Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Mon Mar 08, 2021 5:48 am

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 7089
Quite an interesting, but reasonably complex piece.

But it's worth reading as a good summary of the case, and how it's developed.

And also a good summary of the employment status thing - the difference between 'employees', 'workers' and 'independent contractors', and how they relate to yesterday's case.

(As with 'taxi' etc, the terminology is often a bit confusing. But in this context, 'employee' and 'worker' are quite straightforward. 'Independent contractor', or 'third party contractor' basically means self-employed, as does other terms such as 'freelance'.)


Uber ruling will ‘greatly benefit’ Leeds drivers, says cab drivers’ chief

https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/ ... ef-3140960

The head of a taxi drivers’ association in Leeds has said the High Court’s ruling on private hire firm Uber will “greatly benefit” drivers in the region.

UK Supreme Court justices this week ruled Uber drivers were indeed workers for the company, rather than third party contractors.

This, say lawyers acting on behalf of union GMB, means Uber drivers will now be entitled to workers’ rights such as holiday pay. Uber, however says ‘worker’ is not the same status as an employee, and that the ruling will only apply to a small number of its drivers.

Ghulam Nabi is secretary of Eurocabs Hackney Carriage Association. He said that the ruling will greatly benefit Uber’s drivers, and will have an impact on working conditions in the industry as a whole.

He said: “I think it will greatly benefit the Uber drivers as Uber have not managed the growth of their business properly and flooded the market for their personal gain, but didn’t consider the impact on the drivers’ income.

“As for this decisions impact on our trade and other Private Hire companies again it will be positive as Uber were undercutting the fares by around 40 per cent and subsidising them and they will have to reconsider that decision to make themselves financially viable and increase the fares.

“Other Private Hire companies will also have to abide by this ruling.”

UK Supreme Court justices made their latest ruling on a long-running battle between Uber and its drivers on Friday.

Lawyers say the ruling means Uber drivers will be entitled to workers’ rights such as holiday pay, and will have implications for the gig economy.

Following the ruling, a statement from Uber said a “worker” is a legal classification that is specific to the UK, and is different an “employee” or someone who is self-employed. It claims that, as employee status was not claimed in the litigation, the ruling did not find the claimants to be employees.

Jamie Heywood, Uber’s regional general manager for Northern and Eastern Europe, said: “We respect the court’s decision which focussed on a small number of drivers who used the Uber app in 2016.

“Since then we have made some significant changes to our business, guided by drivers every step of the way. These include giving even more control over how they earn and providing new protections like free insurance in case of sickness or injury.

“We are committed to doing more and will now consult with every active driver across the UK to understand the changes they want to see.”

An employment tribunal ruled in 2016 that Uber drivers were workers, and were entitled to workers’ rights. The ruling was later upheld by Court of Appeal judges.

According to the Press Association, lawyers representing Uber operating companies told Supreme Court justices that the employment tribunal ruling was wrong. They said drivers did not “undertake to work” for Uber but were “independent, third party contractors”.

But lawyers representing drivers said the tribunal was entitled to conclude that drivers were working.

Justices unanimously ruled against Uber.

According to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS), you’re classed as an employee if you have an employment contract from your employer, formed when you accept the job, are employed to do the work personally and must do the work.

An employee has rights to a minimum, sick, holiday and parental leave pay being able to claim redundancy and unfair dismissal after two years’ service.

A “worker” is a broader term that can include more casual employment or “zero hours” contracts.

However, a worker is still entitled to National Minimum Wage, paid holiday, payslips, protection against unlawful discrimination, protection for ‘whistleblowing’ and not being treated unfairly if you work part time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 7089
Leeds HC rep wrote:
“Other Private Hire companies will also have to abide by this ruling.”

If that's correct then the ruling with have greater ramifications for the trade generally than for Uber. And not just the PH sector.

But it's reported as little more than a throwaway line. The experts, commentators and politicians think Uber is a different beast. They just don't get it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 47237
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
This, say lawyers acting on behalf of union GMB, means Uber drivers will now be entitled to workers’ rights such as holiday pay.

My advice to anyone wanting to make a claim is to do it via one of the unions. These things need to be done properly, and despite my reservations about unions in the taxi trade, for these claims they are a must.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 47237
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
If that's correct then the ruling with have greater ramifications for the trade generally than for Uber. And not just the PH sector.

That's got to be the case.

A Uber driver sitting waiting for a job is no different than a Sussex sitting waiting for a job. :shock:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 6:56 pm
Posts: 2162
Sussex wrote:
Quote:
If that's correct then the ruling with have greater ramifications for the trade generally than for Uber. And not just the PH sector.

That's got to be the case.

A Uber driver sitting waiting for a job is no different than a Sussex sitting waiting for a job. :shock:


Have said this for 40+ years


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:47 pm
Posts: 15232
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
no two taxi/pirate hire businesses are alike the judgement might have been different had it been a different operator in court :wink:

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 47237
Location: 1066 Country
edders23 wrote:
no two taxi/pirate hire businesses are alike the judgement might have been different had it been a different operator in court :wink:

Not sure about that, basically the Justices decided on employment law, not on who the operator was.

As you say no one operator is the same as the next, same for drivers, which is why the court stuck to the law and allowed for the minutia to be dealt with by the Employment Tribunals.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 7089
It's not that difficult to read the summary of the Supreme Court's reasoning and apply their thinking to the trade generally. Here's the relevant bits below. The numbers refer to the paragraphs in the main judgement, if anyone wants to read it in more detail.

I've split it up, because someone was bound to come along and press the quote button just to say :D or "I agree", "feck off", or whatever, and the thread would be visible from Mars [-(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 7089
Supreme Court wrote:
The judgment emphasises five aspects of the findings made by the employment tribunal which justified its conclusion that the claimants were working for and under contracts with Uber[93]. First, where a ride is booked through the Uber app, it is Uber that sets the fare and drivers are not permitted to charge more than the fare calculated by the Uber app. It is therefore Uber which dictates how much drivers are paid for the work they do[94].


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 7089
Supreme Court wrote:
Second, the contract terms on which drivers perform their services are imposed by Uber and drivers have no say in them[95].


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 7089
Supreme Court wrote:
Third, once a driver has logged onto the Uber app, the driver’s choice about whether to accept requests for rides is constrained by Uber[96]. One way in which this is done is by monitoring the driver’s rate of acceptance (and cancellation) of trip requests and imposing what amounts to a penalty if too many trip requests are declined or cancelled by automatically logging the driver off the Uber app for ten minutes, thereby preventing the driver from working until allowed to log back on [97].


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 7089
Supreme Court wrote:
Fourth, Uber also exercises significant control over the way in which drivers deliver their services. One of several methods mentioned in the judgment is the use of a ratings system whereby passengers are asked to rate the driver on a scale of 1 to 5 after each trip. Any driver who fails to maintain a required average rating will receive a series of warnings and, if their average rating does not improve, eventually have their relationship with Uber terminated[98 - 99].


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 7089
Supreme Court wrote:
A fifth significant factor is that Uber restricts communications between passenger and driver to the minimum necessary to perform the particular trip and takes active steps to prevent drivers from establishing any relationship with a passenger capable of extending beyond an individual ride[100].


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 7089
Supreme Court wrote:
Taking these factors together, the transportation service performed by drivers and offered to passengers through the Uber app is very tightly defined and controlled by Uber. Drivers are in a position of subordination and dependency in relation to Uber such that they have little or no ability to improve their economic position through professional or entrepreneurial skill. In practice the only way in which they can increase their earnings is by working longer hours while constantly meeting Uber’s measures of performance [101].


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:47 pm
Posts: 15232
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
Let me rephrase what I was saying

So if you have a small local firm lets call them say "rustic cabs" they will have meters on a set rate but drivers are free to knock a bit off or round the fare down for regulars, their terms and conditions of employment are flexible because every so often they sit down with the boss and discuss issues and make changes to suit. Feedback consists of old Mrs Smith giving the drivers a clip round the ear if they are too cheeky ! If the driver doesn't get on with a particular customer they just shout over he radio " I don't pick them up" and someone else goes and they do the next one or if they are front rank and there's a little £2.50 in shout can somebody else cover it and as for communication they know many of the customers very well and have a good chat on the journey

How would that be the same as the five main points that this judgement is made on ?

_________________
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 - 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 71 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