UK Supreme Court declares Uber drivers are workers, not self-employed: Ride biz's legal battle ends in a crash
- Reference: 1613802849
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/02/20/uk_court_uber/
- Source link:
The case was brought by former Uber drivers Yaseen Aslam and James Farrar. In 2016, the Central London Employment Tribunal declared both men were, indeed, cabbies for the tech giant and were entitled to holiday pay, minimum wage, and paid rest breaks. Uber appealed the decision, and it was rejected. But the battle didn’t end there: the biz took it all the way to the Supreme Court.
[1]
Now after five years, Uber has reached the end of line after the nation's highest court ruled unanimously in favor of Aslam, Farrar et al. A 42-page document
[2]PDF
written by seven judges, led by Lord Legatt, described how the drivers were effectively employed under a contract with Uber in the UK, and why they ought to be workers."I am overjoyed and greatly relieved by this decision which will bring relief to so many workers in the gig economy who so desperately need it," [3]said Aslam, who is also the App Drivers & Couriers Union President.
[4]
"During the six years of these proceedings, we have watched the government commission and then shelve a review of the gig economy yet do nothing to help us. I hope in future the government will choose to carry out its duty to enforce the law and protect the most vulnerable from exploitation."
Californians OK'd Prop 22, Uber and Lyft tell appeals court. So how about we let gig workers be gig workers? [5]READ MORE
Uber workers have to accept certain terms and conditions before joining the app, such as agreeing to hand over 20 per cent of the fares made on each ride to Uber as a “service fee,” the court noted. They’re also at risk of losing their job if their average rating falls below 4.4 after having completed 200 trips or more.
If their rating does not improve, Uber deactivates their account, making it impossible to pick up or receive money for new rides via the app. Uber also uses its software to set how much each driver earns for a particular ride.
“Taking these factors together, the transportation service performed by drivers and offered to passengers through the Uber app is very tightly defined and controlled by Uber,” the court said in a summary of proceedings [6][PDF] .
“Drivers are in a position of subordination and dependency in relation to Uber such that they have little or no ability to improve their economic position through professional or entrepreneurial skill ... The drivers were rightly found to be ‘workers’.”
The Supreme Court’s decision, however, only applies to the respondents in this specific case – Aslam, Farrar, and a number of others who joined the legal challenge. If any other Uber drivers want to get in on the action, they’ll have to take it up with an employment tribunal that will take into account the top court's judgment, Oxford University's Dr Alex Wood [7]told the BBC.
"We respect the court's decision which focused on a small number of drivers who used the Uber app in 2016,” an Uber spokesperson told The Register .
[8]
“Since then we have made some significant changes to our business, guided by drivers every step of the way. These include giving even more control over how they earn and providing new protections like free insurance in case of sickness or injury. We are committed to doing more and will now consult with every active driver across the UK to understand the changes they want to see.” ®
Get our [9]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_personal_tech/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YDDrxxF1qyYvAYbn5J@36gAAAFM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0029-judgment.pdf
[3] https://www.adcu.org.uk/news-posts/supreme-court-landmark-victory-over-uber
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_personal_tech/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YDDrxxF1qyYvAYbn5J@36gAAAFM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2020/11/10/prop_22_lawsuit/
[6] https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0029-press-summary.pdf
[7] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56123668
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_personal_tech/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YDDrxxF1qyYvAYbn5J@36gAAAFM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Not all Californians are idiots...
I'm glad you folks over there on the right side of The Pond have the brains to call a turd a turd
You'll like this: In the UK courts there's such as thing called the duck test: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck the court declares it a duck regardless of what over-paid lawyers may try to call it.
"Since then we have made some significant changes to our business, guided by drivers every step of the way. These include giving even more control over how they earn and providing new protections like free insurance in case of sickness or injury...
... "but we've still not given them a contract of employment and statutory worker's rights".
Well they're going to have to do so now, but I fear it's going to be a bit of a messy fight. It seems that individuals are going to have to take the initiative themselves. And many won't I expect, scared of losing what income they do have. A review can't come soon enough.
Still, at least the end result is clear. There's a lot of people from cleaners to drivers to who are working under very similar conditions, and they should win if they take their employer to a tribunal.
Amazon delivery is going to be a lot more expensive.
Well....
That means people in UK might not have Uber as an option to move around soon. When the government decides contractors are employees all they see is the taxable paycheques. More regulation kills industries and this one is not sustainable if everybody is an employee.
Re: Well....
Funny thing is taxi firms have been sustainable for over a century after "the knowledge" was introduced.
Re: Well....
Or to put it another way, maybe the Uber business model is only sustainable when operating outside of certain worker protection laws.
As for the tax argument, those workers would (or should?) have been paying their fair share of tax anyway, whether they were contractors or not.
Hopefully sanity will prevail
and we don't get the extremes predicted above. Uber should rewrite their contracts to provide minimum wage when drivers are dedicating their time to Uber and figure out how to do paid time off etc. Uber fares will increase, but that will only be because they were underpriced due to under paying their workers.
Uber can still be competitive as a taxi firm due to their app and market share, probably not valued as highly though.
Re: Hopefully sanity will prevail
that will only be because they were ... under paying their workers
It seems that there is a possibility that if drivers are not independent contractors, Uber might also have a [1]VAT issue affecting its competitiveness.
[1] https://goodlawproject.org/update/ubers-1bn-vat-bill/
I wonder ...
I wonder whether this decision might be brought to bear on the grossly inequitable core principle of IR35, whereby a contractor is an employee for tax purposes but not for employment rights purposes.
Hooray
About time these new 'disrupting' industries were brought back to earth with a heavy dose of reality.
You see the use of 'gig' workers is nothing more than using casual labour for jobs, the old docks practise of hiring people by the day springs to mind where 200 dock workers would have to turn up at 7am to start work only for the dock owners to say "we only need 50 today" and those 50 would get 1 days pay and no benefits, the next day it might be 150 workers needed or none.
My boss could use such an employment method to cover the high demands periods, but to his credit he wont, he'll say to the temps "I need you for 4 weeks work", and 4 weeks work is what he'll pay regardless if demand slacks off or we complete the job in 3 weeks, but we haven't needed temps in ages(partly covid , partly the level of automation)
As for uber.. suck it up and pay the benefits, it you cant make a profit , then maybe your whole idea is crap, especially when so many older taxi firms seem to be in business....
Not all Californians are idiots...
Some of us realized that "Gig Economy" workers were *employees* in all but name, so we voted against the Uber Law. Unfortunately too many bought the lie that "independant workers want" the law, which was absolute bullshit. No they didn't, they wanted to get paid a fair rate, get paid time off, have their medical bills covered, have their employer pay for the insurance premiums involved, and all the other benefits every other "official" cab driver would get.
I'm glad you folks over there on the right side of The Pond have the brains to call a turd a turd & slap the stupid out of the idiots trying to roll the damn thing in sprinkles. Those "Gig Economy" folks are *employees* & deserve to be paid as such. I just wish enough of us Californians could see that fact. And that statement coming from a totally blind person just makes it all the more difficult to swallow. I felt like screaming to the other voters "Damn it, WAKE UP! Open your eyes! When even the BLIND GUY can see the bullshit inherent in Uber's arguments, the rest of you SIGHTED folks have no fuckin' excuse!"
*Sigh*
Meteor strike. Total Extinction Event. Uber HQ...