Taxi Driver Online

The second part of this response to a parliamentary question is particularly interesting, because it seems to be alluding that app-based drivers could become full-blown PAYE employees rather than mere 'workers'

Or, at least, presumably he's not saying that the 'app-based drivers' in the question are going to have fewer rights rather than more...

And I assume that the word 'taxi' in the question doesn't really mean anything, and that effectively the question is about Uber and Bolt et al.

But although the questioner is probably asking this on behalf of the legacy trade, effectively, I'd guess that this might open up a huge can of worms for them


Ian Byrne, Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby

To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what steps his Department is taking to protect workers' rights for app-based taxi drivers.

Justin Madders, business and trade minister

Our Plan to Make Work Pay will modernise the UK labour market and address challenges thrown up by new trends and technologies. The Employment Rights Bill is the first phase of delivery, and will provide a new baseline of security for workers. Once implemented, it will raise the minimum floor of employment rights, raise living standards across the country and level the playing field for businesses engaged in good practices.

We have also committed to consult on a simpler employment status framework, distinguishing between workers and the genuinely self-employed, ensuring that all workers have the comfort of protection at work.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?i ... #g55481.q0

So currently you're either:

1 self employed
2 a 'worker'
3 an employee (PAYE etc)

So the vast majority of drivers in the trade are 1. Uber and one or two other prominent platforms are 2.

3 is pretty much unknown in the trade. So it looks like Labour proposing to get rid of category 2. Would Uber drivers then be 1, thus 'genuinely self-employed'? Er, presumably not; the answer to the question above seems to be saying that only the genuinely self-employed would be thus categorised. Thus Uber drivers would be employees, presumably

Which begs the question, what about the vast majority of the rest of the trade? If Labour intend looking into this, then it could open up a whole can of worms for the legacy trade

So with the stuff above, the whole cross-border thing currently under examination, and the new national rape gang enquiry (it's already claimed that compulsory CCTV will happen), it looks like the next couple of years will be very interesting

Just looked up the Labour business and trade minister Justin Madders' biography.

He was a solicitor specialising in employment law

this sounds to me more like the worker rights will become universal rather than upgrading them to PAYE

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

You could be right there, Edders, and by PAYE I was really just alluding to the employment rights associated with that method of paying income tax, as opposed to the method of paying tax per se.

Thus at the moment from HMRC's perspective people are either PAYE or pay via self-assessment, the latter being primarily about self-employment in employment status terms, but the middle-way 'worker' status folks pay via self-assessment as well, as opposed to PAYE.

But the minister's answer certainly looks like that in employment law terms more drivers would be given rights, and whether that would equate to paying tax via PAYE is a different matter.

But in terms of what the minister calls 'genuinely self-employed', I'd guess that in terms of the Supreme Court judgement the amount of drivers 'genuinely self-employed' is considerably narrower than at present, and to that extent most would be afforded the same employment rights as those under the current PAYE system. Whether they'd then actually be considered PAYE is a slightly different question.

Or something like that

when I became self employed there was about 1 million self employed status now there are over 5 million which suggests that the system is being played

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

Abused to an extent, indeed, but I suspect part of the proliferation is due to the changing nature of the economy, when back in the day there was more of a binary between bosses and businesses on the one hand, and workers on the other.

So there weren't so many self-employed tradesmen, for example.

By the same token, 50 years ago I think employee status was more widespread in the trade? To the extent that that's largely disappeared then maybe that's evidence of the whole thing being abused.

But, of course, in the more modern era technology has facilitated self-employment, and the gig economy, for good or ill.

For example, even if the drivers here in NE Fife had been treated as employees in the late-90s (they weren't), the mobile phone explosion meant they became less dependent on offices with a telephone manned* 24/7, and they could thus become more genuinely self-employed with their own number etc.

In fact the explosion in self-employment can probably be traced back to Thatcher and Essex Man sort of stuff, but no point going into all that here.

*sexist language alert. I think words like that are generally frowned upon these days, if not specifically banned