edders23 wrote:
the nature of self employment means you only receive money from the business/organisation that pays you everything else is YOUR OWN responsibility but the problem with the likes of Uber,Hermes Al etc. is that they forget that they do not have the right to CONTROL the self employed. What is needed is good swift kick up the jaxi for these businesses and make them FULLY AWARE that self employed people need holidays,breaks from work etc some times and should have the right to take work from where ever it is offered not Exclusively from them. Or if they want to be controlling and exclusive employ the staff directly
If the above was true, then both Uber and City Sprint would have won their cases.
When I read the Uber Tribunal decision I was sort of blown away by how much responsibility an organisation has to someone who does work for them. It seems quite clear that there is little difference between someone who does work for someone (self-employed) and someone who works for someone (employed). Both are entitled to working benefits, be that sick or holiday pay, or other work type benefits.
If a driver chooses to work in the way most of us do, a pseudo self-employed, then there is nothing stopping that happening, just that in future we will have a few more protections.
That might cause a few bosses a few headaches, but as the Tribunal judge stated, without drivers there isn't a firm.