PDA

View Full Version : Bike courier wins her court case



cojak
6th January 2017, 19:18
Bike courier wins 'gig' economy employment rights case
Bike courier wins 'gig' economy employment rights case - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38534524)

This is going to be interesting.

eek
7th January 2017, 08:55
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...

SueEllen
7th January 2017, 11:44
Bike courier wins 'gig' economy employment rights case
Bike courier wins 'gig' economy employment rights case - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38534524)

This is going to be interesting.

Unfortunately this case can't be extrapolated to other couriers.

jamesbrown
7th January 2017, 12:00
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.

bobspud
7th January 2017, 12:17
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.

fannyadams
7th January 2017, 12:52
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

eek
7th January 2017, 13:11
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...

fannyadams
7th January 2017, 15:07
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.

eek
7th January 2017, 16:39
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...

fannyadams
7th January 2017, 18:39
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!