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

The Aftermath of the Uber Tribunal ruling
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=30794		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  edders23 [ Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:20 pm ]
Post subject:  The Aftermath of the Uber Tribunal ruling
this is an email I received today not my words but am putting it up here as I believe it is for general circulation

This is a follow on from my previous article ‘Should you be afraid of the Uber Tribunal?’ which you can read here. This article was featured in PHC and PHTM magazines.

One of the biggest misconceptions about the Uber Tribunal is that it ruled that ALL uber drivers are now regarded as self-employed. This is not the case.

Trotsky please take note !!!!!

Referring to my previous statement on this matter:
‘It is a First-tier tribunal which although legitimate and relevant, does not create precedent, it merely creates decisions that are considered persuasive in other judgements at the same level and above.’

To clarify, the implications of the tribunal are that there is now evidence of a successful argument for use in future tribunals. Contrary to popular understanding, there has not been a ruling that determines that Uber drivers are now employees and a precedent has not been set.

What you need to know…

1. As of the 13th December, Uber has filed an appeal to overturn the tribunal. Uber have declared that they will be appealing the tribunal decision. The outcome of the tribunal will be closely watched by those who are affected by self-employment status, although the truth is that there are probably greater implications for those that try to bypass the National Minimum Wage requirement. This was a major concern in the construction industry for many years but the baton has now been picked up with the emergence of the gig economy.

2. HMRC hasn’t officially given a comment on the Uber ruling, but it is likely that it will endorse the decision for practical and financial purposes. On the other hand, there are many inconsistencies that many Revenue inspectors would probably rather not be looked at too closely. Such as: HMRC literature states that where “a taxi driver provides his/her own taxi then they are likely to be self-employed”, Uber drivers provide their own cars. Most self employed drivers (including those that drive for Uber) have the option to accept or decline jobs. This would normally imply a lack of mutuality of obligation, a self-employed trait.

3. National Minimum Wage obligations require the driver to prove that they were defined as “workers” rather than self-employed subcontractors. The tribunal result could mean that HMRC may endeavour to recl assify other subcontractors both in the Private hire and the ‘gig economy’ under the definition of worker. This is easier than seeking to classify them as employed, but still brings in that much needed tax revenue.

4. Once again from an engaging parties perspective, strong contracts are a must, outlining in no uncertain terms the relationship with the subcontractor. There will also be other methods engagers may consider such as using incorporated or commercial contractors which would in effect ring fence the subcontractor’s company. There would be however be other potential legal consequences such as IR35 and Personal Service Company issues.

We will look at the options and consequences in our next white paper.

For more information on how changes in self-employment status could effect you, visit www.driverserv.co.uk
Author:  Sussex [ Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Aftermath of the Uber Tribunal ruling
edders23 wrote:
One of the biggest misconceptions about the Uber Tribunal is that it ruled that ALL uber drivers are now regarded as self-employed. This is not the case.

I haven't met anyone who thinks that.

I think the issue is what degree of 'workers' we are.
Author:  trotskys twin [ Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Aftermath of the Uber Tribunal ruling
Sussex wrote:
edders23 wrote:
One of the biggest misconceptions about the Uber Tribunal is that it ruled that ALL uber drivers are now regarded as self-employed. This is not the case.

I haven't met anyone who thinks that.

I think the issue is what degree of 'workers' we are.


Christ almighty you dick head edders its about WORKERS and now we will see HMRC whacking UBER which is why they are appealing ffs tune yer brain in #-o #-o

The PHC magazine is totally controllled by their advertisers ie the London PROPRIETORS wakey wakey #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o
Author:  edders23 [ Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Aftermath of the Uber Tribunal ruling
trotskys twin wrote:
Sussex wrote:
edders23 wrote:
One of the biggest misconceptions about the Uber Tribunal is that it ruled that ALL uber drivers are now regarded as self-employed. This is not the case.

I haven't met anyone who thinks that.

I think the issue is what degree of 'workers' we are.


Christ almighty you dick head edders its about WORKERS and now we will see HMRC whacking UBER which is why they are appealing ffs tune yer brain in #-o #-o

The PHC magazine is totally controllled by their advertisers ie the London PROPRIETORS wakey wakey #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o



less 0f the abusive language if you don't mind it is NOT NECCESSARY the tribunal ruled that the individuals who brought the action were entitled to some workers rights subject to the appeal but not the bulk of their workforce that would require another court action OR Government action
Author:  Sussex [ Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Aftermath of the Uber Tribunal ruling
trotskys twin wrote:
Christ almighty you dick head edders its about WORKERS and now we will see HMRC whacking UBER which is why they are appealing ffs tune yer brain in #-o #-o

He was merely posting what someone else said FFS. ](*,)
Author:  trotskys twin [ Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Aftermath of the Uber Tribunal ruling
Sussex wrote:
trotskys twin wrote:
Christ almighty you dick head edders its about WORKERS and now we will see HMRC whacking UBER which is why they are appealing ffs tune yer brain in #-o #-o

He was merely posting what someone else said FFS. ](*,)



In that case sorry edders for bashing you up for no reason ............................ :D
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Aftermath of the Uber Tribunal ruling
"turkeys voting for christmas" springs to mind...

When all those who drive for a base (be it Uber or any other PH firm) find themselves dumped cos the ruling insists they should be PAYE they might realise what a massive fckup theyve created...
Author:  sasha [ Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Aftermath of the Uber Tribunal ruling
wannabeeahack wrote:
When all those who drive for a base (be it Uber or any other PH firm) find themselves dumped cos the ruling insists they should be PAYE they might realise what a massive fckup theyve created...
Not if they stick to call taking and despatching;
It's when they start telling drivers what fares they have to charge/discounts they must give, what shifts they have to work, what clothes they must wear, what jobs they must do etc. And then issuing fines/penalties if they don't comply that they fall into the 'under the direction of..' category, ie not self employed but an employee.

It all boils down to are you free to do whatever you want, or does the company control certain aspects of your working life.
Author:  grandad [ Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Aftermath of the Uber Tribunal ruling
sasha wrote:
wannabeeahack wrote:
When all those who drive for a base (be it Uber or any other PH firm) find themselves dumped cos the ruling insists they should be PAYE they might realise what a massive fckup theyve created...
Not if they stick to call taking and despatching;
It's when they start telling drivers what fares they have to charge/discounts they must give, what shifts they have to work, what clothes they must wear, what jobs they must do etc. And then issuing fines/penalties if they don't comply that they fall into the 'under the direction of..' category, ie not self employed but an employee.

It all boils down to are you free to do whatever you want, or does the company control certain aspects of your working life.

That would have nothing to do with beings employed or self employed but more to with fools accepting them instead of telling them to pi55 off.
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Aftermath of the Uber Tribunal ruling
sasha wrote:
Not if they stick to call taking and despatching;
It's when they start telling drivers what fares they have to charge/discounts they must give, what shifts they have to work, what clothes they must wear, what jobs they must do etc. And then issuing fines/penalties if they don't comply that they fall into the 'under the direction of..' category, ie not self employed but an employee.

It all boils down to are you free to do whatever you want, or does the company control certain aspects of your working life.


You think itinerate floating workers should be in charge?


Didnt realise the drivers were serfs.... makes me laugh when someone not prepared tp buy/insure a car thinks they have the right to demand where/when/how they work, buy a car and go it alone if thats what you want

A base can request drivers work rotas for sanity (to spread work/satisfy demand), thats why a base is in charge
Author:  sasha [ Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Aftermath of the Uber Tribunal ruling
wannabeeahack wrote:
A base can request drivers work rotas for sanity (to spread work/satisfy demand), thats why a base is in charge
But can the drivers refuse without being penalised ?
Isn't that what the basis of the recent tribunals have been, does the company control their working life (by saying they have to work to a rota) or can they work when and how they want ?

On its own, probably not enough. But add in other factors such as setting of prices, vehicle colours, and any other company 'rules' etc. and it could possibly be seen that you are under the control of the company, therefore an employee.
Author:  mancityfan [ Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Aftermath of the Uber Tribunal ruling
sasha wrote:
wannabeeahack wrote:
A base can request drivers work rotas for sanity (to spread work/satisfy demand), thats why a base is in charge
But can the drivers refuse without being penalised ?
Isn't that what the basis of the recent tribunals have been, does the company control their working life (by saying they have to work to a rota) or can they work when and how they want ?

On its own, probably not enough. But add in other factors such as setting of prices, vehicle colours, and any other company 'rules' etc. and it could possibly be seen that you are under the control of the company, therefore an employee.



Hmm sounds to me like we are all employed by the council then.
Author:  edders23 [ Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Aftermath of the Uber Tribunal ruling
mancityfan wrote:
sasha wrote:
wannabeeahack wrote:
A base can request drivers work rotas for sanity (to spread work/satisfy demand), thats why a base is in charge
But can the drivers refuse without being penalised ?
Isn't that what the basis of the recent tribunals have been, does the company control their working life (by saying they have to work to a rota) or can they work when and how they want ?

On its own, probably not enough. But add in other factors such as setting of prices, vehicle colours, and any other company 'rules' etc. and it could possibly be seen that you are under the control of the company, therefore an employee.



Hmm sounds to me like we are all employed by the council then.



yes to pay them lots of big fat juicy fees to fund their pensions !!!!!!!!!!!
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Aftermath of the Uber Tribunal ruling
sasha wrote:
wannabeeahack wrote:
A base can request drivers work rotas for sanity (to spread work/satisfy demand), thats why a base is in charge
But can the drivers refuse without being penalised ?
Isn't that what the basis of the recent tribunals have been, does the company control their working life (by saying they have to work to a rota) or can they work when and how they want ?

On its own, probably not enough. But add in other factors such as setting of prices, vehicle colours, and any other company 'rules' etc. and it could possibly be seen that you are under the control of the company, therefore an employee.


Check HMRC.

Someone is probably self-employed and shouldn’t be paid through PAYE if most of the following are true:

they’re in business for themselves, are responsible for the success or failure of their business and can make a loss or a profit
they can decide what work they do and when, where or how to do it
they can hire someone else to do the work
they’re responsible for fixing any unsatisfactory work in their own time
their employer agrees a fixed price for their work - it doesn’t depend on how long the job takes to finish
they use their own money to buy business assets, cover running costs, and provide tools and equipment for their work
they can work for more than one client
Author:  sasha [ Thu Mar 02, 2017 1:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Aftermath of the Uber Tribunal ruling
they’re in business for themselves, are responsible for the success or failure of their business and can make a loss or a profit
-No, I can't control the amount of jobs I do so profit/loss is dependent on the amount of work sent by the base.

they can decide what work they do and when, where or how to do it
-No, I have to do jobs sent by the base (unless there is a valid reason for refusal).

they can hire someone else to do the work
-No.

they’re responsible for fixing any unsatisfactory work in their own time
-N/A.

their employer agrees a fixed price for their work - it doesn’t depend on how long the job takes to finish
-No, it's metered. The longer the job the higher the price.

they use their own money to buy business assets, cover running costs, and provide tools and equipment for their work
-Yes, but I also cover the base's running costs via rent.

they can work for more than one client
-No, company rule - you work for us and no-one else, no private work either.

Only one yes so I guess I'm an employee !
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/