“92. ... The drivers provide the skilled labour through which the organisation delivers its services and earns its profits. We base our assessment ... in particular on the following considerations. (1) The contradiction in the Rider Terms between the fact that ULL purports to be the drivers’ agent and its assertion of “sole and absolute discretion” to accept or decline bookings. (2) The fact that Uber interviews and recruits drivers. (3) The fact that Uber controls the key information (in particular the passenger’s surname, contact details and intended destination) and excludes the driver from it. (4) The fact that Uber requires drivers to accept trips and/or not to cancel trips, and enforces the requirement by logging off drivers who breach those requirements. (5) The fact that Uber sets the (default) route and the driver departs from it at his peril. (6) The fact that UBV fixes the fare and the driver cannot agree a higher sum with the passenger. (The​ ​supposed​ ​freedom​ ​t​​o​ ​agree​ ​a​ ​lower​ ​fare​ ​is​ ​obviously​ ​nugatory.) (7) The fact that Uber imposes numerous conditions on drivers (such as the limited choice of acceptable vehicles), instructs drivers as to how to do their work and, in numerous ways, controls them in the performance of their duties. (8) The fact that Uber subjects drivers through the rating system to what amounts to a performance management/disciplinary procedure. (9) The fact that Uber determines issues about rebates, sometimes without even involving the driver whose remuneration is liable to be affected. (10) The guaranteed earnings scheme (albeit now discontinued). (11) The fact that Uber accepts the risk of loss which, if the drivers were genuinely in business on their own account, would fall upon them. (12) The fact that Uber handles complaints by passengers, including complaints about the driver. (13) The fact that Uber reserves the power to amend the drivers’ terms unilaterally.”

* "controls the key information (in particular the passenger’s surname, contact details and intended destination) and excludes the driver from it"

* "determines issues about rebates, sometimes without even involving the driver whose remuneration is liable to be affected"

* "handles complaints by passengers, including complaints about the driver"

* "subjects drivers through the rating system to what amounts to a performance management/disciplinary procedure"

I think the ruling makes it clear that Uber has a huge amount of control over the driver, how they do their job and how many fares they take (with penalties). Since Uber is interviewing the drivers and requiring that that driver show up for the fare, it's not clear that a driver can substitute someone else for their fare). You can argue that there is an obligation on the specific driver to complete fares for Uber and the driver depends on Uber to supply fares. The ruling makes sense that they are employees as UK law defines the term.

I don't think you can argue that an App Store developer is a disguised employee in the same way, Apple/Google have very little control over how I write my app, they don't care if I write it or I subcontract and I don't think Apple have any expectation that I will write the app.

Uber could never call itself a "marketplace" for drivers. It operates much more like a driver agency.

Edit: there are genuine online booking agencies for drivers in London, like http://www.kabbee.com, which act as a front-end for independent minicab drivers. I think this is much more that way it should operate if the drivers weren't employees, as Uber argues.

If they're employees, they get a lot of rights and protections that maybe aren't common at all in the US. Companies like Uber (and e.g. construction companies, marketing agencies, etc) will push people to become self-employed so that the employer has no obligations or responsibilities whatsoever to the employee. This will allow them to out-compete the companies (like Black Cab in London) heavily, at the cost of the workers.

Or perhaps Uber are actually providing a useful source of work to drivers who otherwise wouldn't be working at all?

Being self employed can have its benefits but Uber drivers enjoy very few of those.

Labor can be exploited only when a corporation can sidestep the organized labor pool and tap into the pool of labor that demands no protections. If most Americans thought as you did, I don't think American corporations could get away with paying their employees such pitiful wages and benefits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7gp8KBP7ak

It is not easy to go and work as a traditional taxi driver in London. There are various regulations on taxis and taxi drivers in the UK anyway, and in addition, in London taxi drivers are required to pass an infamously difficult test known as The Knowledge proving that they can navigate effectively around London streets.

One of the big objections to Uber and the like is that they attempt to bypass some of those regulations and that training, and the regulations and training are there for a reason. To the extent that this confers a competitive advantage to Uber drivers over black-cabbies, it's a rather unfair one.

So, obviously those rules don't matter as much to customers as convenience, price and availability do.

In some ways, black cabs are obviously superior. To pick a few examples, their pricing is regulated by local authorities, they are required to be wheelchair accessible, and their drivers are required to have The Knowledge along with various other qualifications before being licensed.

To the extent that black cabs may be at a competitive disadvantage compared to Uber's standard (non-surge) pricing, that is in part because Uber's current financial model seems to be subsidising every journey using the vast amounts of funding they have accepted. That is not sustainable. It is also in part because of exactly the sort of issues we're talking about today, where they've been cutting their costs at the expense of their drivers in legally questionable ways, which again is hardly playing on a level field.

* Rude

* Will demand payment in cash, and only when you threaten them with non-payment repeatedly will allow you to pay with credit cards, DESPITE agreeing to it beforehand.

* Unwilling to stop where the customer wants them to

* Don't get out of the car to put luggage in the trunk

I hate Uber's labour practices, but there are major issues with black cabs.

To work as as a Black Cab in London you have to do The Knowledge - which can take several years to complete https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/licensing...

Especially when they start off the wrong way or take a wrong turn and their map app dutifully encourages them around some longer path.

It doesn't mean that I can target disadvantaged people for slavery. Uber needs to be held to proper standards.

* several government sanctioned intermediaries get a cut (who, I'm sure, are entirely unrelated to the politicians running the city)

* direct tax is paid on the taxi cab licence to the government

The majority of minicab companies operate as an agency.. which keeps the operating company below the VAT threshold. Uber reduces their liability in the same way.

Mini cab drivers have private hire licence (not a Hackney carriage licence, that a taxi which trawls the street looking for a fare)... Uber drivers have he same license as Minicab drivers.

A mini cab is usually ordered by phoning up the agency, and the driver picks up at your location... Uber you use an app, but the process is the same. Neither are allowed to be hailed from the road.

With minicabs, the car and fuel is often provided by the agency.. which makes it more of an employer than uber (where the car and fuel is provided by the self-employed contractor)!

I agree with these articles: https://www.ft.com/content/7ca2f852-b5b5-11e7-a398-73d59db9e... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/27/uber-says...

Uber is simply a better version of private hire, I don't think that's in dispute by anyone. But how does it compare against taxis seems to be what the discussion is about.

Here's a quote someone on Reddit pulled out

> Since it is essential to that case that there is no contract for the provision of transportation services between the driver and any Uber entity, the Partner Terms and the New Terms require the driver to agree that a contract for such services (whether a ‘worker’ contract or otherwise) exists between him and the passenger, and the Rider Terms contain a corresponding provision.

> Uber’s case is that the driver enters into a binding agreement with a person whose identity he does not know (and will never know) and who does not know and will never know his identity, to undertake a journey to a destination not told to him until the journey begins, by a route prescribed by a stranger to the contract (UBV) from which he is not free to depart (at least not without risk), for a fee which (a) is set by the stranger, and (b) is not known by the passenger (who is only told the total to be paid), (c) is calculated by the stranger (as a percentage of the total sum) and (d) is paid to the stranger. Uber’s case has to be that if the organisation became insolvent, the drivers would have enforceable rights directly against the passengers. And if the contracts were ‘worker’ contracts, the passengers would be exposed to potential liability as the driver’s employer … The absurdity of these propositions speaks for itself.

Your "USA perspective" reminded me of a concept called "court rulings as informal tariffs". Basically, when a foreign company is tried in the courts, the rulings will often favor the side that's aligned with the country's own court. (In this case, it's the UK drivers.)

The idea is, we can't objectively analyze rulings purely on its legal merits. Instead, there's always a country's (unstated) self-interest that's entangled in the judgement. (E.g. our home-grown London drivers deserve more money instead of USA's Uber executives.)

The USA would have the same bias. If a Korean company like Samsung is being sued by American company like Apple in a USA court, it's likely that Apple will win. Likewise, an American company like Google will lose more rulings by the EU than EU companies.

Again, it doesn't mean Uber is innocent. It's an observation that we didn't see the same government scrutiny about UK ride-sharing services like Hailo (subsequently absorbed by Mytaxi) about classifying contractors as workers. UK taxi drivers are generally contractors[1] but Uber attracted the ire that other ride-sharing apps didn't.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-notice-70025-...

(EDIT: thanks for correction kbart. I was reading about Lexus and had Japan on my brain.)

But why were they "already contractors"? Doesn't that beg the question?[1]

Take a look at section 2.1 of the link I cited. Just based on the text alone, it's not obvious why that "self-employed" criteria doesn't apply to Uber. Yes, the courts are free to interpret beyond the literal text but there doesn't seem to be objective consistency to it. The traditional UK taxi companies and the other ride sharing apps all seem to be misclassifying workers.

I'm not familiar with Hailo. Are you saying that a person who didn't drive a taxi before can't sign up on the Hailo platform and immediately offer their services? Did they have to be associated with a traditional taxi company first as prerequisite?

In what situations would drivers prefer Hailo over Uber and vice versa?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Yes, I understand that but aren't those facts orthogonal to the status of "contractor"?

If we try to integrate your facts, we would end up with a nonsensical decision tree:

Choice 1: study for years to pass test and get Tfl license to _not_ earn minimum wage

Choice 2: no test to pass and sign up for Uber to get a minimum wage (because of new ruling)

Since the above makes no sense, that's why I believe it just muddies up the discussion about what truly designates somebody a "contractor".

Part of the argument in the judgement is that Uber in effect acts as the client, since their rules prevent the driver from interacting with the rider in a way a independent contractor would normally be ble to. That makes it all the more significant when Uber is often the only client. For someone like Hailo this would be less risky as the driver also works for many others most of the time, so even if Hailo was found to be the client rather than the individual riders, they could make the argument that to most their drivers they were just one of many clients.

That Uber in "ideal" circumstances could have only signed up drivers that drive for many others too, or that Hailo in theory could have only signed up drivers that were only driving for them, isn't relevant when that's not how things have been in practice.

EDIT: I'd very much like to hear arguments instead of downvotes, given that my comment is entirely factual. Downvoting doesn't change any of it.

No it doesn't. The point is that Hailo was an additional supplier of leads to people who operated businesses independently of Hailo, and that in itself strengthened the claim that they were genuinely independent businesses substantially. These companies didn't "spring into existence" when a driver decided to sign up with Hailo exclusively to deal with Hailo, and pretty much nobody would work only for Hailo. While not everyone only works for Uber, a lot do.

If that was the only difference between the two, Uber would probably have been ok, but in Uber's case there are many additional factors.

> Take a look at section 2.1 of the link I cited. Just based on the text alone, it's not obvious why that "self-employed" criteria doesn't apply to Uber.

HMRC does not define or have any legal powers to define whether or not you are self-employed (the furthest their powers go is to determine if your relationship is one that can be deemed employment for tax purposes, but that does not say anything about whether it is employment for other purposes).

They define how to interpret the tax rules. In this case specifically VAT rules. The only point that section make is that if you are operating it as self employed then VAT is ultimately your responsibility (though you may contract it away). In this case the tribunal found that Uber drivers are not, and so this section does not apply.

> Yes, the courts are free to interpret beyond the literal text but there doesn't seem to be objective consistency to it. The traditional UK taxi companies and the other ride sharing apps all seem to be misclassifying workers.

Read the actual judgement. The list of restrictions placed on drivers by Uber is very extensive. If any other minicab companies (and I don't know why we try to invent a different name for what Uber does - in UK parlance they are nothing but another minicab company; we have many of them, most of them with apps) place the same extensive restrictions on drivers, then I agree they too should be considered to be employers.

> I'm not familiar with Hailo. Are you saying that a person who didn't drive a taxi before can't sign up on the Hailo platform and immediately offer their services? Did they have to be associated with a traditional taxi company first as prerequisite?

A person needed to operate a licensed taxi, which passengers can hail (hence the name), as opposed to a minicab (which can only take bookings), which means they'd need to have been licensed by the appropriate authority (the Public Carriage Office in the case of London) as a taxi and have the appropriate training etc. Given the cost of taking the appropriate training and the cost of the car required etc., pretty much no drivers would do that to work exclusively for Hailo - the major benefit of being a licensed taxi is the ability to pick up passengers directly.

If Hailo signed up such drivers and placed them under the same restrictions as Uber and most of those drivers never operated independently to any extent, then Hailo would probably have gotten in trouble too, but there are many other differences as well.

Uber's business needs are somewhat at odds with its legal case here. From a branding standpoint, Uber wants you to think of yourself as interfacing with Uber, not individual drivers. They want you to believe that if you call an Uber, you're going to get a certain level and quality of service.

Contrast something like HomeAdvisor, which is undoubtedly an aggregator for contractors. Home Advisor doesn't tell its contractors what kind of equipment to use, it doesn't kick off contractors who don't achieve a 4-star rating, etc. It's explicitly marketed as a service for finding contractors, not a company that performs the service directly.

I don't think relaxing vehicle standards or driver background checks is good for anyone - and requiring your contractors to have certain equipment sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

That doesn't really matter. Nor is it really true, since you inevitably interact with the driver. And it's understood that drivers are humans, and they are different.

McDonalds operates a franchise, you got the same thing, but still, different companies.

Yes, Uber had not structured itself as a franchise, but the use of [sub]contractors to provide a service with a controlled and sort of guaranteed (and well marketed and branded) quality - in itself - doesn't make the drivers employees.

I think the line between contracting and employment is up to the host society to draw.

Usually tax authorities have a few simple rules and if you are in compliance of at least half of them (or if you break at least X of them), then you are a contractor (or disguised employee). For example exclusivity is important here, the rule states that if a contractor gets more than 50% of its income from one entity, then that's one strike (and there are 5 other rules).

Of course it seems in UK law the drivers have standing, so it means there must be some statute about when a contractor is to be treated like employees. (For example, let's say you can't use temp workers, contractors like regular full time employees and not give them free cafeteria, if your regular employees have that perk.)

But of course this is meaningless in case of a 2 party problem, because it doesn't help determining "employmentship" vs "contractorship".

So what'd be a clear and fair way to test for the quality of work relationship?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2013/09/06/32m-domin...

https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/selfemployed-contractor

The first essentially boils down to extra money - if you work X days you get another days pay to simulate a paid holiday day. I'd imagine the second two would combine - if Uber accepts your app connecting and being "for hire" they guarantee you at least the minimum wage, and after a set period of working you get a paid break.

I wonder if you've been sold the bill of goods reading your Uber=bad comment.

i.e. perspective of country where labor laws are not actually enforced.