Taxi Driver Online

Oh and another point no one seems to have considered

Are Uber going to allow their drivers as many hours as they want or are they going to restrict them ?

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

Indeed, but in time it will be sorted as the SC stated.

However I'm not that concerned about the minimum wage issue as I think in normal times drivers will easily surpass that. If they can't then they really need to look at a new career.

The biggest benefit in terms of cash in your pocket, is the holiday/sickness premium. An extra 12% on what you earn, paid out fortnightly is a huge plus for Uber drivers.

_________________
IDFIMH

Uber 'finally does the right thing’ after GMB wins four court battles

Other gig economy companies should take note - this is the end of the road for bogus self employment

GMB, the union for Uber drivers, says the company has finally done the right thing after losing four court battles.

Uber has announced that from tomorrow, all 70,000 drivers will be paid holiday time, be automatically enrolled into a pension plan and will earn at least the minimum wage.

Last month the Supreme Court ruled in GMB's favour - determining that Uber drivers are not self-employed, but are workers entitled to workers’ rights including holiday pay, a guaranteed minimum wage and an entitlement to breaks.

It was the fourth time Uber has lost in court over its treatment of drivers.

In October 2016, the Central London Employment Tribunal ruled in GMB's favour. Instead of accepting the judgement of the courts, Uber took their case to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in 2017, which also ruled against the ride-sharing company.

Then in 2018, the Court of Appeal judgement became Uber's third legal defeat on this issue.

Mick Rix, GMB National Officer, said:

“Uber had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing, but finally they’ve agreed to follow the ruling of the courts and treat their drivers as workers.

“It’s a shame it took GMB winning four court battles to make them see sense, but we got there in the end and ultimately that’s a big win for our members.

“GMB has consistently said we are willing to speak face to face to Uber about its treatment of drivers - our door remains open.

“Other gig economy companies should take note - this is the end of the road for bogus self employment.”

_________________
IDFIMH

They might want to have a discussion with their B&H rep.

_________________
IDFIMH

Interesting article from The Verge where the two lads fronting the SC case have said they are on the case, and one would assume that they will succeed again.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/17/2233 ... outing-law

_________________
IDFIMH

Fascinated by Uber's statement below.

In a response to questions from The Verge about this issue, a spokesperson for Uber said in a statement: “If drivers were entitled to the minimum wage for all the time they simply had the app open, this would result in set shifts and a drastic cut to the number of drivers who can earn with Uber, at a time when the UK needs more earnings opportunities not less.” The spokesperson claim drivers do not want this and says their new policy is “consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.”

Clearly the SC judgement is going to cause Uber and the likes difficulties, but that's down to them to sort, not to say 'it's a bit awkward to sort so we ain't going to comply'.

_________________
IDFIMH

Surely it's precisely the opposite - if they are genuinely offering drivers a lot more (rather than smoke and mirrors) then they'll have a problem paying the existing workforce, never mind an influx of new drivers from traditional PH firms.

Which is maybe why the minimum wage things looks like it's meaningless - it's just when drivers are on their way to a job and loaded, effectively, so it's no better than guaranteeing the minimum wage to a HC driver when he's on the way to a run and then while the meter is on. He'll easily exceed the minimum wage during that period, so the guarantee is meaningless, and it's the dead time during the rest of the shift that's more relevant to actual earnings.

It's a bit like me ranking up tomorrow night and earning £50 an hour profit when loaded up. But chances are I'd only have a couple of £5 runs all night at best, or maybe not even get a run at all. So I'm guaranteed £50 per hour when loaded up, but that's meaningless if the meter is only on for ten minutes during the shift, or if it isn't activated at all.

And my point about how it wouldn't work if the council guaranteed HC drivers £15 per hour just for ranking up is more or less confirmed by Uber's statement quoted by Sussex earlier:


The bit in purple is effectively the PH equivalent of what I was saying about guaranteed money for HCs ranking. Realistically, it's just not sustainable.

And, as Uber states further (the bit in red) it would entail turning its business model upside down (and which in turn answers Edders' other point about whether Uber would limit drivers' hours).

So the minimum wage guarantee is meaningless, and I suspect the holiday entitlement thing isn't as generous as it sounds either.

So again it all seems more PR and making some relatively minor changes seems like a big difference.

And maybe a bit like Uber limiting the number of hours a driver was working, or something like that. Remember that? Can't recall the details, but I think it was just when they were driving, basically, so again was good PR, but in practical terms didn't mean much, if anything at all.

Of course, the irresistable force of Uber's PR juggernaut will eventually come up against the immoveable object of the rule of law. But this one will run and run, and it was never the case that Uber would be able to comply with the Supreme Court ruling via a few tweaks announced a few weeks afterwards.

And all that's even ignoring the VAT dimension. To comply with it all Uber is going to have to make very drastic changes to its the way it does business, and it's difficult to see how it can survive with anything like its current business model.

And, as usual, it would all be equally or even more fundamental to the more traditional trade if they had to comply as well.

But that too is something that won't be obvious for a while yet.

Well that's all unravelled pretty quickly


Uber may face further legal challenge to settle drivers' hours

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... vers-hours

Union says taxi app firm will force workers to take new cases to court despite success with wage claim

that is ubers modus operandi is it not ?

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

Was wondering last night about Green Tomato Cars and why they seemed to be taking the moral high ground about Uber complying with the court ruling. So just had a quick look at their website and, surprise, surprise:

So how does that differ from Uber, and how does Green Tomato Cars compare to the Supreme Court's five tests?

To be fair, Green Tomato do also offer PAYE driver positions


But that actually makes it look odder still in relation to the Supreme Court's five tests, and that its other drivers are self-employed.

At least I'm assuming its 'company car drivers' and 'owner-drivers' aren't regarded as 'workers' in line with the employment legislation and Supreme Court judgement. Certainly can't find anything on the website to suggest the 'company car drivers' and 'owner-drivers' are anything other than as per the average PH operation

Well it doesn't.

Maybe they are going to go 100% PAYE which would be evidenced by their anti Uber comments.

I also feel there is a large chunk of concern from London operators that they will lose drivers to Uber.

_________________
IDFIMH

Another interesting assessment from Wired.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uber-ut ... ker-rights

_________________
IDFIMH