+ Reply to Thread
Posts 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1

    Some things in Moderation

    cojak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Look to your right...
    Posts
    17,389
    Thanks (Given)
    391
    Thanks (Received)
    795
    Likes (Given)
    3503
    Likes (Received)
    2304

    Default Bike courier wins her court case

    Bike courier wins 'gig' economy employment rights case
    Bike courier wins 'gig' economy employment rights case - BBC News

    This is going to be interesting.

  2. #2
    eek
    eek is offline

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    21,179
    Thanks (Given)
    207
    Thanks (Received)
    990
    Likes (Given)
    911
    Likes (Received)
    3048

    Default

    It's also worth saying that bigger stakes than employee rights are also at play here.

    As someone pointed out over Christmas if Uber are employing their workers and not using freelancers all rides should have had VAT paid at 20%.... One reason for self employed drivers is that individually they don't reach the VAT registration threshold...
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  3. #3

    I live on CUK

    SueEllen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    in the Park
    Posts
    21,726
    Thanks (Given)
    497
    Thanks (Received)
    563
    Likes (Given)
    3389
    Likes (Received)
    2629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cojak View Post
    Bike courier wins 'gig' economy employment rights case
    Bike courier wins 'gig' economy employment rights case - BBC News

    This is going to be interesting.
    Unfortunately this case can't be extrapolated to other couriers.
    "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

  4. #4

    Super poster

    jamesbrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,457
    Thanks (Given)
    51
    Thanks (Received)
    257
    Likes (Given)
    459
    Likes (Received)
    1288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SueEllen View Post
    Unfortunately this case can't be extrapolated to other couriers.
    Indeed, it's a tribunal, not a test case in a higher court of law. Existing case law is sufficient to catch these sham arrangements. It's significant though in at least two respects: 1) it will pressure companies to change their practices as many more come forward, although that's a slow and arduous process; and, more importantly 2) it will encourage HMG to legislate (difficult to predict the timeframe or outcome of that). With the volume of stories on worker exploitation, on the one hand, and the perceived self-employed tax gap on the other (almost daily in the FT, and the first thing Hammond talked about in the AS), it's only a matter of time before something changes, radically.

  5. #5

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,939
    Thanks (Given)
    135
    Thanks (Received)
    54
    Likes (Given)
    689
    Likes (Received)
    319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesbrown View Post
    Indeed, it's a tribunal, not a test case in a higher court of law. Existing case law is sufficient to catch these sham arrangements. It's significant though in at least two respects: 1) it will pressure companies to change their practices as many more come forward, although that's a slow and arduous process; and, more importantly 2) it will encourage HMG to legislate (difficult to predict the timeframe or outcome of that). With the volume of stories on worker exploitation, on the one hand, and the perceived self-employed tax gap on the other (almost daily in the FT, and the first thing Hammond talked about in the AS), it's only a matter of time before something changes, radically.
    As you say not a test case but given there are at least 25,000 contractors in government. Having even 30 - 50% of them lodge a tribunal case is going to melt the Civil Service inside one year.

    If you get told you are getting a massive pay cut in a few months then there is nothing to lose for launching a claim.

  6. #6

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    24
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    12
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    It's also worth saying that bigger stakes than employee rights are also at play here.

    As someone pointed out over Christmas if Uber are employing their workers and not using freelancers all rides should have had VAT paid at 20%.... One reason for self employed drivers is that individually they don't reach the VAT registration threshold...
    They're not "employees", they're workers - see https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/overview

  7. #7
    eek
    eek is offline

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    21,179
    Thanks (Given)
    207
    Thanks (Received)
    990
    Likes (Given)
    911
    Likes (Received)
    3048

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fannyadams View Post
    They're not "employees", they're workers - see https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/overview
    Utterly irrelevant to the point I'm making there. As self employed the courier / uber is stating that you are paying the self employed worker via the app and hence VAT isn't due as that workers income doesn't reach the threshold.

    As an employee you are paying the company directly and hence VAT would be due as the company's turnover will be well over the VAT threshold...
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  8. #8

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    24
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    12
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    Utterly irrelevant to the point I'm making there. As self employed the courier / uber is stating that you are paying the self employed worker via the app and hence VAT isn't due as that workers income doesn't reach the threshold.

    As an employee you are paying the company directly and hence VAT would be due as the company's turnover will be well over the VAT threshold...
    But they're not employees, they're self employed workers.

  9. #9
    eek
    eek is offline

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    21,179
    Thanks (Given)
    207
    Thanks (Received)
    990
    Likes (Given)
    911
    Likes (Received)
    3048

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fannyadams View Post
    But they're not employees, they're self employed workers.
    No they are workers not self employed workers as tribunals are going to get utterly fed up stating....

    Yes I did use the word employee but to be blunt that is the battle we will be seeing from March onwards because if you have 2 people doing the same job one a permanent member of staff the other a self employed worker your typical contractor will be seeking employee rights (corresponding to the rights of the permanent staff) not workers rights.

    These gig economy roles are going to continually win cases that state they are workers rather than self employed workers simply because the way the end company / consolidator / brand (Uber, Addison Lee....) use the workers make them workers rather than self employed workers. and Customs and Excise are going to be rubbing their hands with glee...
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  10. #10

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    24
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    12
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    No they are workers not self employed workers as tribunals are going to get utterly fed up stating....
    Agreed, they are workers. They are not employees. And not self employed. I used the term in the sense that they're not employees. I guess it illustrates the problem!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.