Uber ruling and self-employed pilots
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uber ruling and self-employed pilots
This one seems to have gone under the radar and avoided comment. I wonder what affect it might have on the pilot work-force in some areas. I appreciate this might be applicable only in areas where English law abides, but within EU would there not be similar criteria in other countries?
Perhaps a more legally trained colleague could make poignant comment.
Written in Daily Telegraph on November 11.
"Yesterday, The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT)
ruled that Uber’s drivers qualify as workers, upholding a decision made against Uber last year.
It raises the prospect that Uber will have to give its drivers their rights such as….. and holiday pay.
Uber argued that its divers were self-employed and that it is a mere intermediary between them and passengers.
The appeal judge wrote, “The Employment Tribunal was entitled to conclude that there was a contract between Uber and the drivers whereby the drivers personally undertook work for Uber as part of its business of providing transportation services to passengers.”
Uber drivers are paid on the journeys they complete.
Uber managers says that “drivers choose to work with Uber because they value the freedom to choose if, when and where they drive.” The intend to appeal the ruling of the EAT.
The case had been brought by The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain on behalf of a couple of drivers. They claim “Uber are making a mockery of workers’ rights and supposed employment rights.” The government needs to enforce the law."
Perhaps a more legally trained colleague could make poignant comment.
Written in Daily Telegraph on November 11.
"Yesterday, The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT)
ruled that Uber’s drivers qualify as workers, upholding a decision made against Uber last year.
It raises the prospect that Uber will have to give its drivers their rights such as….. and holiday pay.
Uber argued that its divers were self-employed and that it is a mere intermediary between them and passengers.
The appeal judge wrote, “The Employment Tribunal was entitled to conclude that there was a contract between Uber and the drivers whereby the drivers personally undertook work for Uber as part of its business of providing transportation services to passengers.”
Uber drivers are paid on the journeys they complete.
Uber managers says that “drivers choose to work with Uber because they value the freedom to choose if, when and where they drive.” The intend to appeal the ruling of the EAT.
The case had been brought by The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain on behalf of a couple of drivers. They claim “Uber are making a mockery of workers’ rights and supposed employment rights.” The government needs to enforce the law."
Why drive Uber ?
I use Uber a lot, particularly when I was living in Houston. I could never figure how the drivers made any money and often discussed this with them.
Twice I had 25 minute rides in late model Mercedes for about $23. (Driver gets 80% of this) To me that just does not work money wise.
When I ask why do you drive Uber? every driver answered, " So I can work the hours I want" I have had drivers claim they make $300 plus on a weekend night. One driver insisted to me he regularly makes $1000 on a weekend. Not sure I believe that but its not my business.
Provide your tools, work when you want, decide which assignments to take. Sounds pretty self employed to me!
That does not sound anything like working for Ryanair. Could be fun though - naw I don't want to do Faro today, call me if you have got anything going to Munch! Rostering would never be the same.
Twice I had 25 minute rides in late model Mercedes for about $23. (Driver gets 80% of this) To me that just does not work money wise.
When I ask why do you drive Uber? every driver answered, " So I can work the hours I want" I have had drivers claim they make $300 plus on a weekend night. One driver insisted to me he regularly makes $1000 on a weekend. Not sure I believe that but its not my business.
Provide your tools, work when you want, decide which assignments to take. Sounds pretty self employed to me!
That does not sound anything like working for Ryanair. Could be fun though - naw I don't want to do Faro today, call me if you have got anything going to Munch! Rostering would never be the same.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A really interesting post.
A collective effort of HR/IR practice in the Western hemisphere has been to reduce the impact of organised (union) labour to secure increases to terms and conditions. The effect of lowering these terms and conditions was initially:
Over time this fails to deliver the magnitude gains. Then came globalisation, where retrenchment let companies send whole work processes overseas at a fraction of the cost.
In aviation Ryanair was a leader of the reduced mutual obligation employment relationship: Contractors became the norm and the gig economy (of which Uber is one company) a derivation of that.
The problem with the Ryanair model is one extremely obvious flaw: Supply of pilots.
Ryanair internalised gains from reducing their mutual (employer) obligation, outsourcing retirement planning, leave and other functions to the 'self employed contractor'
The problem they now face, which is really amusing is that they are required to operate an RPT schedule with a 'gig' work force
A collective effort of HR/IR practice in the Western hemisphere has been to reduce the impact of organised (union) labour to secure increases to terms and conditions. The effect of lowering these terms and conditions was initially:
- Productivity (one person doing extra)
- Efficiency
- Fear
Over time this fails to deliver the magnitude gains. Then came globalisation, where retrenchment let companies send whole work processes overseas at a fraction of the cost.
In aviation Ryanair was a leader of the reduced mutual obligation employment relationship: Contractors became the norm and the gig economy (of which Uber is one company) a derivation of that.
The problem with the Ryanair model is one extremely obvious flaw: Supply of pilots.
Ryanair internalised gains from reducing their mutual (employer) obligation, outsourcing retirement planning, leave and other functions to the 'self employed contractor'
The problem they now face, which is really amusing is that they are required to operate an RPT schedule with a 'gig' work force
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Under the radar
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem they now face, which is really amusing is that they are required to operate an RPT schedule with a 'gig' work force
Which perhaps explains why a certain airline is so so keen to portray the problem as a temporary leave issue.
Neither the media nor the markets seem to grasp what a massive structural issue this creates, for an operator with a 25% attrition rate
Last edited by Sonikt; 24th Nov 2017 at 21:33.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT5 , The Taylor Review on Modern Working Practices, published in July addresses the issues of employment status and suggests :
"More clearly and definitively stating the basis for
employment status in legislation will not be easy.
However, as a number of organisations, including the
Law Society recognise, there is now an overwhelming
case to tackle this sooner rather than later.
Government should replace the minimalistic
approach to legislation with a clearer outline
of the tests for employment status, setting
out the key principles in primary legislation,
and using secondary legislation and guidance
to provide more detail."
The link to the full report is at :
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...actices-rg.pdf
It has been reported in the press that HMRC have already started enquiries into some Ryanair pilot`s tax affairs. In Germany there is an on going criminal investigation into the employment practices of the same airline.
The Chancellor, at his Autumn Budget announced a review of the Taylor Report and IR35.
Addison Lee lost its case for classifying its cab drivers as self employed. Hermes is facing a similar court challenge.
I think the writing is on the wall for all those who go to great lengths to describe what a sausage is. But are all these elaborate explanations needed, for something which we all know what it looks like and have no difficulty in recognising when we see it.
"More clearly and definitively stating the basis for
employment status in legislation will not be easy.
However, as a number of organisations, including the
Law Society recognise, there is now an overwhelming
case to tackle this sooner rather than later.
Government should replace the minimalistic
approach to legislation with a clearer outline
of the tests for employment status, setting
out the key principles in primary legislation,
and using secondary legislation and guidance
to provide more detail."
The link to the full report is at :
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...actices-rg.pdf
It has been reported in the press that HMRC have already started enquiries into some Ryanair pilot`s tax affairs. In Germany there is an on going criminal investigation into the employment practices of the same airline.
The Chancellor, at his Autumn Budget announced a review of the Taylor Report and IR35.
Addison Lee lost its case for classifying its cab drivers as self employed. Hermes is facing a similar court challenge.
I think the writing is on the wall for all those who go to great lengths to describe what a sausage is. But are all these elaborate explanations needed, for something which we all know what it looks like and have no difficulty in recognising when we see it.
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Under the radar
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Well Well...the plot thickens
European court has just ruled that since a UK based 'self employed' salesman was actually employed for the last 13 years he is entitled to back claim for unpaid holiday, some Ł27k in all.
Financial implications of this ruling will be huge for anyone involved in bogus self employment practices. Seems the worm is really turning now.
Cant post URLs (new member) but here is the link
bbc.com/news/business-42164201
European court has just ruled that since a UK based 'self employed' salesman was actually employed for the last 13 years he is entitled to back claim for unpaid holiday, some Ł27k in all.
Financial implications of this ruling will be huge for anyone involved in bogus self employment practices. Seems the worm is really turning now.
Cant post URLs (new member) but here is the link
bbc.com/news/business-42164201
All a bit surprising. HMRC have always had rules on the boundary between being properly employed and being "self employed". Those haven't changed, what has happened is that individuals (not HMRC) have been bringing court cases. It really shows HMRC have been asleep at the switch, and in fact appear to be continuing to do so. Which is surprising because the principal beneficiary is the employer, not the individual, and the principal loser financially is HMRC through not collecting the Employer's 10% of NI contributions.
However the employer may word it in any documents or "contracts", if you fall inside their definition of employment, you are employed. One of the key tests is are you expected to be working for anybody else. In the case of aircrew, if the employer is expecting to be able to schedule you up to the legal maximum of 900 flying hours, you are not able to work for anyone else. You are employed by them. This is regardless of whether you are a limited company, have registered yourself for VAT, or whatever. You can be employed by an agency, but then all these rules come down on them.
However the employer may word it in any documents or "contracts", if you fall inside their definition of employment, you are employed. One of the key tests is are you expected to be working for anybody else. In the case of aircrew, if the employer is expecting to be able to schedule you up to the legal maximum of 900 flying hours, you are not able to work for anyone else. You are employed by them. This is regardless of whether you are a limited company, have registered yourself for VAT, or whatever. You can be employed by an agency, but then all these rules come down on them.
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Under the radar
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The EU ruling says the month off is holiday and therefore should be paid, for all years of previous service.
Don't see that a month off changes the employment relationship, at least not in the UK.
Don't see that a month off changes the employment relationship, at least not in the UK.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@matt283
Ryanair do not allow their contractor pilots to fly for anyone else during their unpaid month off and all of their hours will have been used up anyway.
Ryanair do not allow their contractor pilots to fly for anyone else during their unpaid month off and all of their hours will have been used up anyway.
Then they are just not going to get away with regarding them elsewhere as not being employees.
If they are applying these controls of their time during that month as if they were employees but not paying them they are also breaching UK minimum pay regulations. These were just meant to be self-enforced, until last year, when a change made HMRC, the tax office, responsible for identifying breaches and enforcing them.
If they are applying these controls of their time during that month as if they were employees but not paying them they are also breaching UK minimum pay regulations. These were just meant to be self-enforced, until last year, when a change made HMRC, the tax office, responsible for identifying breaches and enforcing them.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair do not allow their contractor pilots to fly for anyone else during their unpaid month off and all of their hours will have been used up anyway.
The company however maintains contractually that any other hours belong to them, despite not paying for them until THEY want to, other than 100 hours of 'private flying' they own the rest, so they think.
A myopic union hierarchy allowed the company to claim that pilots only 'fly' on average 15 hours per week (O'Leary says the same of Ryan air pilots) whilst ignoring the duty hours. Time away from base effectively means pilots are away from base, at work for about 60 hours per week and where the company hasn't pre-allocated flying to them somehow pilots are 'obligated' to perform any additional flying at the company bequest. The end result is the mis-characterisation that went unchallenged is that the IR court said pilots had to be available..
It was something that a few inquisitive minds wondered; they don't pay for the hours therefore to whom do they belong?
After all the regulator issues the licence and endorsement to the pilot: the company pay for it. If they don't pay for the hours pilots ought not have to provide them unless it suits the pilot..
This change if effectively migrated will undo any contractual perception. Can't have it both ways!
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: at home
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting discussion!
Remember some year ago now i did a test (tried my best not to be biased) and the end result was saying i was not probably considered self employed. Few questions was if i could work for others, did i bring my own equipment to the office and who was controlling the work. So it looked thin all in all and opposite to what my contract said...
Then uber where i believe their drivers at least have more control of work, have their own car and i guess can decide how much to work, without saying either or they are self employed but at least they seem more self employed than the average pilot does. Last word not said but if they are considered employees then it's says a lot about the status of pilots in general imho...
Remember some year ago now i did a test (tried my best not to be biased) and the end result was saying i was not probably considered self employed. Few questions was if i could work for others, did i bring my own equipment to the office and who was controlling the work. So it looked thin all in all and opposite to what my contract said...
Then uber where i believe their drivers at least have more control of work, have their own car and i guess can decide how much to work, without saying either or they are self employed but at least they seem more self employed than the average pilot does. Last word not said but if they are considered employees then it's says a lot about the status of pilots in general imho...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I use Uber a lot, particularly when I was living in Houston. I could never figure how the drivers made any money and often discussed this with them.
Twice I had 25 minute rides in late model Mercedes for about $23. (Driver gets 80% of this) To me that just does not work money wise.
When I ask why do you drive Uber? every driver answered, " So I can work the hours I want" I have had drivers claim they make $300 plus on a weekend night. One driver insisted to me he regularly makes $1000 on a weekend. Not sure I believe that but its not my business.
Twice I had 25 minute rides in late model Mercedes for about $23. (Driver gets 80% of this) To me that just does not work money wise.
When I ask why do you drive Uber? every driver answered, " So I can work the hours I want" I have had drivers claim they make $300 plus on a weekend night. One driver insisted to me he regularly makes $1000 on a weekend. Not sure I believe that but its not my business.
They pay the drivers more than you are paying them. Venture capital is subsidizing every ride. This is why they are losing money.
