• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Bike courier wins her court case"

Collapse

  • fannyadams
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • fannyadams
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • fannyadams
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • bobspud
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • cojak
    started a topic Bike courier wins her court case

    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.

Working...
X