OT:Uber

From what I see, as an uninterested observer, many Uber drivers want to stay the same way as they are now, with the total freedom to work when they want, not when Uber wants. This looks like the union forcibly taking choice out of the hands of many drivers. I would hope that the drivers could choose one model of employment, or the other, depending on their needs. If the union is supposed to be 'for' the worker, it might have scored an own goal. Do Uber drivers all belong to a union, anyway?

Is it the drivers, or is the unions? And just how many uber drivers are union members anyway?

I'd been own company PAYE (either alone, or with one or two others over the years) since 1997, but this year made the change to being self-employed.

No, but I can see the demand for one to be created, if "gig economy work" is going to be defined as "not self employed" and therefore defaults to being "employment".

The case was whether or not the drivers were "workers".

Workers are a concept derived from EU law used now for various purposes.

Employment law generally still involves employment or self-employment (or offices). So does tax.

So they are possibly looking to be workers but self-employed for tax for the best of both worlds.

After the court ruling, would an Uber driver pay their own self- employed NI and the employer contribute nothing?

Are they guaranteed work as soon as they log on, or whatever? With the numbers there seem to be I'd guess not. So although they might have the choice of when to make themselves available for work, doesn't mean they'll actually earn money when they do?

Really? Thought closed shops where workers were forced to join a union went out a long long time ago.

Regardless of the law?

Enough of them must do to get that union to go to law for them. It's hardly going to be interested in doing it out of altruism. Although it may well have an effect on courier firms too - and many of those are union members. Being a much older industry.

Thanks Robin - that would explain it. One concern for the ILR must be keeping track of all these casual workers and making sure they pay the taxes due.

I'm fairly sure that's what happens at the moment. But not sure it is compulsory to pay the self employed NI contribution. Only if you want an OAP.

Yep. It's been a pain for HMRC (and IR/DSS etc before them) for decades. And often 1 step forward and 2 steps back - as eg when the courts decided loads of bloody "behind the camera" workers were self-employed :)

Class 2 NICs are compulsory at present if profits are over £5,965. (And then profit-related Class NICs 4 if they make enough.) But of course HMRC may have another look at drivers' status after all this fuss.

We fought long and hard for that. ;-)

No idea, I had wondered the same thing myself.

I'm just going on the basis of what is reported, it has come across as either one type of employment or the other, whatever the individual driver wants. And the need for a decision prompted by the union.

With the law allowing it. See words "could choose".

What it has come across as on the TV reporting is that a union has pushed for this, hence the happy union man on the news last night. That may or may not be the case, however.

Dave Plowman (News) formulated the question :

Just out of interest - I happened to be watching old episodes of The Bill this morning and noticed that the sound was credited to 'Dave Plowman'. Would you be the one, by any chance?

Almost certainly. Pinnacle of hos career.

Nope

they have to sit around and wait for their first ride (just like any taxi driver)

Yep, the complainants here want to be paid for their sitting around time.

The fact that the union won this ruling means that it applies to all of Uber's "partners" whether they are union members or not.

The union have other employers in their sights. They are also representing disputes in the SE delivery driver workforce. Complaints which IMHO are far more justified than this one against Uber.

it's just that Uber got to court first (possibly engineered to be so, so that they could learn from the experience if it were lost - as you have pointed out, the union aren't representing the majority of the Uber workforce)

yep, that's exactly right.

tim

Would your freelance rates have been rather higher than Ubers, which come out below minimum wage sometimes?

Because they get paid less than the minimum wage:

- which for this driver is fine because it's replacing watching TV and subsidises their car habit, but it's not a career. This driver worked mostly part time, but even when they worked a 40 hour week they still made less than minimum wage.

(Also, someone willing to work below minimum wage drags down the wages of those who do need to pay for housing, feed their family, etc)

Bearing in mind that, if you earn less than 11k you pay no tax. If you get paid 5 pounds an hour for a 40 hour week, 50 weeks a year, you earn 10k. So there's no income tax to pay anyway. NI on 10k is 232 pounds, ie 2.3% - not a big deal.

So it doesn't matter that you can set off costs against taxable income - if you have no taxable income. And most of your costs are fixed, so the risk is you have one of those 2.50/hour weeks if Uber don't send you enough punters.

Theo

Regular work, at least.

Shoving a wireless mic up June Ackland's wooly pully hardly compares with the Royal Philarmonic at the Albert Hall or something of that ilk.

Owain

I wonder if he gets tips that he hasn't declared?

Unions usually take on this sort of thing when asked to by their members. And the union man would be happy when getting the wanted result.

I got the impression from the couple driver interviews I saw who were against it was that they seemed to be doing the job for pin money rather than a living.