Uber

[dalymount]

I see uber are in court again today in London .apparently the court is fo decide if the drivers are self employed,or employed,and therefore entitled to all the benefits that go with it

[The Liffey Lip]

Again? Deliveroo us Lord from evil.

[dalymount]

Surely if the court find in favour of the drivers,all these other dispatch leeches will be subject to the same ruling and have to provide the benefits with it.that would be great if it happened here all the bastard radio companies here who always thought the drivers were their employees would get their wish,and have to shell out.I would love it

[Octavia1]

I thought 2 blokes won that ruling against uber in England last year?
If England we'r in Europe it mite make a difference...
Wen my taxi bring in their terminator robot taxis wud we be able to claim redundancy off of daimler?  But wen you think about it.... We pay them..... they don't pay us so in no way can they be seen to be an employer....

[The Liffey Lip]

Court of Appeal hearing today....decision will be interesting. Kicking the can as far down the road as possible.

[Rat Catcher]

Same deal with Uber, Octy. Drivers pay them. However, UK employment law differs substantially from ROI employment law in that it has a third category between self-employed and employed that treats casual/piece work as employment. It's still a funny ruling given that Uber drivers aren't tied agents with many also working for other firms.

[dalymount]

If the ruling is in flavour of the drivers,could it have implications for the gangsters here who seem to think they are the drivers employers ?

[Rat Catcher]

No.

[dalymount]

Are you saying no because its a different jurisdiction,or because the circumstances are different ?

[Rat Catcher]

Because the law is different.