Uber drivers are workers, UK supreme court rules

[viper37]

Yuck. CFL football.

NFL is aired in Canada too.  As a bonus, he gets great coverage of the NHL, especially the Canadiens and the Leafs

[Eddie Teach]

Yuck. Hockey.

[Josquius]

At first I dismissed the result on account of the low turnout and it being obvious no voters wouldn't bother to vote.
But saw this :

Catalonia:
90% vote Yes, turnout 42.3% = 38.1% of elec.
UK:
51.8% vote #Brexit, turnout 72.1%. = 37.5% of elec.

Yet one of them is being taken as holy writ and the other stamped  out.
And not the ones that should be.

[Agelastus]

At first I dismissed the result on account of the low turnout and it being obvious no voters wouldn't bother to vote.
But saw this :

Catalonia:
90% vote Yes, turnout 42.3% = 38.1% of elec.
UK:
51.8% vote #Brexit, turnout 72.1%. = 37.5% of elec.

Yet one of them is being taken as holy writ and the other stamped  out.
And not the ones that should be.

Wrong thread?

[HVC]

But the Brexit vote wasn't being boycotted so you have a fair sample of the population voting.

[Malthus]

At first I dismissed the result on account of the low turnout and it being obvious no voters wouldn't bother to vote.
But saw this :

Catalonia:
90% vote Yes, turnout 42.3% = 38.1% of elec.
UK:
51.8% vote #Brexit, turnout 72.1%. = 37.5% of elec.

Yet one of them is being taken as holy writ and the other stamped  out.
And not the ones that should be.

The difference is that the "no" side didn't think that the referendum was valid, so (mostly) stayed away.

There is no way of knowing whether the majority of the electorate who failed to turn up and vote, did so because they believed the referendum was illegitimate (and so ought to be counted as "no") or not.

[frunk]

The difference is that the "no" side didn't think that the referendum was valid, so (mostly) stayed away.

There is no way of knowing whether the majority of the electorate who failed to turn up and vote, did so because they believed the referendum was illegitimate (and so ought to be counted as "no") or not.

Tyr's point is in the last column.  If you assume that everyone who stayed home would have voted 'no' in both cases there was about equal support for Catalonia and Brexit.

[Malthus]

The difference is that the "no" side didn't think that the referendum was valid, so (mostly) stayed away.

There is no way of knowing whether the majority of the electorate who failed to turn up and vote, did so because they believed the referendum was illegitimate (and so ought to be counted as "no") or not.

Tyr's point is in the last column.  If you assume that everyone who stayed home would have voted 'no' in both cases there was about equal support for Catalonia and Brexit.

Yes, but there is a lot more legitimate reason to assume that in a case where one side has declared that the referendum is essentially illegal (and allegedly has a bunch of laws to point to, to prove it - I'm not a Spanish lawyer, but I assume that the constitution is as others say it is).

This is why referendums and the like tend to only "work" if their legitimacy is widely acknowledged in advance of the vote ("work" as in confer democratic legitimacy to the winner's position).

[frunk]

Yes, but there is a lot more legitimate reason to assume that in a case where one side has declared that the referendum is essentially illegal (and allegedly has a bunch of laws to point to, to prove it - I'm not a Spanish lawyer, but I assume that the constitution is as others say it is).

This is why referendums and the like tend to only "work" if their legitimacy is widely acknowledged in advance of the vote ("work" as in confer democratic legitimacy to the winner's position).

Brexit had a higher turnout percentage, which means there's less "play" available in the numbers.  It also had a bias in favor of those who wanted out were more likely to go vote than the potential status quo voter, particularly since the polling numbers didn't get tight (and still favored staying in) until fairly close to the referendum.

Let's say the stay at homes for Brexit were 66/33 against (which this article mentions), while Catalonia it is 90/10 against.  That'll put you at:
Brexit: 46.7% pro Brexit
Catalonia: 43.9% pro Separation

Less than 3% difference between the two, which isn't much considering.

[Malthus]

Yes, but there is a lot more legitimate reason to assume that in a case where one side has declared that the referendum is essentially illegal (and allegedly has a bunch of laws to point to, to prove it - I'm not a Spanish lawyer, but I assume that the constitution is as others say it is).

This is why referendums and the like tend to only "work" if their legitimacy is widely acknowledged in advance of the vote ("work" as in confer democratic legitimacy to the winner's position).

Brexit had a higher turnout percentage, which means there's less "play" available in the numbers.  It also had a bias in favor of those who wanted out were more likely to go vote than the potential status quo voter, particularly since the polling numbers didn't get tight (and still favored staying in) until fairly close to the referendum.

Let's say the stay at homes for Brexit were 66/33 against (which this article mentions), while Catalonia it is 90/10 against.  That'll put you at:
Brexit: 46.7% pro Brexit
Catalonia: 43.9% pro Separation

Less than 3% difference between the two, which isn't much considering.

Yes, but I don't think you are addressing the point though, which is the legitimacy of the process and how it was seen by each side.

The "No" side simply stayed home en mass in Spain - but they had what they considered a good reason to: that the referendum wasn't legal.

While it may well be the case that many who stated home on Brexit were against, they did not, as far as I know, have a legitimate reason to believe that the very fact of voting in the referendum was a violation of the national constitution.

Losing a referendum which is considered legitimate in advance of the vote is different from losing a referendum which one side considers highly illegitimate (and with some good reason) and refuses to participate in. The latter can't really confer democratic legitimacy, because the winners are self-selecting by the very act of the losers not participating. Unless the raw numbers show an absolute majority, it is always up to the losers to claim that they are the majority - and their side simply didn't participate out of principle.

The same argument is often made by (but isn't really open to with the same force) those who refuse to participate in a referendum which is considered legitimate in advance. 

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/10/uber-loses-appeal-employment-rights-workers

Uber loses appeal in UK employment rights case

The ride-hailing firm Uber has lost an appeal against a ruling that its drivers be classed as workers with minimum-wage rights rather than as self-employed.

The landmark Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling could have major ramifications for labour rights in Britain's growing gig economy. The US company said it would launch a further appeal against the EAT decision.

Drivers James Farrar and Yaseen Aslam, backed by the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain (IWGB), won an employment tribunal case last year after arguing they should be classified as workers with rights such as minimum wage and holiday pay, rather than self-employed as Uber claimed.

Uber challenged the ruling at the EAT in central London, saying it could deprive drivers of the "personal flexibility they value".

The IWGB said the decision showed that firms were choosing to deprive workers of their rights.

Aslam said: "I have been campaigning against Uber since 2014 and, although I always knew I was on the right side, it has always been a struggle that has brought enormous pressure on us.

"I am glad that the judge today confirmed what I and thousands of drivers have known all along: that Uber is not only exploiting drivers, but also acting unlawfully."

Farrar said: "Uber cannot go on flouting UK law with impunity and depriving people of their minimum-wage rights. We have done everything we can, now it is time for the mayor of London, Transport for London and the transport secretary to step up and use their leverage to defend worker rights rather than turn a blind eye to sweatshop conditions."

The IWGB general secretary, Jason Moyer-Lee, said: "Today's victory is further proof, as if any more was needed, that the law is clear and these companies are simply choosing to deprive workers of their rights. These companies are making a mockery of supposed employment rights.

"The government needs to properly enforce the law and they need to do it now."

Frances O'Grady, the TUC general secretary, said: "Uber should throw in the towel and accept today's judgment. No company, however big or well-connected, is above the law. Uber must play by the rules and stop denying its drivers basic rights at work.

"This ruling should put gig economy employers on notice. Unions will expose nasty schemes that try and cheat workers out of the minimum wage and holiday pay. Sham self-employment exploits people and scams the taxman."

Tom Elvidge, Uber UK's acting general manager, said: "Almost all taxi and private hire drivers have been self-employed for decades, long before our app existed.

"The tribunal relies on the assertion that drivers are required to take 80% of trips sent to them when logged into the app. As drivers who use Uber know, this has never been the case in the UK.

"Over the last year we have made a number of changes to our app to give drivers even more control. We've also invested in things like access to illness and injury cover and we'll keep introducing changes to make driving with Uber even better."

[Tamas]

That's nice but its a major change to how Uber operates isn't it?

With minimum wage should come minimum working hours and such.

[Grey Fox]

It reflects reality.

[Tamas]

It reflects reality.

I wonder how reality will work.

I guess the easy way would be that if a driver spends X hours on the road per month, he'll be entitled to at least the minimum wage's worth of payout.

So maybe they can just leave their mobile phone in their car for the night and cash in.

Or, they could only get the minimum wage if they have earned at lest the minimum wage, but of course that's no change to the current situation.

How would YOU do it?

Or you just have a pal who is a taxi driver?

[Grey Fox]

It seems complicated & no easy solutions comes to mind, I agree, mainly because we are so brainwashed by Uber's marketing bullshit about driver flexibility.

How should they do it? How do regular taxi do it? Do that. Uber is a taxi company, respect those rules.

How would I do it?

I would do it by outlawing Uber & all app-based "ride sharing" company unless the cars are owned by the company.