it, again no offense.

[Murdoch]

I find the opinions on this topic quite interesting, seems you guys don't really value workers rights, or indeed think they are optional.

 

Be interesting to see if you have considered that services like Uber actively displace traditional full-time jobs, with benefits such as breaks and holiday entitlement (at least in the UK). And these displacements are only going to increase, there has been this prediction with the rise of automation that there will be a two tier system, low skilled casual workforce (the majority of people) with non-existent rights and the highly skilled and creative. Given the trends, and the opinions expressed in this thread, I expect some pretty dreadful pay and working conditions for a high percentage of the population in the decades ahead, at least in the US because you guys are starting from a pretty low base. I sense more of a pushback on the continual lowering of working standards in the EU / UK.

 

 

[Orangeator]

9 hours ago, Murdoch said:

I find the opinions on this topic quite interesting, seems you guys don't really value workers rights, or indeed think they are optional.

 

Be interesting to see if you have considered that services like Uber actively displace traditional full-time jobs, with benefits such as breaks and holiday entitlement (at least in the UK). And these displacements are only going to increase, there has been this prediction with the rise of automation that there will be a two tier system, low skilled casual workforce (the majority of people) with non-existent rights and the highly skilled and creative. Given the trends, and the opinions expressed in this thread, I expect some pretty dreadful pay and working conditions for a high percentage of the population in the decades ahead, at least in the US because you guys are starting from a pretty low base. I sense more of a pushback on the continual lowering of working standards in the EU / UK.

 

 

It's called capitalism. You know?... The very system of economics that made the US the super power it is today.

[Murdoch]

4 hours ago, Orangeator said:

It's called capitalism. You know?... The very system of economics that made the US the super power it is today.

 

That's quite a simplistic and immature response to what I posted. I'd expect nothing less from this forum tbh.

 

 

[comicsansms]

So Uber in the UK is now just a dodgy unregulated taxi industry?

Why? Uber is meant to be cheaper and less secure taxi service, having to pay Uber drivers minimum wage and other expenses will hike up the price meaning no Uber.

[Grinners]

Amazing... take everything that makes uber great and turn it back into the taxi industry that it superseded.

 

"Thereis no problem so bad that a government can't come in and make worse"

[Fetzie]

10 hours ago, Orangeator said:

It's called capitalism. You know?... The very system of economics that made the US the super power it is today.

It's almost as if the UK isn't a member of the USA...

 

As for the argument that nobody is forcing the drivers to work for Uber, nobody is forcing Uber to do business in the UK.

 

It's not like the Tube isn't faster and cheaper than Uber if you want to travel across London anyway. In the summer, I travelled from near Watford to Tower Hill on the metropolitan line (change at Aldgate to the Circle Line for one stop). My friends didn't take my advice, and took an Uber from their hotel near Victoria station about half an hour before I was due to arrive (instead of the 20 minute trip on the District Line that I recommended). I was waiting over an hour at Tower Hill tube station for them.

[Orangeator]

55 minutes ago, Fetzie said:

It's almost as if the UK isn't a member of the USA...

 

As for the argument that nobody is forcing the drivers to work for Uber, nobody is forcing Uber to do business in the UK.

 

It's not like the Tube isn't faster and cheaper than Uber if you want to travel across London anyway. In the summer, I travelled from near Watford to Tower Hill on the metropolitan line (change at Aldgate to the Circle Line for one stop). My friends didn't take my advice, and took an Uber from their hotel near Victoria station about half an hour before I was due to arrive (instead of the 20 minute trip on the District Line that I recommended). I was waiting over an hour at Tower Hill tube station for them.

Yeah I am very aware that the UK isn't a member of the US... I was stating that, that type of economics made one of the strongest super powers in the history of the world. It was a point to prove that the UK obviously has no interest in using it.

[Fetzie]

36 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

Yeah I am very aware that the UK isn't a member of the US... I was stating that, that type of economics made one of the strongest super powers in the history of the world. It was a point to prove that the UK obviously has no interest in using it.

I'm pretty sure that not having most of your industry bombed to rubble between 1940 and 1945 and being the only country with a somewhat intact economy post-war thus allowing the US to dictate the terms of financial aid to western Europe is what put the US in that position. Capitalism alone won't do that.

[Murdoch]

9 hours ago, Orangeator said:

Yeah I am very aware that the UK isn't a member of the US... I was stating that, that type of economics made one of the strongest super powers in the history of the world. It was a point to prove that the UK obviously has no interest in using it.

 

I'm curious, what economic system do you think the UK uses?

 

As much as "capitalism" encompasses a wide rage of economic systems, I'd be curious if you believe that workers rights have any place within what you envisage is the definitive capitalism, in fact would you say all regulatory burdens have no place within that system?

 

I apologise for the tangent here, but it's pertinent to your previous post. I presume you favour a Neoliberalist approach, which of course is not without its failings (see the 2008 economic crash). Which largely had its roots in the deregulation of the financial markets in the 1980s, which by the way was as much a Thatcher policy as Reagan's.

 

So my question would be this, given that laissez-faire capitalism has gotten the US into unprecedented levels of (relative) peacetime debt, I think the current levels are approaching 20 trillion dollars. Should we have, as the true proponents of Laissez-faire told us to, just have let the entire financial system collapse catastrophically, and isn't that question in itself an indicator that total deregulation is simply not practical. Because a key element of the laissez-faire approach requires the allowance of catastrophic failure.

 

 

 

[Orangeator]

3 hours ago, Murdoch said:

 

I'm curious, what economic system do you think the UK uses?

 

As much as "capitalism" encompasses a wide rage of economic systems, I'd be curious if you believe that workers rights have any place within what you envisage is the definitive capitalism, in fact would you say all regulatory burdens have no place within that system?

 

I apologise for the tangent here, but it's pertinent to your previous post. I presume you favour a Neoliberalist approach, which of course is not without its failings (see the 2008 economic crash). Which largely had its roots in the deregulation of the financial markets in the 1980s, which by the way was as much a Thatcher policy as Reagan's.

 

So my question would be this, given that laissez-faire capitalism has gotten the US into unprecedented levels of (relative) peacetime debt, I think the current levels are approaching 20 trillion dollars. Should we have, as the true proponents of Laissez-faire told us to, just have let the entire financial system collapse catastrophically, and isn't that question in itself an indicator that total deregulation is simply not practical. Because a key element of the laissez-faire approach requires the allowance of catastrophic failure.

 

 

 

Yeah the debt has nothing to do with capitalism, that has to do with people wanting the government to be socialists. That debt is caused but unnecessary wars and welfare programs. 

[Zodiark1593]

Moral or not, the end question here is whether Uber's business model (or similar where the drivers are considered self employed contractors) has any place within the UK, or anywhere else? I don't think discussing the National debt has any bearing on the above question. 

[Murdoch]

37 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Moral or not, the end question here is whether Uber's business model (or similar where the drivers are considered self employed contractors) has any place within the UK, or anywhere else? I don't think discussing the National debt has any bearing on the above question. 

I agree, I was just trying to establish his thoughts on capitalism's need for regulatory oversight (since he so eloquently brought up "it's just capitalism bro"). I was trying to get into the subject of whether capitalism has those checks and balances built in inherently, or whether they have to be enforced through regulation. My stance is ofc, without at least some minimum standards set out by government, there would be a tendency towards lowering pay & working conditions, to the point where it would be exploitative.

 

The main question is whether the self-employment is being used to circumvent paying the minimum wage and offering other basic employment rights. The employment tribunal judged that to be the case, so Uber if they wish to operate in the UK, must act in accordance with the law, and ensure people are paid the equivalent of minimum wage after expenses. Which is not much to ask, we're not speaking about some luddite situation here, the employees are simply asking that basic minimum standards are met.

 

We also need to consider the fact that this is a well known loop-hole that is being used frequently in these sort of industries (delivery services especially), and it looks as if the court cases are going to side against the companies operating these "bogus" self-employed contractor jobs.

 

There is a wider discussion to be had regarding the "gig economy" as it's an expanding industry. But the solution is really quite simple, all you have to do is ensure that the casual work pays more than the minimum wage after expenses and there is no issue.

 

[patrickjp93]

On 30/10/2016 at 1:34 AM, Murdoch said:

I find the opinions on this topic quite interesting, seems you guys don't really value workers rights, or indeed think they are optional.

 

Be interesting to see if you have considered that services like Uber actively displace traditional full-time jobs, with benefits such as breaks and holiday entitlement (at least in the UK). And these displacements are only going to increase, there has been this prediction with the rise of automation that there will be a two tier system, low skilled casual workforce (the majority of people) with non-existent rights and the highly skilled and creative. Given the trends, and the opinions expressed in this thread, I expect some pretty dreadful pay and working conditions for a high percentage of the population in the decades ahead, at least in the US because you guys are starting from a pretty low base. I sense more of a pushback on the continual lowering of working standards in the EU / UK.

 

 

Workers have rights, and employers have rights. Uber drivers are not employees. They are contractors working on commissions, and that is made clear from the start. There is no good reason to invalidate Uber's contracts and force it to pay wage on top of what is honestly a very good deal in the first place. The drivers signed a legal contract, took the risk, and didn't plan ahead. They should bear the full responsibility of the consequences. Uber has done nothing abusive.

[Xanthe_2871]

On 10/28/2016 at 10:18 AM, NinjaCode said:

Uber was sentenced to pay minimum wage and vacation benefits to its employees. Can this be the end for uber current business model?

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37802386

 

"The ruling by a London employment tribunal means drivers for the ride-hailing app will be entitled to holiday pay, paid rest breaks and the national minimum wage.

The GMB union described the decision as a "monumental victory" for some 40,000 drivers in England and Wales."

 

 

Wow, that's awesome!? If it kills Uber in that country though, then not awesome. Some of may be better off with the current system than nothing.