Labour got one back at capital on Friday, after an employment tribunal in London found that Uber’s circa 30,000 drivers in the city are actually its workers after all, and accordingly deserve employment protection. With potentially epic consequences for its costs, its tax bill, and the entire gig economy, that would mean Uber is no longer a mere intermediary platform. At least in the tribunal’s eyes. The ruling might not bind other courts, and of course Uber is going to appeal. Still, on the other hand, there’s another interesting thread in the judgment: what Uber claims to be, and how that stands up in court. The next time someone says Uber isn’t a taxi or transportation company, but something much more wonderful — justifying its considerable valuation and explaining why Saudi Arabia is pouring money into it — you might now direct them to paragraphs 85 onwards of the reasoning for the ruling, as written by Judge Snelson and members of the tribunal.
Joseph Cotterill considers the following as important: Labour, Private Equity, uber, Uncategorised
This could be interesting, too:
Simon Wren-lewis writes Was Labour’s decision on EU immigration in 2004 a mistake?
Alexandra Scaggs writes Thought for the weekend
Sujeet Indap writes Jonathan Knee explains 25 years of Wall Street’s evolution
Paul Murphy writes The Beaufort sting
Labour got one back at capital on Friday, after an employment tribunal in London