Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sun Aug 09, 2020 6:00 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45870
Location: 1066 Country
Should anyone wish to watch tomorrow's (and Wednesday's) Supreme Court Hearing, Supreme Court Live can be found on the link below.

https://www.supremecourt.uk

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45870
Location: 1066 Country
Sussex wrote:
Should anyone wish to watch tomorrow's (and Wednesday's) Supreme Court Hearing, Supreme Court Live can be found on the link below.

https://www.supremecourt.uk

Bits I managed to see were quite interesting, if it was nearly all down to employment law rather than taxi and PH law.

I know I'm 100% biased, but I really wasn't impressed with Uber's QC. For what it's worth. :-$

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45870
Location: 1066 Country
Uber defends its right to treat drivers as self-employed in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has heard the final submissions in the five-year legal battle over whether Uber’s drivers should be considered workers and given employment rights, in a landmark ruling for the gig economy.

The San Francisco-based ride hailing company is appealing the 2018 ruling classifying its drivers as workers entitled to national minimum wage, sick and holiday pay, which they do not currently receive, and not self-employed,

It had previously lost an employment tribunal in 2016 and an appeal tribunal in 2017, which upheld the ruling former drivers Yaseen Aslam and James Farrar were ‘workers’ and not independent contractors at the time they were operating for Uber.

The virtual Supreme Court hearing on Tuesday and Wednesday was overseen by seven justices, who are expected to make a decision in the autumn.

Uber argued on Tuesday that its role was as an intermediary between drivers and passengers, likening its operation to taxi firms working with minicabs to collect passengers.

Dinah Rose QC, representing Uber’s legal team, said that drivers entered into “individual contracts with passengers to provide driving services for the passenger in respect of a particular trip, through the agency of Uber”.

“Uber’s business has been perceived by some as being different from this traditional industry model, principally because its innovative software platform has enabled a very large increase in the scale of such an operation,” she said.

“The essence of the functions it performs, and the nature of its relationships with drivers, are not novel.”

Oliver Segal QC, representing the drivers, said that company’s brand had been constructed around being “everyone’s private driver” and called for the appeal to be dismissed.

The decision could have significant implications for the UK’s thousands of food and parcel delivery riders who make up the thriving gig economy.

The App Drivers & Couriers Union (ADCU), founded by Mr Aslam and Mr Farrar, cautioned that if the court were to rule in Uber’s favour, the decision could result in a “wide-spread collapse in worker rights across the economy with millions of people pushed permanently into precarity.”

The ‘final showdown’

Mr Aslam called the case “our final showdown with Uber,” saying a victory for the tech company would usher in “an unseemly rush by greedy employers to collapse employment as we know it and Uber-ise the entire economy”.

Jamie Heywood, Uber’s regional general manager for northern and eastern Europe, said that drivers are in charge of when and where they drive and have access to free insurance to cover sickness or injury, alongside maternity and paternity payments.

“The vast majority of drivers want to work independently, and over a number of years we’ve made significant changes to our app to offer more benefits with total flexibility,” he added.

Uber is also attempting to win back its licence to operate in London after Transport for London stripped it of its right to operate in November for the second time in just over two years, with the appeal due to be heard in September.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 7:22 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:47 pm
Posts: 14374
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
so watch this space while the paint dries the kettle boils over and over again and seven blokes in wigs take weeks to mull over what really shouldn't require that much thought!!

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 7:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45870
Location: 1066 Country
So I watched both days on and off and found it quite interesting.

In all the previous hearings a lot was made over the issue of how many jobs a driver can refuse before he was logged off or removed from the app. My view throughout was that was a weakness in the driver's case.

To my surprise this played very little part in the appeal.

My main concern now is over the issue of drivers working multi apps, and how do you assess minimum wage and worker's rights on drivers using a different number of apps i.e. which firm pays what and how do you quantify those amounts?

That said I was impressed with the QCs for the drivers, and not so much for Uber's QC. Which is maybe down to the driver's case being easier to justify and Uber's case harder to defend, IMO.

Which leads me to conclude that the drivers will win this case. [-o<

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 7:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45870
Location: 1066 Country
edders23 wrote:
so watch this space while the paint dries the kettle boils over and over again and seven blokes in wigs take weeks to mull over what really shouldn't require that much thought!!

What I will say is the Justices were quoted dozens and dozens of cases, from a number of different jurisdictions, some binding on the court and some not, and those judgements need to be reviewed.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 7:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 6087
Quote:
Uber argued on Tuesday that its role was as an intermediary between drivers and passengers, likening its operation to taxi firms working with minicabs to collect passengers.

Let's hope that was misreported, or that the legal arguments made were of a more accurate and exacting standard :-s

Sussex wrote:
So I watched both days on and off and found it quite interesting.

I was most definitely in the 'off' category [-(

Sussex wrote:
My main concern now is over the issue of drivers working multi apps, and how do you assess minimum wage and worker's rights on drivers using a different number of apps i.e. which firm pays what and how do you quantify those amounts?

Which in turn begs the question about the implications for the rest of the trade if Uber loses.

I mean, if Uber loses and it costs them, they're going to make sure other firms have to pay the same price as well? :-o


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm
Posts: 1973
StuartW wrote:
Quote:
Uber argued on Tuesday that its role was as an intermediary between drivers and passengers, likening its operation to taxi firms working with minicabs to collect passengers.

Let's hope that was misreported, or that the legal arguments made were of a more accurate and exacting standard :-s

Sussex wrote:
So I watched both days on and off and found it quite interesting.

I was most definitely in the 'off' category [-(

Sussex wrote:
My main concern now is over the issue of drivers working multi apps, and how do you assess minimum wage and worker's rights on drivers using a different number of apps i.e. which firm pays what and how do you quantify those amounts?

Which in turn begs the question about the implications for the rest of the trade if Uber loses.

I mean, if Uber loses and it costs them, they're going to make sure other firms have to pay the same price as well? :-o



Is it not correct if uber have to treat everyone as employees all private hire operators have to do the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45870
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
Which in turn begs the question about the implications for the rest of the trade if Uber loses.

I would guess that 100% of your fares are paid to you, in my case it's about 90%, so I'm not sure the effect on either of us will be that much in respect of minimum wage regulations.

Maybe those on circuits may benefit from some of the workers rights like paid holiday and sickness pay, but for hackneys, especially independent hackneys I can't see it effecting them one bit.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 6087
heathcote wrote:
Is it not correct if uber have to treat everyone as employees all private hire operators have to do the same.

Isn't that what I'm suggesting? [-(

Incidentally, and although I'm always doing the same, I don't think the argument is that Uber drivers are employees rather than self-employed.

That was the crude distinction in employment law mabye thirty years ago. But since then the concept of 'worker' was introduced between full-blown employees and the self-employed. I think the unions are arguing that Uber drivers are 'workers' rather than employees, so a kind of half-way house between employees and the self-employed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 6087
Quote:
Maybe those on circuits may benefit from some of the workers rights like paid holiday and sickness pay, but for hackneys, especially independent hackneys I can't see it effecting them one bit.

I would certainly never make the argument that truly independent HCDs are anything other than self-employed.

But many of the HCDs round here certainly more controlled than the average Uber driver. Eg driving the firm's cars, working set shifts, uniforms/dress codes, need permission to go to the lavvy, etc etc :roll:

As for working for a competitor firm at the same time :shock: [-X


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45870
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
I think the unions are arguing that Uber drivers are 'workers' rather than employees, so a kind of half-way house between employees and the self-employed.

It is being argued that drivers are 'limb B' workers.

In short they aren't contracted workers like those working in an office or factory, nor fully self-employed.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm
Posts: 1973
Would a decision in favour of the drivers not affect the hackney carriage proprietor who allows a driver to drive his /her hackney carriage.
1847 Act states that the driver is in the proprietors employ.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45870
Location: 1066 Country
heathcote wrote:
Would a decision in favour of the drivers not affect the hackney carriage proprietor who allows a driver to drive his /her hackney carriage.
1847 Act states that the driver is in the proprietors employ.

Possibly.

Maybe if the owner operates a split bag policy, but maybe not if the driver rents the vehicle for a fixed fee.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2020 1:27 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:47 pm
Posts: 14374
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
round here split purse with companies owning the cars is now the norm. But I personally think that it should not be allowed .

I think that although there are new IR35 rules coming in that they ought to look at this trade and introduce a tighter definition as there are really few winners. Split purse is a license to drivers to rip off the owners in hackney vehicles and in PH a means of avoiding minimum wage and tax and VAT

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Coopers, edders23 and 119 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group