UK Supreme Court says Uber drivers are not independent contractors:
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has ruled that Uber drivers are legally workers, not self-employed contractors as Uber has argued in courts around the world. The ruling means that drivers in Britain and Northern Ireland are eligible for additional benefits and protections, including a minimum wage.
Uber claims that it merely acts as a technology provider and broker between independent drivers and their customers—much as eBay facilitates sales between buyers and sellers. In Uber's view, this means that it doesn't owe its drivers benefits like unemployment insurance, doesn't need to reimburse drivers for their costs, and isn't bound by minimum wage and overtime rules. Uber emphasizes that its drivers are free to decide when, where, and how much they work.
But critics point out that Uber exerts a lot more control over its drivers—and over the driver-passenger relationship—than a conventional platform like eBay or Airbnb. Uber sets fares, collects payments from customers, deducts its own fee, and remits the remainder to the driver. It requires drivers to accept a large majority of the rides they are offered. It handles customer complaints and kicks drivers off the platform if their average rating falls too low.
So the UK Supreme Court ruled Friday that Uber drivers are legally Uber workers, not independent business owners who happen to get most of their business from Uber.
"Drivers are in a position of subordination and dependency in relation to Uber such that they have little or no ability to improve their economic position through professional or entrepreneurial skill," said Lord George Leggatt, one of the justices of the Supreme Court, as he handed down the ruling.
Additional coverage at bbc.co.uk
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2021, @09:30PM (13 children)
Good.
(Score: 2) by corey on Monday February 22 2021, @10:24PM
Agree. Unfortunately here in Australia it was found in court to be the other way around. Must’ve had better driver’s lawyers in the UK.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by krishnoid on Monday February 22 2021, @11:29PM (2 children)
If only they added " ... retroactively." to the ruling.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2021, @09:14AM (1 child)
This isn't a new law, this is interpretation of existing law. It always applies retroactively, or rather, the situation that Uber claimed wasn't legal in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2021, @01:42PM
The more you know... while this may have been obvious, I didn't know this. So thank you!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Tokolosh on Tuesday February 23 2021, @02:26AM (8 children)
So you think it is good that the government can take away your freedom to choose your conditions of employment? What next, your freedom to have an abortion?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Mykl on Tuesday February 23 2021, @04:07AM (7 children)
Except the Uber drivers couldn't choose the conditions of their employment. That's the whole point - Uber called the shots from top to bottom. That makes them an employer.
Yes, they could always leave, but that's true of any employer/employee relationship
(Score: 1, Touché) by khallow on Tuesday February 23 2021, @04:34AM (4 children)
And they could come back and leave again and again - at no time informing Uber beforehand. It's not true of any employer/employee relationship.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday February 23 2021, @11:47AM (3 children)
Not true. Uber penalises drivers who refuse to take a call.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 23 2021, @12:47PM (2 children)
They penalty drivers who are logged in and refuse to take a call. That's a very important distinction. Log out, which is a matter of a few seconds, and you no longer are taking calls. That's how you can work multiple ride hailing services at the same time.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 23 2021, @12:50PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday February 23 2021, @12:52PM
Ah, maybe that's a difference. I've never used one of these things.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 26 2021, @03:46PM (1 child)
Yes, they can choose. They can choose not to work for Uber, choose to work for someone else, choose to work for themselves, choose to set up their own ride-hailing system.
And Uber can choose to do what they want. That is a free society.
What next, preventing Facebook from booting Q-Anon? Because if the government asserts the power to set the terms, you know that someday it will happen, right?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Saturday February 27 2021, @12:42AM
And Uber can choose to do what they want. That is a free society.
Not unless Ayn Rand becomes President.
Companies can't just decide to ignore minimum wage, safety regulations, financial disclosure rules, minimum warranties etc. We have all of these rules in place to protect consumers and employees, because we realise if we went full-blown Libtard then we'd be buying our milk with extra Melamine, our gasoline would be leaded again, 5-year-olds would be getting lowered down chimneys to sweep them with no facemasks and CFCs would be back to destroying the Ozone layer.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2021, @09:37PM
They are, instead, delicious succulent meat!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2021, @10:14PM (8 children)
> Uber emphasizes that its drivers are free to decide when, where, and how much they work.
That's one of the IR35 [wikipedia.org] tests but not the only one.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday February 22 2021, @10:39PM (6 children)
It's also not the only question relevant under US IRS rules [irs.gov], but for some reason [opensecrets.org] that's not actually causing their drivers to be treated legally as employees.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Eratosthenes on Monday February 22 2021, @11:56PM (4 children)
British Justice is better than American and Australian justice? What did Australia and America fight the Revolutionary war for? Does no one remember the Sydney Tea Party!!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 23 2021, @02:10AM (1 child)
That's just rhetorical, I hope.
I think it's probably fair to say that all three are screwed up in different ways. Same for any other old English Commonwealth nations. If there is a legal system anywhere that fails to perpetrate injustices on it's citizens, I'd really like to hear about it.
Let us never forget that the UK was a major colonial power, that built it's empire on injustices against subject peoples.
(Score: 3, Touché) by PiMuNu on Tuesday February 23 2021, @11:48AM
> built it's empire on injustices against subject peoples.
That's only half of the story though, isn't it? What did the Romans ever do for us, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2021, @04:57AM (1 child)
They saw the writing on the wall [wikipedia.org] that slavery would eventually become illegal in the english colonies. Seing as they were getting rich off same, they looked into protecting the gravy train (before abolitionists got full traction).
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday February 23 2021, @06:53AM
This was the reason I went west. Damn racist slavers! Of course, found out the Cherokee were no better, when there was money to be made. So went further west.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 23 2021, @05:10AM
A test that fails to confirm drivers as employees causes said drivers to be treated as contractors? Say it ain't so!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 23 2021, @05:07AM