Uber drivers win key employment case against Uber.

[Fetzie]

3 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

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.

Are you sure that the contracts are actually legal in the UK? Contracts don't supersede national laws.

[patrickjp93]

34 minutes ago, Fetzie said:

Are you sure that the contracts are actually legal in the UK? Contracts don't supersede national laws.

They don't supersede the law, but there is such a thing as contract law, and we have various definitions of labor for a reason. Commission work is a thing even in the UK.

[alexyy]

On 28/10/2016 at 10:54 PM, Orangeator said:

No that is a sucky ass analogy. Depression is a mental illness that is completely uncontrollable. Uber is a company offer a said cut for every passenger picked up, you approach them and say deal. Then you later think, "hey I am not getting paid enough"... So you go after Uber for more money. That is bullshit. If you are unhappy with the wage leave. There are plenty others that would be more than happy to take your place.

 

Edit: (It's called capitalism)

This is a British case and we don't pride our selves by making profit on the poor but it happens and it's not good by any means.

[Fetzie]

21 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

They don't supersede the law, but there is such a thing as contract law, and we have various definitions of labor for a reason. Commission work is a thing even in the UK.

Isn't commission work more usually used for one-off deals?

[patrickjp93]

14 minutes ago, Fetzie said:

Isn't commission work more usually used for one-off deals?

No. Art and car sales are commission work, and while they're small in volume, they are large in value. Uber is larger in volume and lower in value per transaction. It's still commission work.

[KuJoe]

How can a company that doesn't make money afford to pay its employees? Uber has been operating at a loss since 2014 and the primary source of income since day one is from investors. Once those investors realize they won't be getting paid either Uber as we know it today will just disappear.

[Miguel Batista]

The simple factbof the matter is that uber is acting on a legal void in many countries in the EU. The UK court of law took a look at uber contracts and ruled that according to UK law, it is not commission work or any other kind of self employment. The contracts are binding enough that they need to be recognized as employement contracts. No politics, just law. If Uber wants to operate, it has to obey the law. Simple.

 

To be honest, I would be happy to see uber go. Their schemes against workers rights are dodgy to say the least.

 

BTW, what made America a world superpower was (besides intact infrastructure after 2 world wars that decimated the traditional powers) the strong middle-class full of worker's rights and a decent standard of living (a working man in the 50s had more income than a working couple today). Not this neoliberal capitalism which makes America weaker with a corrupt party finance system and a penchant for dodgy wall street bankers stealing money from normal people.

[Zodiark1593]

4 hours ago, Miguel Batista said:

The simple factbof the matter is that uber is acting on a legal void in many countries in the EU. The UK court of law took a look at uber contracts and ruled that according to UK law, it is not commission work or any other kind of self employment. The contracts are binding enough that they need to be recognized as employement contracts. No politics, just law. If Uber wants to operate, it has to obey the law. Simple.

 

To be honest, I would be happy to see uber go. Their schemes against workers rights are dodgy to say the least.

 

BTW, what made America a world superpower was (besides intact infrastructure after 2 world wars that decimated the traditional powers) the strong middle-class full of worker's rights and a decent standard of living (a working man in the 50s had more income than a working couple today). Not this neoliberal capitalism which makes America weaker with a corrupt party finance system and a penchant for dodgy wall street bankers stealing money from normal people.

Not defending nor supporting Uber here, but... 

 

Under what law(s) can contracts for commission work be altered or voided? Is there a specific law in the UK that dictates what constitutes commission work, or is this just the arbitrary decision of a judge? 

[Thunderpup]

5 hours ago, Miguel Batista said:

BTW, what made America a world superpower was (besides intact infrastructure after 2 world wars that decimated the traditional powers) the strong middle-class full of worker's rights and a decent standard of living (a working man in the 50s had more income than a working couple today).

 

Workers had fewer rights under law back then compared to today. What they did have wast he benefit of a strong dollar, and an explosive economy which afforded good wages as industries clamored for the available labor.

Also the standard of living wasnt that great in a lot of places during this time.  After WW2, and well into the 60s a lot of homes still did not have electricity or even indoor plumbing.  This dropped quickly as housing developments sprung up, but was still a thing.

 

You are correct that having infrastructure that was not only intact but had been scaled up by the end of the war gave us a leg up; especially since the entire world essentially became our customer.  However i will point out that the war in europe was europe's doing.  

 

 

 

On 10/28/2016 at 8:45 PM, bob345 said:

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.

 

I agree with this, but only to an extent.  If people are expecting full time wages while only working when they feel like it then they need to re-evaluate the thought process.  

 

However if uber is selling itself to potential drivers a casual, work as you want, experience but then making them work a set amount of time; then there is nothing wrong with taking Uber to task on that.

Uber either needs to have policies that live up to its sales pitch, or change their sales pitch so drivers know what they are agreeing to before they start doing it.

It was precisely this that caused Uber to be taken to court here in the states; to which they lost, because they mandated a minimum amount of work which was pretty high despite selling itself as quite different.

Now it truly is a work as you go type business which i am in favor of. 

 

 

On 10/29/2016 at 11:34 AM, Murdoch said:

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).

 

Innovation and changes in consumer's tastes cause this sort of thing all the time.  While it does suck for those whose jobs are being displaced it also cannot be helped.  

 

Uber is to the taxi industry what Netflix was to the video rental store.   

 

[spamy666]

On 10/28/2016 at 6:41 PM, UberGamerKing said:

Well at least you are lucky enough not to have to get 2 jobs at the same time.

Think before you speak

What is this!!!!

Ill have to get another GIF now. Damn!

[Murdoch]

12 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

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.

 

I don't disagree with this per se, my initial post outlined the problems that arise when services like Uber become proliferated and actively displace traditional jobs. By embracing cool new services as consumers (which we all want to do, this is a tech forum after all), we also inadvertently force through a change in working arrangements for taxi drivers. People have to go where the work is, that's just how it works. It's important to remember that these rights we speak of, didn't just magically appear, they were hard-fought, the last thing I want to see happening is for us to just start casually giving them up, especially via the backdoor i.e. gradual reclassification of working arrangements. It is far easier to relinquish a right, than it is to gain one.

 

There is definitely the need for those impacts to be considered, and I certainly think that if you are working full-time hours for a single company that is also setting the pricing, then it's very much a grey area whether you can be considered "self-employed". That said, I don't think it should be prohibitive to people that really want flexible, casual work, that they can pick up and drop as they like, so there's a balance to be struck.

 

The overwhelming positive to come from Uber's entry into the market, is the competition has forced Taxi firms in London etc, to modernise.

 

1 hour ago, Thunderpup said:

Innovation and changes in consumer's tastes cause this sort of thing all the time.  While it does suck for those whose jobs are being displaced it also cannot be helped.  

Uber is to the taxi industry what Netflix was to the video rental store.   

 

 

Sure, by all means the consumer is embracing Uber for good reason.

 

Yet I'm really struggling to think of another example of workers doing essentially the same job, but under radically different working arrangements at the behest of the "new tech start-up in town". The funny thing is, the discussion in another decade or so will ofc be about autonomous vehicles putting millions of people out of work globally.

[Thunderpup]

2 hours ago, Murdoch said:

Yet I'm really struggling to think of another example of workers doing essentially the same job, but under radically different working arrangements at the behest of the "new tech start-up in town". 

I get that, and in viewed in the context of traditional hourly wage jobs i understand the oddity of it all.

Personally i view an Uber driver to be akin to someone who is an independent rep for an insurance company.  Yes you are under the umbrella of a bigger company, but how much you make is entirely dependent to how much you sell. 

 

Though Uber should be required to ensure that the fares they charge and the amount that goes to the driver is sufficient to reward the work the driver did so they don't lose money per fare. 

 

I dunno about in the UK, but here in the States there are two main differences between a traditional cab company and services like Uber.  

1. with cab companies the driver pays a fee to borrow/lease the taxi cab for a set amount of time.  Usually a few hours, or an entire day.  That fee is how the companies mainly make their money.  Any left over once the fee is paid the driver keeps. Which means you can make a lot of money, but it also means if you make less than the fee cost then you are paying out of pocket to cover the difference.  whereas Uber just takes a cut of the fare.  Which means Taxi Drivers have a higher financial risk but also have a higher reward potential especially as you rack up regulars.

 

2.  At least here locally cab companies can only pick up fares in the cities they are licensed to work in; which for most companies that means just 1 city.  Drivers who pick up customers outside of the city limits can be fined heavily.  Though they are permitted to drop off people in those cities.  Uber drivers are exempt from this at the moment mainly because while they behave a lot like a taxi company; they aren't actually a taxi company. 

[Zodiark1593]

3 hours ago, Murdoch said:

 

I don't disagree with this per se, my initial post outlined the problems that arise when services like Uber become proliferated and actively displace traditional jobs. By embracing cool new services as consumers (which we all want to do, this is a tech forum after all), we also inadvertently force through a change in working arrangements for taxi drivers. People have to go where the work is, that's just how it works. It's important to remember that these rights we speak of, didn't just magically appear, they were hard-fought, the last thing I want to see happening is for us to just start casually giving them up, especially via the backdoor i.e. gradual reclassification of working arrangements. It is far easier to relinquish a right, than it is to gain one.

 

There is definitely the need for those impacts to be considered, and I certainly think that if you are working full-time hours for a single company that is also setting the pricing, then it's very much a grey area whether you can be considered "self-employed". That said, I don't think it should be prohibitive to people that really want flexible, casual work, that they can pick up and drop as they like, so there's a balance to be struck.

 

The overwhelming positive to come from Uber's entry into the market, is the competition has forced Taxi firms in London etc, to modernise.

 

 

Sure, by all means the consumer is embracing Uber for good reason.

 

Yet I'm really struggling to think of another example of workers doing essentially the same job, but under radically different working arrangements at the behest of the "new tech start-up in town". The funny thing is, the discussion in another decade or so will ofc be about autonomous vehicles putting millions of people out of work globally.

While not a "new tech job", there is a similar business model that occurs in construction where companies will subcontract their work to small businesses or self employed individuals in exchange for a cut.