| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Uber Supreme Court Hearing Live 21/22 July 2020 http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=35932 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Sussex [ Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Uber Supreme Court Hearing Live 21/22 July 2020 |
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 |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber Supreme Court Hearing Live 21/22 July 2020 |
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. 
|
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Wed Jul 22, 2020 7:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber Supreme Court Hearing Live 21/22 July 2020 |
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. |
|
| Author: | edders23 [ Wed Jul 22, 2020 7:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber Supreme Court Hearing Live 21/22 July 2020 |
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!! |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Wed Jul 22, 2020 7:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber Supreme Court Hearing Live 21/22 July 2020 |
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. 
|
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Wed Jul 22, 2020 7:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber Supreme Court Hearing Live 21/22 July 2020 |
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. |
|
| Author: | StuartW [ Wed Jul 22, 2020 7:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber Supreme Court Hearing Live 21/22 July 2020 |
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  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? 
|
|
| Author: | heathcote [ Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber Supreme Court Hearing Live 21/22 July 2020 |
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 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? Is it not correct if uber have to treat everyone as employees all private hire operators have to do the same. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber Supreme Court Hearing Live 21/22 July 2020 |
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. |
|
| Author: | StuartW [ Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber Supreme Court Hearing Live 21/22 July 2020 |
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. |
|
| Author: | StuartW [ Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber Supreme Court Hearing Live 21/22 July 2020 |
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  As for working for a competitor firm at the same time  
|
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber Supreme Court Hearing Live 21/22 July 2020 |
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. |
|
| Author: | heathcote [ Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber Supreme Court Hearing Live 21/22 July 2020 |
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. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber Supreme Court Hearing Live 21/22 July 2020 |
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. |
|
| Author: | edders23 [ Thu Jul 23, 2020 1:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber Supreme Court Hearing Live 21/22 July 2020 |
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 |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|