Taxi Driver Online

Just in case I forget or get lost in the fog/smog.

_________________
IDFIMH

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/u ... ef=uk-news

Very very pleased, and very very damaging to Uber.

One for the workers.

_________________
IDFIMH

Yes it’s a link but the full judgement is 53 pages.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _17_DA.pdf

_________________
IDFIMH

Uber are not going away .They said they will contest the decision.

Of course they will, but hey ho.

Reading the new judgement I’m reminded what the previous hearing said.

“91. ... Since it is essential to that case that there is no contract for the provision of transportation services between the driver and any Uber entity, the Partner Terms and the New Terms require the driver to agree that a contract for such services (whether a ‘worker’ contract or otherwise) exists between him and the passenger, and the Rider Terms contain a corresponding provision. Uber’s case is that the driver enters into a binding agreement with a person whose identity he does not know (and will never know) and who does not know and will never know his identity, to undertake a journey to a destination not told to him until the journey begins, by a route prescribed by a stranger to the contract (UBV) from which he is not free to depart (at least not without risk), for a fee which (a) is set by the stranger, and (b) is not known by the passenger (who is only told the total to be paid), (c) is calculated by the stranger (as a percentage of the total sum) and (d) is paid to the stranger. Uber’s case has to be that if the organisation became insolvent, the drivers would have enforceable rights directly against the passengers. And if the contracts were ‘worker’ contracts, the passengers would be exposed to potential liability as the driver’s employer ... The absurdity of these propositions speaks for itself. Not surprisingly, it was not suggested that in practice drivers and passengers agree terms. Of course they do not since (apart from any other reason) by the time any driver meets his passenger the deal has already been struck (between ULL and the passenger). ...”

Uber are going to struggle with that in any court.

_________________
IDFIMH

from business advice website

On-demand taxi app Uber has lost its appeal against a landmark ruling regarding the employment status of its drivers, a decision which could potentially change the face of Britain’s gig economy.

The initial case was heard in October 2016, when two drivers won the right to be considered regular employees by the company, with entitlement to employment rights such as the minimum wage, annual leave and sick pay, rather than working as self-employed.

Having challenged the ruling at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in London on the grounds that drivers would lose the “personal flexibility they value”, Uber has now lost the subsequent appeal, which could drastically change the way the company – and those with similar business models – operates.

In response to judge Jennifer Eady QC’s decision, Tom Elvidge, Uber UK’s acting general manager, argued that the “gig” model had existed long before the app.

He added: “Over the last year we have made a number of changes to our app to give drivers even more control. We’ve also invested in things like access to illness and injury cover and we’ll keep introducing changes to make driving with Uber even better.”

Read more: What rights do gig economy workers really have?

Detailing how the ruling could affect other firms dependent on on-demand workers, Alan Price, employment law director at Peninsula HR, said the decision was a “further indication” that employers might need to reassess their treatment of staff.

“Since employment tribunal fees have been abolished, there is no deterrent for individuals to challenge their given status,” he added.

Expressing disappointment at the decision, Chris Bryce, CEO of the Association of Independent Professionals and the Self Employed (IPSE), said the ruling demonstrated a “fundamental lack of clarity” of what it means to be self-employed in 2017.

“It is astonishing that the employment tribunal granted the two drivers worker status. A key element of being a worker is having to turn up for work even if you don’t want to. This is clearly not the case with people who drive through Uber – they choose when and how long they work for by logging on or off the app,” Bryce said.

However, it is believed that the case could continue. During the EAT hearing it was suggested the company could overlook the Court of Appeal and take the case directly to the Supreme Court.

If they appeal goes further, Enrique Garcia, an employment law consultant with the ELAS Group, said a “flood of similar claims” from gig economy workers would surface.

“It’s a case that has far reaching implications and will set an important employment law precedent,” Garcia added.

A number of other companies using on-demand gig workers are also facing appeals in the coming months. Delivery firm CitySprint is appearing at the EAT in November and Pimlico Plumbers is set to appeal a separate ruling at the Supreme Court in early 2018.

The biggest employment law changes to look out for in 2018

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

This isn't a danger just to Uber.

Surely every PH operator in the country must be quaking in their boots today.

I have sprouted for many years (before the London Act in the 90s in fact) that to justify 'self employed' status there needs to be two types of operator licence.

One for large operators who run large fleets and need to demonstrate premises and systems etc.

And also a small operators licence that demonstrates a PH driver can accept work directly for a small number of cars, without the need to demonstrate all the facilities required for a larger operator.

_________________
A member of the Hire or Reward Industry

Reading the judgement Uber will defo appeal on the basis of the 80% of offers must be accepted rule.

Uber contest that rule doesn’t apply in the UK, and to be honest I agree with that.

That said the 80% rule is not the only reason they lost this appeal, thankfully in my view.

One further point, and that’s something I have said since the beginning, is that the case against Uber is weaker than the case against the likes of Addison Lee. In my view AL have no chance of winning their appeal.

Uber allow drivers to work with who they like, that could be their get out. AL have no such option as a get out.

_________________
IDFIMH

I agree.

But in 2017 shouldn’t all businesses take into consideration that those that undertake work for them, and subsequently make their businesses profitable, should have basic working rights such as sickness pay and guaranteed minimum earnings?

_________________
IDFIMH

Understand where your coming from but a self employed person sources work for themselves,not having someone providing the work for them,also everyone seems to be missing the most important aspect of the whole private hire argument that is to be self employed they must have an OPERATOR license in their own name.
Just think how much this would generate in fees if Councils stuck to the rules.

What the judge says in her decision is that regulatory requirements, and I suppose you could include the issue of drivers having their own ops licenses in that, really don’t have that much of an effect on the status of workers.

Although licensing requirements can be taken into account it’s the relationship between supplier of the work and those undertaking it is what matters most.

_________________
IDFIMH

Agree with what your view is but they are always of a worker/employee status unless they have an operators license in their own name,it does not take the brain of Britain to see what U*** claim they do,sub-contract is the name of the game they are playing except you must sub-contract to another licensed operator which these lot are not.