Deliveroo riders in Britain may take case on self-employment

Chuchote

http://road.cc/content/news/209744-deliveroo-riders-consider-legal-action-following-uber-ruling

Very interesting court decision on Uber drivers, which if it sets a precedent that could be used in Irish law could bust the nonsense of "Working for me and want stamps and tax? Heavens, no, you're self-employed" right open:

A number of cycle couriers are looking to make a claim against Deliveroo following a landmark ruling against Uber last week that could have wider implications for the UK's "gig economy".

Leigh Day solicitors, who successfully brought the case, which led to a UK employment court ruling Uber drivers are employees and therefore entitled to the national living wage and holiday pay, have confirmed they are “exploring bringing a claim on behalf of Deliveroo drivers”, including those who cycle to deliver food from restaurants to customers.

Deliveroo, like Uber, uses drivers whose contracts describe them as self-employed, meaning riders may not be paid the minimum wage, and are not entitled to sick pay, holiday pay or pensions. However, the terms of those contracts, and how they describe the working relationship between rider, company and customer, differ.

ted1

Proper order the claim about riders being self employed is nonsense, in my opinion hailo , Uber, dileveroo are leaches who suck blood from small businesses for offering nothing more than what they claim is s booking site, if they take money to provide a service they need to employee staff to provide the service

*a cyclist ed class for their employees wouldn't go astray , my place makes us do manual handling courses , advanced driving etc

Wishbone Ash

Being an employee would also make it easier for members of the public to complain about their cyclists' woeful law breaking.

Currently Deliveroo and other such companies can absolve themselves of any responsibility in this area by saying that they are not their employees.

Chuchote

I've known journalists who work for years on end as "self-employed" for the same newspaper. It's a common scam in many fields. Back in the 1990s they were cracking down on it, and at least insisting that companies pay holiday and sick pay and pensions pro rata, but for some mysterious reason this crackdown stopped.

It was always (and I assume still is) accepted and illegal practice for restaurants to have casual waiting staff, from whose pay they collect tax and PRSI which is never paid, leaving these people without the cover that's been deducted from their wages and owing tax.

tomasrojo

If you don't get to set your own rates and decide what work you want to accept, you're not self-employed.

Chuchote

The law on it, when people paid attention to such things, was that when you were required to follow orders and be in a specific place at a specific time, you were an employee, I think.

ted1

tomasrojo wrote: »

If you don't get to set your own rates and decide what work you want to accept, you're not self-employed.

You can set your own rate,doesn't mean you'll get it.
There's a definition of self employed that includes setting your own hours and being able to delegate to staff among other items.

tomasrojo

ted1 wrote: »

You can set your own rate,doesn't mean you'll get it.

Obviously, yes, but the argument Uber etc. use is that they are a platform connecting people seeking a service with those offering a service. But the drivers, in the case of Uber, don't tell the passenger the rate. Uber does.

Eddy_Phelan

This is long overdue!

Lumen

Chuchote wrote: »

I've known journalists who work for years on end as "self-employed" for the same newspaper. It's a common scam in many fields

There are lots of self-employed people, particularly in IT, who do things that look a lot like employment and yet do not want to be employees. It's not just about earning more (they feel that they have no need for job security or sick pay and so want to instead take the value as money), it's about a sense of independence and identity. They feel this so strongly that if forced to accept a contract of employment they will just quit and take another non-employment contract.

Chuchote

Lumen wrote: »

There are lots of self-employed people, particularly in IT, who do things that look a lot like employment and yet do not want to be employees. It's not just about earning more (they feel that they have no need for job security or sick pay and so want to instead take the value as money), it's about a sense of independence and identity. They feel this so strongly that if forced to accept a contract of employment they will just quit and take another non-employment contract.

Fine for them; but their choice shouldn't be used as a way of exploiting others.

(A friend's kid was in that position shortly before the crash; the civil service department he was working for was pressing him hard to take a job rather than being a contractor. He liked them, and liked the work. Jaw-dropped, I told him "Do it! Do it! You'll never get such great conditions!" He said he "couldn't afford to", because his pay as a contractor was so much higher than it would be as a civil servant. Guess who was out of work a year later?)

PCX

Lumen wrote: »

There are lots of self-employed people, particularly in IT, who do things that look a lot like employment and yet do not want to be employees. It's not just about earning more (they feel that they have no need for job security or sick pay and so want to instead take the value as money), it's about a sense of independence and identity. They feel this so strongly that if forced to accept a contract of employment they will just quit and take another non-employment contract.

But employment law doesn't work that way. I'm sure if you went into any workplace and asked people whether they wanted to take home more money by removing themselves from the social welfare net many would opt to do that - who couldn't use a bit more cash short term?

It probably works out well for workers in high skill, high demand roles like IT at the moment as the savings the employer makes in employers PRSI mostly get passed on to the worker but in low skill / lower end jobs the worker will get paid the same and the employer will just pocket the PRSI saving.
i.e. the worker loses out on the protection of being in the social welfare net.

PAYE workers have no choice but to accept lower wages to pay towards benefits for the disabled, Single parent families, pensioners, the unemployed etc. even if they do not avail of any of them. By companies pretending that employees are contractors when they are not all of society loses out. IT workers would not quit jobs if employment law was properly enforced across the whole IT sector because there would be no pretend contract roles for them to take. Those who are currently genuinely independent and self employed (i.e. free to subcontract work, employ others to do the work for them, in control of the hours of work etc) would not be effected.

Lumen

PCX wrote: »

But employment law doesn't work that way. I'm sure if you went into any workplace and asked people whether they wanted to take home more money by removing themselves from the social welfare net many would opt to do that - who couldn't use a bit more cash short term?

It probably works out well for workers in high skill, high demand roles like IT at the moment as the savings the employer makes in employers PRSI mostly get passed on to the worker but in low skill / lower end jobs the worker will get paid the same and the employer will just pocket the PRSI saving.
i.e. the worker loses out on the protection of being in the social welfare net.

PAYE workers have no choice but to accept lower wages to pay towards benefits for the disabled, Single parent families, pensioners, the unemployed etc. even if they do not avail of any of them. By companies pretending that employees are contractors when they are not all of society loses out. IT workers would not quit jobs if employment law was properly enforced across the whole IT sector because there would be no pretend contract roles for them to take. Those who are currently genuinely independent and self employed (i.e. free to subcontract work, employ others to do the work for them, in control of the hours of work etc) would not be effected.

Of course you are technically correct on how the law is formulated, but in reality enforcement policy is critical. If I ride my motorbike in a bus lane in full view of the gardai and am never stopped, then the fact that it's technically illegal is practically irrelevant.

Self-employed people fund "benefits for the disabled, Single parent families, pensioners, the unemployed etc." through class S PRSI, USC and income taxes.

Are you making the case that the overall burden of taxation on self-employed people is lower? I think that would be disputed, particularly given that they have access to fewer supports in the case of unemployment.

tomasrojo

Whatever about the merits of self-employment (I am self-employed and it makes a lot of things easier for me for now), Uber's drivers are not self-employed in the usual sense of that term.

Uber's pretence is that the drivers are working directly for the passengers, or that it is like eBay and it facilitates hook-ups between drivers and people looking to travel in the same way that eBay allows someone trying to sell a Beatles wig from 1964 find someone looking to buy the same. That's not the case. The seller and the buyer in the eBay case come to a mutual agreement on the price; but Uber sets the price. The drivers are definitely working for Uber.

This is quite good, I think:
https://darrennewman.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/why-uber-lost-in-the-employment-tribunal/

PCX

Lumen wrote: »

Self-employed people fund "benefits for the disabled, Single parent families, pensioners, the unemployed etc." through class S PRSI, USC and income taxes.

Are you making the case that the overall burden of taxation on self-employed people is lower? I think that would be disputed, particularly given that they have access to fewer supports in the case of unemployment.

I'm not saying that self employed people do not contribute and the genuinely self employed pay more than enough tax in Ireland in my opinion.

But it is clear that in the example that you used of IT workers employed under contract there would 10.75% employers PRSI that is not being paid as the company says that they are not employees when in many cases they really are.

In the IT industry that 10.75% (or most of it) is going into the pocket of the worker in many cases and loss of unemployment benefits is a trade off they are willing to accept as they know that their skillset is in demand so they won't need the safety net.

If that is okay why can't every worker decide whether the 10.75% goes to them as extra pay or to the state? I'm sure most skilled employees and all public sector workers would gladly take it as they too are unlikely to need the dole any time soon.

Proper enforcement is needed to create a level playing field as the business trying to stick to the rules cannot compete. In the case of Uber it is a clear case of them just trying to reduce their overheads by not paying their fair share of taxes.

brocbrocach

I wish Deliveroo would "advise" them to put lights on their boxes. They're often very hard to spot at night.

tomasrojo

Yeah, the boxes are reflective, but they are up high, out of the dipped headlight zone, and also tend to point skyward, so even allowing for the usual limitations of reflective surfaces versus lights, they're not great.

seamus

There is plenty of case law on this in Ireland already. Ultimately the problem is that it requires someone who is on a very low wage and often under heavy financial pressure, to take on a legal case against a large company.

So unless there is a generous supporter or a trade union willing to bankroll the legal fees, companies will continue to skirt the line between self-employment and employment - 99.9% of the employees who don't like it will just quit rather than take the company on.

Chuchote

Or unless the Department of Enterprise returned to its values as Department of Jobs and enforced legislation on work…

Chips Lovell

It's usually the Department of Social Protection who enforce it, since non-payment of employers' PRSI for people who are de-facto employees is the biggest issue at play.

Clarification: In my own experience, it's usually DSP who does it.

Kaisr Sose

The number of Deliveroo riders with no cycle lights is shocking! If it were me, I would make it a legal requirement for the restaurant to ensure the rider delivering their food has a road legal bicycle. The lack of enforcement of cycle lights is clearly not helping a safe working environment/culture.

A model whereby everybody that is making money out of the rider, is legally at arms length means that they can skirt health and safety in the work place legislation.

Chuchote

Who owns the Deliveroo bakfietsen? Saw a rider on one who'd taken a nasty tumble when he hit a patch of oil, luckily on the Grand Canal cycleway and not in traffic.

tomasrojo

Given the general "gig economy" model, I presume the person riding the bakfiets owned it.

Chuchote

tomasrojo wrote: »

Given the general "gig economy" model, I presume the person riding the bakfiets owned it.

I would have presumed so too, but (I'm not sure how), I got the impression this one was owned by the company. Also:

http://porterlight.com/shop/deliveroo-x-porterlight-bicycles-custom-london-cargo-bike/

tomasrojo

Chuchote wrote: »

I would have presumed so too, but (I'm not sure how), I got the impression this one was owned by the company. Also:

http://porterlight.com/shop/deliveroo-x-porterlight-bicycles-custom-london-cargo-bike/

Good point.

magicbastarder

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

If it were me, I would make it a legal requirement for the restaurant to ensure the rider delivering their food has a road legal bicycle.

i may be misunderstanding the model, but there's no one restaurant responsible for deliveroo.

it'd be interesting to hear how much insurance (again, i might be misunderstanding the business models) bicycle courier companies have to pay to insure their riders.

Kaisr Sose

magicbastarder wrote: »

i may be misunderstanding the model, but there's no one restaurant responsible for deliveroo.

it'd be interesting to hear how much insurance (again, i might be misunderstanding the business models) bicycle courier companies have to pay to insure their riders.

Your understanding is correct. What I mean is, the responsibility should be on each restaurant to ensure whoever turns up to collect an order has a road legal bike (working lights mainly). If 20 riders called during a night, they would have to check each rider before dispatching them. No working lights, no job!

nak

magicbastarder wrote: »

it'd be interesting to hear how much insurance (again, i might be misunderstanding the business models) bicycle courier companies have to pay to insure their riders.

The majority of couriers are contractors. Packages are insured for a fairly small amount ~€150, don't think the bike couriers are though. Could be wrong on that one, but I know if involved in an accident while working you're on your own and there's no sick pay if you're injured. If you're hit by a car and lucky enough to get the driver's details you may get some compensation through their insurance.