Uber basically has little choice but to exit the UK if their efforts to keep it all on a contractual basis fails. This is similar to the Walmart vs Unions situation, I'm just curious how willing Uber is to make an example out of UK.
Uber seem to fail most of these "in business" points for their drivers with their heavily one sided agreement.
Going back to IT contractors and IR35 in the early '00s it's been a constant "discussion" of where the line is. For contractors we had to get quite good at amending contracts, and satisfy other aspects to be able to remain unaffected. In that case the govt wanted us to be employees, contractors didn't!
There is only 2 drivers who led this case, and they currently work for some private taxi cab association.
For drivers I don't understand the appeal of being self employed there's nothing to gain by it.
If they still want to show they're operating as self employed they can with a b2b relationship with Uber, website and advertising, exercising right of substitution, and all the other HMRC indicators of being in business.
I don't know how many are in the '& others' in this case.
In many of these cases (especially those of the new courier firms who 'self-'employ drivers/deliverers) it looks and smells like an employment relationship. The courts are entitled to find that that's what it is.
For example, if it requires designers to only work through them, be available 9-5 every weekday with x holidays to be asked for weeks ahead, and accept a fixed hourly rate, I'm fairly sure the U.K. would judge the designer to be employed by the site.
Alternatively, if the site only is a broker who brings designers into contact with clients (free or for a fee), and a designer works for a single client for years, chances are (IMHO, IANAL) the U.K. would judge the designer to be employed by the client.
Considering Uber is pretty useful for people like to work flexbility, there would a few of them.
As your second part notes, corporations do indeed often change laws. Laws and reality go hand-in-hand, both ways. Many laws change because they're not working well, to include offending a politician's bigger donors. Companies are a major part of politics, regardless of our preferences.
The bottom line that the UK drivers wanted to have a cake and eat it, bit the hand that feeds them, etc. If Uber lets this slide, it creates a bad precedent for them.
There's been a trend in our society the last 30 years or so that paints a picture of everyone who does manual labor for a living as being a lesser person, and it's damaging us. Yes, automation will save us from a lot of our current burdens but we're not there yet, and until we are we still need people to unclog our drains, pave our streets and maintain the sewers. It's not glamorous and not skilled but it is desperately needed, and we can't just say "well low wages come with shitty jobs" and walk away like not having garbagemen is an option.
Outside of London Uber doesn't have that much of a presence. And, where it does, the drivers are often regular private hire drivers using Uber as an extra form of revenue.
So exiting the UK isn't going to hurt them so much.
"You want to make a case that you're employees? Joke's on you- now you have nothing. Peace."
The Wal-Mart analogy is actually pretty good- they've effectively deterred workers from unionizing by simply shutting stores where workers try to form a union. They've made it clear that if workers form a union, they'll shortly be out of jobs.
One can argue about the morality of this approach, but not really its effectiveness.
I recall a few 45 minute hikes through San Francisco on a Friday night, futilely waving at each full cab that drove by
Pay minimum wage, give/pay holidays, give rest breaks. Pay national insurance.