Taxi Driver Online
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

LC: Employment status: employed or self-employed?
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19257		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Dusty Bin [ Sat May 12, 2012 5:17 am ]
Post subject:  LC: Employment status: employed or self-employed?
There's a good section on employment status from para 4.88, and this demonstrates good knowledge about how both side of the trade works in practice.

Strange thing is that it as much as says that many drivers are wrongly categorised as self-employed, but then basically says that it's nowt to do with the LC.

So perhaps a bit like what I said in another thread about lots of what the LC says being about euphemism and diplomacy.

They don't want to say explicitly that there's widespread abuse of the law, but on the other hand they make a point of implying as such.

So if Mr Addison Lee will be pleased by some aspects of the LC's proposals then I doubt if he'll be over-impressed by this little bit [-(
Author:  captain cab [ Sat May 12, 2012 8:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: LC: Employment status: employed or self-employed?
Dusty Bin wrote:
There's a good section on employment status from para 4.88, and this demonstrates good knowledge about how both side of the trade works in practice.

Strange thing is that it as much as says that many drivers are wrongly categorised as self-employed, but then basically says that it's nowt to do with the LC.

So perhaps a bit like what I said in another thread about lots of what the LC says being about euphemism and diplomacy.

They don't want to say explicitly that there's widespread abuse of the law, but on the other hand they make a point of implying as such.

So if Mr Addison Lee will be pleased by some aspects of the LC's proposals then I doubt if he'll be over-impressed by this little bit [-(



But they do say they dont want to get into the argument, because thats not their job, which is rather strange given their role in this :shock:
Author:  edders23 [ Sat May 12, 2012 8:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: LC: Employment status: employed or self-employed?
I don't see that this is in the LC's remit I think this really something the inland revenue should be taking the lead on
Author:  captain cab [ Sat May 12, 2012 9:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: LC: Employment status: employed or self-employed?
edders23 wrote:
I don't see that this is in the LC's remit I think this really something the inland revenue should be taking the lead on



Neither do they, but they also dont see taxi ranks as their remit either.
Author:  bloodnock [ Sat May 12, 2012 9:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: LC: Employment status: employed or self-employed?
captain cab wrote:
Dusty Bin wrote:
There's a good section on employment status from para 4.88, and this demonstrates good knowledge about how both side of the trade works in practice.

Strange thing is that it as much as says that many drivers are wrongly categorised as self-employed, but then basically says that it's nowt to do with the LC.

So perhaps a bit like what I said in another thread about lots of what the LC says being about euphemism and diplomacy.

They don't want to say explicitly that there's widespread abuse of the law, but on the other hand they make a point of implying as such.

So if Mr Addison Lee will be pleased by some aspects of the LC's proposals then I doubt if he'll be over-impressed by this little bit [-(



But they do say they dont want to get into the argument, because thats not their job, which is rather strange given their role in this :shock:



It rather looks like they are doing someone else,s Bidding.....but that,s hardly a Surprise!!
Author:  toots [ Sat May 12, 2012 11:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: LC: Employment status: employed or self-employed?
bloodnock wrote:
captain cab wrote:
Dusty Bin wrote:
There's a good section on employment status from para 4.88, and this demonstrates good knowledge about how both side of the trade works in practice.

Strange thing is that it as much as says that many drivers are wrongly categorised as self-employed, but then basically says that it's nowt to do with the LC.

So perhaps a bit like what I said in another thread about lots of what the LC says being about euphemism and diplomacy.

They don't want to say explicitly that there's widespread abuse of the law, but on the other hand they make a point of implying as such.

So if Mr Addison Lee will be pleased by some aspects of the LC's proposals then I doubt if he'll be over-impressed by this little bit [-(


Brown envelopes or am I being cynical. I asked last year if they were going to look at employment status and whilst they agreed it needed looking at they weren't going to do it.


But they do say they dont want to get into the argument, because thats not their job, which is rather strange given their role in this :shock:



It rather looks like they are doing someone else,s Bidding.....but that,s hardly a Surprise!!
Author:  Sussex [ Sat May 12, 2012 7:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: LC: Employment status: employed or self-employed?
edders23 wrote:
I don't see that this is in the LC's remit I think this really something the inland revenue should be taking the lead on

There is no good reason why they can't give a view.
Author:  Sussex [ Sat May 12, 2012 7:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: LC: Employment status: employed or self-employed?
What the Law Commission wrote in their report.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRIVER AND OPERATOR

4.88
Employment law does not form part of the Law Commission’s remit in reviewing the regulation of taxis and private hire vehicles. That said, it is clear that understanding the relationship between the driver and the operator, legally and in practice, is very important.

The legal status of drivers

4.89
Drivers of both taxis and private hire vehicles are generally held out as being self-employed. This is often clearly the case, particularly with solo taxi and private hire owner-drivers. Large fleets with significant uniformity of standards and close control over drivers lie at the other end of the spectrum and are much closer to a classic employment relationship.
4.90
The following aspects of the operator-driver relationship have a significant impact on the way regulation can work in practice. They are also closely tied to considerations relevant to whether there may be a contract of service as a matter of employment law. These factors include the following:
(1)
Vehicles: although most drivers own their own vehicles, some larger firms require drivers to lease vehicles from them. Other firms may impose an age limit on vehicles. It remains the driver’s choice as to whether he or she invests in a newer vehicle, but sometimes this may be the only way to continue working.
(2)
Fares: most private hire firms set fares in advance and have standardised fares across the fleet. Thus the driver’s potential to control his or her earnings is limited. This also applies where an operator requires vehicles to be fitted with meters.
(3)
Multiple operators: theoretically, a licensed driver is free to work for as many or as few operators as he or she wishes. However, many operators place restrictions on this.
(4)
Hours worked: whilst drivers are generally free to work hours of their choosing, some firms, particularly larger ones, control working hours. This may be through shifts or simply by requesting that drivers work at particular times. Many drivers work on a shift pattern in order to ensure the vehicle is in constant use.
(5)
Earnings: operators will set out how drivers’ earnings are to be ascertained. This may be by means of radio or vehicle rental, a standard charge, a “split bag” or commission.
(6)
Jobs: operators specify which car undertakes each job. In some firms drivers have the ability to refuse jobs, but even where this is the case they may be reluctant to do so in case it impedes their future flow of work. In some firms refusal is punishable by suspension.
(7)
Monitoring: firms which use sophisticated data heads are able to track vehicles, recording not only location and mileage, but such information as speed, braking force and how the engine is working. Some drivers have reported that they are unable to switch off these facilities, even when using their vehicle privately.
(8)
Sanctions: operators apply rules and conditions and can use sanctions such as suspension or removal from their fleet, which is often referred to in the employment-like language of dismissal.
4.91
Although the factors discussed above refer primarily to private hire operators, some of the same considerations may apply to firms that dispatch taxis. Many stakeholders have pointed out that private hire drivers lack an organised voice, for example. Whereas both taxi and private hire drivers are typically self-employed, private hire drivers depend on operators for all their work, yet they lack the employment protection in terms of hours and pay, for example.
4.92
It is not for the Law Commission to take a view on whether or not taxi and private hire drivers are employed or self-employed. Indeed, it would not be possible for us to do so as the question of whether or not an individual is employed is a question of fact.152 However, the foregoing discussion suggests that operators play a critical role in ensuring regulatory compliance and highlights the importance of operator licensing as further discussed in our provisional proposals for reform in Chapter 16.

To me that's saying most, if not all, PH drivers should be employed.
Author:  Dusty Bin [ Sat May 12, 2012 8:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: LC: Employment status: employed or self-employed?
edders23 wrote:
I don't see that this is in the LC's remit I think this really something the inland revenue should be taking the lead on


Indeed it's nothing to do with licensing law, which begs the question, why mention it at all, as I alluded earlier?

I think they're alluding that drivers are being wrongly categorised, and also recogising the importance of the issue to the economics and structure of the trade.

And to that extent they refer to the importance of operator licensing, but I haven't got to that section yet, and I'm not sure that I ever will :lol:
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/