I admit I'm surprised. When the GMB Union announced
they intended to bring a Court case against Uber for
denying GMB members normal workers' rights, I thought
GMB had no chance. Clearly, I was wrong:

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/...cid=spartandhp

I suspect this will have more impact on those minicab firms
who cater solely for the account market and who insist their
drivers work stipulated hours, wear suits and ties, and drive
the cab firm's own cars. I've always wondered why HMRC
went along with the idea that those drivers were self-employed.

In message , at 18:47:49 on Fri, 28
Oct 2016, Robin9 remarked:
I admit I'm surprised. When the GMB Union announced

they intended to bring a Court case against Uber for

denying GMB members normal workers' rights, I thought

GMB had no chance. Clearly, I was wrong:



http://tinyurl.com/hetcmef



I suspect this will have more impact on those minicab firms

who cater solely for the account market and who insist their

drivers work stipulated hours, wear suits and ties, and drive

the cab firm's own cars. I've always wondered why HMRC

went along with the idea that those drivers were self-employed.


Uber, on the other hand, have stuck their head in the sand and said the
ruling only applies to the two drivers who brought the case.

And they wonder why people think so little of their practices.
--
Roland Perry

"Robin9" wrote in message
...

I admit I'm surprised.

me too

It's so patently obvious to TPTB that being a cab driver is a self
employment that Uber must have done some pretty dumb things to get a ruling
otherwise.

The variable costs of an owner operated vehicle and the number of hours that
you might have to spend waiting for a pick up make coming up with a
guaranteed minimum wage, after expenses for all hours on shift, just
impossible. You would end up subsidising those drivers working in slack
parts of the town, from the earnings of drivers in the busy parts of town.
The hard working, busy, drivers ain't gonna like that one bit.


When the GMB Union announced
they intended to bring a Court case against Uber for
denying GMB members normal workers' rights, I thought
GMB had no chance. Clearly, I was wrong:

The GMB are happy about this because it makes their parallel claims against
the "employers" of couriers drivers a slam dunk. Claims which IMHO are far
more well founded that that of cab drivers. And much more founded on the
employer taking advantage of the worker argument, than Uber does.

But I don't think that they have done the prospective taxi drivers any
favours.

One of three things will happen he
Uber will re-tweak their contact to make it one of SE,
they will have to take all of the employee management on board, owing and
renting-back cars, and giving people defined shifts to work,
or walk away from the UK.

Only the first benefits the type of person minded to do cabbing as a add on
to some other job. How many people are going to do cabbing as a casual job
if they are told exactly which shifts they must work?


http://tinyurl.com/hetcmef

I suspect this will have more impact on those minicab firms
who cater solely for the account market and who insist their
drivers work stipulated hours, wear suits and ties, and drive
the cab firm's own cars.

Surely this type of work is pre-booked. It doesn't have all of the problems
of having to pay staff for "waiting around" for the next ride. It will be
trivial for companies offering this service to work within this ruling.

I've always wondered why HMRC
went along with the idea that those drivers were self-employed.

Ah, you misunderstand.

The rules has not said that they are employees subject to PAYE. It has said
that they are "workers".

For tax purposes they are still self employed.

Apart from when wearing their hat as the enforcement authority for NMW, HMRC
have no interest in the difference ruled upon here.

tim

On 28/10/2016 17:47, Robin9 wrote:

I've always wondered why HMRC
went along with the idea that those drivers were self-employed.



I don't doubt HMNRC are looking at the decision. But the difference
between employed and self-employed was and is a matter of general
employment law. And can be complicated. Then "worker" has been
introduced in addition - as a result of EU law. (And that is what Uber
drivers have been held to be by the Employment Tribunal.)

Many workers are taxed as employees under legislation for agency workers
or service companies. But legislating to make every worker an employee
for tax purposes would, I suspect, be controversial.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:47:49 on Fri, 28

Uber, on the other hand, have stuck their head in the sand and said the
ruling only applies to the two drivers who brought the case.

And they wonder why people think so little of their practices.

Tis the typical response from any company who have just lost at an ET

They just need a holding position whilst they get their lawyers to look at
it to see what is the basis for an appeal.

And whilst I don't like Uber's MO from a competition POV, looking down the
list of reasons why the tribunal ruled that the drivers are workers the only
ones that seem to me to be an unreasonable practice is that of not telling
divers where the pick up wants to go to and penalising drivers for not
accepting pick ups.

The rest don't seem the slightest bit unreasonable IMHO

tim

In message , at 09:44:54 on Sat, 29 Oct 2016,
tim... remarked:

Uber, on the other hand, have stuck their head in the sand and said
the ruling only applies to the two drivers who brought the case.

And they wonder why people think so little of their practices.

Tis the typical response from any company who have just lost at an ET

They just need a holding position whilst they get their lawyers to look
at it to see what is the basis for an appeal.

And whilst I don't like Uber's MO from a competition POV, looking down
the list of reasons why the tribunal ruled that the drivers are workers
the only ones that seem to me to be an unreasonable practice is that of
not telling divers where the pick up wants to go to and penalising
drivers for not accepting pick ups.

The rest don't seem the slightest bit unreasonable IMHO

Isn't it about lawfulness, rather than reasonableness?

I too think the drivers are asking too much for some of the things like
holiday pay, although this is in danger of getting into a wider debate
about "zero-hours" contracts.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:44:54 on Sat, 29 Oct 2016,
tim... remarked:

Uber, on the other hand, have stuck their head in the sand and said the
ruling only applies to the two drivers who brought the case.

And they wonder why people think so little of their practices.

Tis the typical response from any company who have just lost at an ET

They just need a holding position whilst they get their lawyers to look at
it to see what is the basis for an appeal.

And whilst I don't like Uber's MO from a competition POV, looking down the
list of reasons why the tribunal ruled that the drivers are workers the
only ones that seem to me to be an unreasonable practice is that of not
telling divers where the pick up wants to go to and penalising drivers for
not accepting pick ups.

The rest don't seem the slightest bit unreasonable IMHO

Isn't it about lawfulness, rather than reasonableness?

But all the stuff in the press (well on the TV) has been union officials
crowing about how this will stop employers exploiting employees

And in this particular case, I can't see that there's any exploitation at
all

I repeat what I, sort of, said before. The taxi cab model only works if
drivers are SE.

Anything else leads either to no taxi cabs at all. Or a luxury-style
limousine service only

I too think the drivers are asking too much for some of the things like
holiday pay, although this is in danger of getting into a wider debate
about "zero-hours" contracts.

They weren't asking for any specific set of things

they just wanted to be classed as "workers" so that they could claim minimum
wage for all of the hours that they spent sitting in a cab "waiting" for a
ride.

All the rest came along in the bundle.

And if they think that the MO of paying drivers for sitting around waiting
for a ride is sustainable they are idiots (well, they are cab drivers so
that isn't an unlikely possibility).

All that it will result in is them not being able to log on for work during
slack hours and, instead of getting 4 pounds an hour from those hours they
will get nothing. (And bearing in mind that the 4 pounds is after they
have paid for some of the fixed costs of owing a car, costs which will still
have to be paid, they will be earning a nett negative amount from those lost
hours).

In article , (tim...)
wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:44:54 on Sat, 29 Oct
2016, tim... remarked:

Uber, on the other hand, have stuck their head in the sand and said
the ruling only applies to the two drivers who brought the case.

And they wonder why people think so little of their practices.

Tis the typical response from any company who have just lost at an ET

They just need a holding position whilst they get their lawyers to look
at it to see what is the basis for an appeal.

And whilst I don't like Uber's MO from a competition POV, looking down
the list of reasons why the tribunal ruled that the drivers are workers
the only ones that seem to me to be an unreasonable practice is that of
not telling divers where the pick up wants to go to and penalising
drivers for not accepting pick ups.

The rest don't seem the slightest bit unreasonable IMHO

Isn't it about lawfulness, rather than reasonableness?

But all the stuff in the press (well on the TV) has been union officials
crowing about how this will stop employers exploiting employees

And in this particular case, I can't see that there's any exploitation
at all

I repeat what I, sort of, said before. The taxi cab model only works if
drivers are SE.

Anything else leads either to no taxi cabs at all. Or a luxury-style
limousine service only

I too think the drivers are asking too much for some of the things
like holiday pay, although this is in danger of getting into a
wider debate about "zero-hours" contracts.

Holiday pay is pretty well mandatory in any employment. For the last year my
wife has had a zero-hours contract. All her paid hours had a holiday pay
supplement. She's on a proper full-time contract from next month now anyway.

They weren't asking for any specific set of things

they just wanted to be classed as "workers" so that they could claim
minimum wage for all of the hours that they spent sitting in a cab
"waiting" for a ride.

All the rest came along in the bundle.

And if they think that the MO of paying drivers for sitting around
waiting for a ride is sustainable they are idiots (well, they are cab
drivers so that isn't an unlikely possibility).

All that it will result in is them not being able to log on for work
during slack hours and, instead of getting 4 pounds an hour from
those hours they will get nothing. (And bearing in mind that the 4
pounds is after they have paid for some of the fixed costs of owing a
car, costs which will still have to be paid, they will be earning a
nett negative amount from those lost hours).

The evidence that the drivers are like employees looked pretty formidable to
me. They have almost no discretion over their work for a start, unlike taxi
drivers.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 07:46:00
on Sun, 30 Oct 2016, Paul Cummins
remarked:
All her paid hours had a holiday pay supplement.

As in she was paid extra every week (rolled up) to cover her "holiday"
provision?

And was expected to save that for her holiday?

https://www.gov.uk/holiday-entitleme...pay-the-basics

That's not permissible.

Putting aside the rights and wrongs of Colin's wife's arrangements, it's
interesting that page talks about "workers", not "employees".

aiui the Uber case was to do with whether someone was a worker (which
includes people who are self-employed).

OTOH, the work(sic)-place pensions apparently only apply to people who
have a contract of employment [whether that's written or verbal] so
presumably doesn't apply to self-employed contractors.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:30:39 on
Sun, 30 Oct 2016, remarked:

Holiday pay is pretty well mandatory in any employment.

Does that mean I have to give my self-employed window cleaner some
holiday pay if he asks (on top of the monthly fee)?

If he is self employed would you be be employing him ?
I don't see how the two conditions can coexist,
or are you just paying for a service he provides.

It's all about the line in the sand between a service provider and a
casual employee. Compare and contrast paying a baby sitter a few times a
month versus a nanny for five days a week.

HMRC require the latter to be on a PAYG scheme, but my daughter did a
day's work being a marshal at an open day, and the Uni insisted on
putting her on PAYE.
--
Roland Perry