Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:40 pm

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 7082
The problem with the Supreme Court’s Uber ruling

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the ... ber-ruling

They are monitored by the firm. They don’t have the option of working for other companies. And they are entitled to all the protections that come with being an employee. The Supreme Court today potentially blew up Uber’s business model, and the model of many other fast-growing ‘gig economy’ companies as well, with a ruling that drivers for the app operator are not self-employed after all, as the company likes to claim, but staff, and should be treated as such.

In truth, you can argue the case for or against that decision, as the lawyers have just done expensively in court. But in reality, this is a hugely important verdict about the kind of economy we want to create. And that economy should be decided by the people we vote for and can re-elect, not by a group of judges.

The Supreme Court may well be right on the strict interpretation of the law. It is a little hard to work out whether Uber drivers fit the traditional category of employee or not. On the whole, they choose their own hours, which makes them sort of freelancers. But they don’t typically work for lots of people which makes them more like employees. It is a legitimate debate. The real problem is that the Supreme Court is not the right body to make the decision.

In fact, the Court has a growing, and questionable, record of judicial activism on economic matters. For example, the (completely correct) decision by the Cameroon government to make people pay fees to take their company to an employment tribunal, to discourage frivolous claims, was also overturned by the Supreme Court. It is meddling more and more in the economy, and usually from a left-of-centre perspective that is more focused on protecting traditional rights than promoting innovation and entrepreneurship.

And yet in reality, the right place to make these decisions is surely Parliament? On employment tribunals, there is a strong case that the system encouraged disgruntled workers, often egged on by the unions, to bring ridiculous claims against companies. It is a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose system that discourages small businesses in particular from creating jobs. Likewise, on the Uber case, what we need is a new kind of employment status, ‘gig worker’, that would have some of the rights of traditional employment law (against discrimination, for example, or unfair dismissal) but not all of them (such as holiday pay, or compulsory pension contributions). If necessary, the government will have to legislate for that.

What is surely clear is that these are major decisions about the kind of economy we want to create, about how much we embrace innovation, and how far we welcome entrepreneurship. And that is far too important to be left to a group of unaccountable judges who, as far as we can tell, will always side with the old, traditional way of working, and never with the new forms of employment that are emerging – as the Uber decision has just illustrated all over again.

Matthew Lynn is a financial columnist and author of ‘Bust: Greece, The Euro and The Sovereign Debt Crisis’ and ‘The Long Depression: The Slump of 2008 to 2031’


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 5:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 7082
A bit confusing that - the author seems unaware of the employee/worker distinction.

And a fair enough point about 'judicial activism', and that maybe these things better decided in Parliament than in the courts.

But, as per my earlier post, Parliament decided not to define these terms precisely, thus effectively leaving it to the courts and 'judicial activism' to decide.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:25 pm
Posts: 37016
Location: Wayneistan
Can we do an article titled 'The problem with the Spectator"'?

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 47216
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
The real problem is that the Supreme Court is not the right body to make the decision.

Indeed, it is something that an Employment Tribunal can deal with. However Uber kept on losing and kept on appealing which is why it's ended up at the Supreme Court.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:47 pm
Posts: 15223
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
If the laws governing all this HAD been properly sorted out by Parliament then the Supreme court would never have been in this position

It is the inadequacies of the legislation that generate the work for the courts

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 47216
Location: 1066 Country
edders23 wrote:
If the laws governing all this HAD been properly sorted out by Parliament then the Supreme court would never have been in this position

It is the inadequacies of the legislation that generate the work for the courts

Not sure I agree.

The Supreme Court found the laws quite easy to navigate.

What we had here was company with a bottomless pit of money that wanted to drag this matter from court to court to court.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:25 pm
Posts: 37016
Location: Wayneistan
Sussex wrote:

What we had here was company with a bottomless pit of money that wanted to drag this matter from court to court to court.


And if the explanation was true by uber, why didn't they settle out of court with the concerned drivers, rather than pay barristers thousands :lol:

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:15 pm
Posts: 8691
captain cab wrote:
Can we do an article titled 'The problem with the Spectator"'?


Simple solution to the Spectator problem....Just don't read it.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 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