UBER SUPREME COURT RULING: UBER BV AND OTHERS (APPELLANTS) V ASLAM AND OTHERS
(RESPONDENTS) [2021] UKSC 5 ON APPEAL FROM: [2018] EWCA CIV 2748 WHY DO I HAVE SUCH A PROBLEM WITH THIS COMPANY?
Article by: Steven Toy, NPHTA Board member and Trade Leader of the Cannock Chase HC PH Liaison Group
As the good news broke, there were mixed reactions on social media from drivers who don’t work on the peer-to- peer app. Some were worried that they would be shoehorned into the role of employee working fixed hours for minimum wage; others were optimistic that they could bring a claim against their local operator for allowing them to earn less. In either case this ruling DOES NOT affect drivers working for traditional operators.
From the judgement press summary:
https://bit.ly/37RG0tl
The definition of a “worker” in section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and other relevant legislation includes anyone employed under a contract of employment but also extends to some individuals who are self-employed. In particular, the definition includes an individual who works under a contract “whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual”.
More information on employment status can be found here:
https://bit.ly/3sC9gw4
The judgement places them in worker category which is a kind of half-way house between employee and self- employed. It also means that they are entitled to earn the minimum wage after expenses from the moment they log onto the app until they log off.
This is not good news for the app company and General Manager Jamie Heywood, was quick to send a ‘nothing to see here’ email out to all his drivers along with some slick marketing, suggesting that it didn’t apply to them, it wasn’t what they wanted anyway and how nice the company had been to them all since the case was first brought back in 2016. Or words to that effect.
My concern is that they may simply ignore the ruling, declare business as usual and sweep the whole thing under the rug. Indeed, the Guardian has already reported on them deterring drivers from seeking compensation:
https://bit.ly/2MwkJxR
6
Aside from their reputation for bending the rules somewhat and asking for forgiveness instead of permission when thousands have already downloaded the app etc., it is the way in which drivers are exploited and underpaid, not just those who work for the app but also other drivers working in any area for other operators where they have a significant presence.
When they move into an area, existing drivers typically see their turnover fall by as much as a quarter, with the fall in earnings after expenses being greater than that.
A common misconception of our trade on the part of the public is that we make far too much money for the work we do and therefore new, exciting disruptive technology providing better value can only be a good thing for the consumer. Licensing authorities often tend to mirror such public perception. After all, it is what they are elected to do.
The reality is somewhat different. Self-employed licensed drivers for traditional operators would typically work around 55 hours per week, if they worked days, and maybe 40 or so hours, if they worked nights, for a living wage; no more, no less. Ideally, we would earn slightly more than the minimum wage or work a few extra hours, as the flexibility of our job allowed, to cover the cost of illness, holidays and retirement.
Drivers on the app, on their lower rates, typically earn little more than half minimum wage on an hourly basis after expenses. Therefore, in order to earn a living wage, they have to work nearly double the hours, often working 16-hour days or 90-hour weeks.
The company may claim that drivers earn £11 per hour but this will, in all probability, be calculated based on the time spent actually on-trip. After all, this is how they expected the Supreme Court judges to calculate earnings. Rightly, the latter insisted on the rate being calculated for the whole time a driver was logged onto the app. Who in their right mind, apart from our Jamie, could argue that when drivers were visibly available on a rider’s screen they were not still working?
WHY IS BOOKING THROUGH THE P2P APP SO CHEAP?
The answer to this may not be as obvious as it seems. Whilst a large cross section of people use the app, typical users are well-heeled professionals who enjoy the convenience more than anything. When you’ve spent the evening in trendy bars drinking £15 cocktails, beers at £6 for 2/3rds of a pint, had a
MARCH 2021
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96
