Hacker News Reader

Comment by huhtenberg | Hacker News Reader

But by the same logic a website that helps matching graphic designers with prospective clients should be considered said designers' employer? This makes no sense.

View on HN

If the site exercised enough direction and control so they specified you must do the work at their desk in their working hours. If they deny you the right to substitute an acceptable alternative person, or work for others, then the relationship would start to seem of employment. There's quite a lot of other pointers.

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!

I'll think you find that Uber drivers also want to be self employed.

There is only 2 drivers who led this case, and they currently work for some private taxi cab association.

And all people on zero-hours contracts love that and all children who worked in factories were violently against being sent to school.

There's a whole class of workers want the flexibility. Students, people who can only work a few hours. Etc

And this ruling won't in any way affect that. There's nothing in the definition of worker that has regular hours.

Certainly not the impression I've got from media reports of demos and Uber Eat strike days etc. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

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.

The two drivers are test plaintiffs. It's the British legal system's alternative to the class action, where a few representative claimants are chosen for a full trial, and the parties agree that the legal result controls the other cases.

I don't know how many are in the '& others' in this case.

No; there's plenty of scope in English law for genuine self-employment. Genuinely self-employed people using a marketplace to find work are not employees of the marketplace. But if you (in reality) look like an employee of an intermediary firm - they have control over what, when, and how you work, you can't substitute yourself with a colleague or sub-contractor, and so on - then the state will ignore the 'form' of the contract you've signed and look to the substance.

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.

Not should, but could? Yes, if the site demanded the designers to sign strict contracts.

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.

No, because under UK law it's not a simple checklist of things that make a person a contractor or a worker. There are a long list of reasons given in the judgment that apply to Uber and not, say, 99designs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com