Jump to content


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1112 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Does anyone have any thoughts or comments regarding this weeks tribunal decision whereby judges ruled that Uber drivers were employees, not self-employed?

 

There were some very hard hitting comments from the judges regarding the company.

 

An estimated £314 million has been lost in tax and national insurance contributions every year, whilst this operation has been on going.

 

I am personally delighted and it is companies like Uber who are responsible for so many of their workers being driven into debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

Why are you delighted please?

 

My best,

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Honeybee.

 

Thank you for the welcome.

 

I am delighted because Uber were creating what is known as false self employment. Their drivers were effectively employees but were acting as self employed. It meant that Uber evaded paying millions of pounds in NI contributions that could have gone into an already impoverished National Health Service. Uber also evaded their employers obligations to their drivers. These drivers have none of the rights that most people take for granted and can be dropped at a minutes notice. When that happens, debt is not far behind.

 

HMRC are able to issue hefty fines on companies who abuse the worker status but their resources are limited. The more cases like this that are successful, the less likely these greedy employers are likely to try these short cuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cld it set a precedent re other areas, eg courier co's continuously using the same self employed drivers?


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could have interesting ramifications.

 

I would be interested to know the root of the legislation that the lawyers used.

 

Would it be EU led legislation?

 

Oh wait, we screwed that didnt wr


Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cld it set a precedent re other areas, eg courier co's continuously using the same self employed drivers?

 

It won't set a precedent as an employment tribunal decision. Only when a case goes to an employment tribunal appeal would it be a precedent (much in the same way that case law is). There are several precedents out there already. Most employers are now aware of the risks and use the legal (but wholly immoral) loophole of an umbrella company. However, the pressure is even on these companies to operate correctly otherwise they will leave themselves open to similar claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It could have interesting ramifications.

 

I would be interested to know the root of the legislation that the lawyers used.

 

Would it be EU led legislation?

 

Oh wait, we screwed that didnt wr

 

I would start with the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Working Time Regulations 1998

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It won't set a precedent as an employment tribunal decision. Only when a case goes to an employment tribunal appeal would it be a precedent (much in the same way that case law is). There are several precedents out there already. Most employers are now aware of the risks and use the legal (but wholly immoral) loophole of an umbrella company. However, the pressure is even on these companies to operate correctly otherwise they will leave themselves open to similar claims.

yes, wrong choice of word. meant generally, as perhaps as you say re 'similar claims' re yr last sentence.


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not followed this case, but read the papers.

Do uber drivers use their own car?

If not, uber is definitely taking the mickey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they are not employees but "workers" which is different. Yes they use their own cars but so do care workers transporting little old ladies to the shops as part of their duties.

Uber claim self-employed but how the work is handed out and who controls the money and other things mean that the tribunal found it easy to make that decision. Yes, most companies like couriers and telecoms who send out people in vans and issue work and then claim the person driving THEIR van is somehow self-employed will be worried and rightly so. This is not about zero hours contracts, although all of these classes of worker are on that contract, it is about what real freedoms the people have to decide what jobs they accept. because people pay Uber when they book a cab and Uber decide who gets the work and then has performance mileposts to reach it cannot be said that drivers are self-employed or they would be running a one person band and not part of this outfit.

Uber hate it because they make a lot of money and do almost nothing for their cut and now they will ahve to pay employers NI, pension contributions and other benefits that any other zero hours contract worker has a right to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...