Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Admiral Yi]

How is it unfair?

[Sheilbh]

How is it unfair?

Because those companies either have less control over their drivers (so it's not an employment relationship) or they employ their drivers (and it is).

Uber's model had the lower costs of not having an employment relationship, while exerting a high level of control over their drivers and strictly circumscribing the service they provide and how they provide it. It was based on a legal fiction - not some innovation in the market that they were benefiting from.

[Admiral Yi]

Because those companies either have less control over their drivers (so it's not an employment relationship) or they employ their drivers (and it is).

Uber's model had the lower costs of not having an employment relationship, while exerting a high level of control over their drivers and strictly circumscribing the service they provide and how they provide it. It was based on a legal fiction - not some innovation in the market that they were benefiting from.

Who is this unfair to?

[Sheilbh]

Who is this unfair to?

Their competitors who aren't relying on legal fictions and either don't have control over drivers (but have lower costs) or have control over their drivers (and bear higher costs).

It's unfair to other participants in the market if one of the companies in the market decides not to follow the same rules.

[crazy canuck]

Who is this unfair to?

Their competitors who aren't relying on legal fictions and either don't have control over drivers (but have lower costs) or have control over their drivers (and bear higher costs).

It's unfair to other participants in the market if one of the companies in the market decides not to follow the same rules.

And so we get back to the point I made hours ago.

The Yi's of the world are going to continue to think that it is regulation getting in the way of the free market.  I am not sure they will ever be convinced that it is actually a scam trying to duck regulations that everyone else has to live under.

[Sheilbh]

And so we get back to the point I made hours ago.

The Yi's of the world are going to continue to think that it is regulation getting in the way of the free market.  I am not sure they will ever be convinced that it is actually a scam trying to duck regulations that everyone else has to live under.

I think there's something to Andrew Neil's (who is very much a conservative - despite the incident with Ben Shapiro) line that many of the tech companies behave like medieval barons negotiating with the crown over which laws and which taxes will apply to them. Which isn't how it works and isn't fair on everyone else who might come up with a better idea.

[Admiral Yi]

Their competitors who aren't relying on legal fictions and either don't have control over drivers (but have lower costs) or have control over their drivers (and bear higher costs).

It's unfair to other participants in the market if one of the companies in the market decides not to follow the same rules.

It's unfair to incumbents because they are abiding by laws meant to protect workers' rights, but Uber drivers have been perfectly willing to operate without those rights.  So I return to my original post: it's too bad for Uber drivers who thought they had a good thing, but we can't let that stand in the way of justice.

[Sheilbh]

It's unfair to incumbents because they are abiding by laws meant to protect workers' rights, but Uber drivers have been perfectly willing to operate without those rights.  So I return to my original post: it's too bad for Uber drivers who thought they had a good thing, but we can't let that stand in the way of justice.

That's not what I mean. The UK courts look at the relationship between parties to work out if it's employment or not. Basically they care about the degree of control one party has over working conditions, remuneration, how the service is performed etc. On the other side, is the other party subordinate or dependent. It matters because employment rights are by law, so the contract doesn't matter and you can't bargain them away.

So some incumbents employed drivers (which I think was was rare but is, for example, the Addison Lee model and it's sort of similar to Pimlico Plumbers). Others didn't. So the minicab office is basically just a hub offering trips and maybe cars to their drivers (who can refuse them - a bit like some barber shops where you just hire the chair) or were self-employed minicab companies (like self-employed plumbers). Both of those models have pros and cons for the companies. But the companies made a choice - Uber wanted control and no costs which is a great model, but not one any other company gets to make because they've clocked the law, decided to follow it and realise there's a decision point for them.

And again I return to the fact that Uber have changed their policies - so these rulings so far haven't got in the way of drivers completing trips for Uber in the last five years. The response of Uber has not been to employ their drivers, but to give them more freedoms and loosen their control. Drivers now do get information on the general direction of trips for example, so they can turn down trips that are not going the way they want to (on their way home for example); I think they don't have to interact with the app so much so many drivers are simultaneously on multiple apps looking for which ride they want etc. So, which drivers have been negatively affected by these rulings?

[Admiral Yi]

You're repeating yourself Shelf.

[crazy canuck]

And so we get back to the point I made hours ago.

The Yi's of the world are going to continue to think that it is regulation getting in the way of the free market.  I am not sure they will ever be convinced that it is actually a scam trying to duck regulations that everyone else has to live under.

I think there's something to Andrew Neil's (who is very much a conservative - despite the incident with Ben Shapiro) line that many of the tech companies behave like medieval barons negotiating with the crown over which laws and which taxes will apply to them. Which isn't how it works and isn't fair on everyone else who might come up with a better idea.

Yeah, and the really scary thing is there a probably a lot of people like Yi who can rationalize the whole damn thing.

[Jacob]

You're repeating yourself Shelf.

Am I understanding you correctly that you're okay with people negotiating away their rights?

So it's too bad for people who are willing to negotiate away their employee rights that they can't work for companies that'd prefer not to accord them those rights.

Similarly, is it too bad that people who are willing to negotiate away their right to work in a safe environment are not able to work for companies that are sanctioned for not following occupational health and safety rules?

Or for people who don't mind be subject to racist or sexist harassment to negotiate away their rights so they can work for employers who'd prefer to be openly bigoted against them?

... and so on?

[Admiral Yi]

Am I understanding you correctly that you're okay with people negotiating away their rights?

So it's too bad for people who are willing to negotiate away their employee rights that they can't work for companies that'd prefer not to accord them those rights.

Similarly, is it too bad that people who are willing to negotiate away their right to work in a safe environment are not able to work for companies that are sanctioned for not following occupational health and safety rules?

Or for people who don't mind be subject to racist or sexist harassment to negotiate away their rights so they can work for employers who'd prefer to be openly bigoted against them?

... and so on?

I'm OK with all of those.  Free will trumps all.

However, that doesn't strictly apply to the Uber UK situation, since they entered into contract with Uber before the court had ruled.

[Jacob]

I'm OK with all of those.  Free will trumps all.

Fair enough. Thanks for answering.

[Tamas]

Maybe the answer is that employment laws should catch up to situations offered by technology.

I do not wish for Uber drivers to be exploited, but on the other hand pretending regular employees, even minicab drivers have the same freedom in working hours and deciding which customers they engage in business with just seems dishonest.

Additionally, and this is an honest question: are such concerns voiced and addressed in other industries as well? If I find a freelance electrician via Checkatrade.com for example, will Checkatrade offer employee rights to the electrician?

If I order food from a kebab place during lockdown so Just Eat is their only platform via which they offer their business, should Just Eat grant them paid holiday and sick leave for example?

[Jacob]

Maybe the answer is that employment laws should catch up to situations offered by technology.[/quote

Looks like they are

I do not wish for Uber drivers to be exploited, but on the other hand pretending regular employees, even minicab drivers have the same freedom in working hours and deciding which customers they engage in business with just seems dishonest.

Why? Are you saying Sheilbh is misrepresenting the truth, or that the judge he quoted is doing so?

Additionally, and this is an honest question: are such concerns voiced and addressed in other industries as well? If I find a freelance electrician via Checkatrade.com for example, will Checkatrade offer employee rights to the electrician?

Honest answer: What degree of control does checkatrade.com exert over the electrician? If you read the excerpt of the judgement that Sheilbh quoted you'll see the degree to which Uber exerts control over their drivers. Does checkatrade.com do the same for electricians?

[quote[If I order food from a kebab place during lockdown so Just Eat is their only platform via which they offer their business, should Just Eat grant them paid holiday and sick leave for example?

The kebab place? Or the Just Eat drivers?

In either case, based on what Sheilbh posted, it comes down to what sort of controls Just Eat exerts over the kebab place or their drivers (whichever one you meant). If it's comparable to what Uber and other companies with employed staff do, then yes. If not, then no.

Given that Just Eat most likely doesn't pay the staff at the kebab place money at all and exerts exactly zero control over any of their behaviour (given they're most likely employees of the kebab place), and given there is no contractual relationship between individual staff and Just Eat, I'm guessing the answer is no. I don't know anything about UK law, but I'd be surprised if businesses are entitled to employment benefits of any kind; I expect that only applies to people.

And if you meant the drivers for Just Eat, I expect it depends on the particulars of how Just Eat interfaces with their drivers.