- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 41,561
- Reaction score
- 31,165
- Location
- Southern England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
That seems pretty subjective if you ask me.
About humane societies? Not your field of expertise...
That seems pretty subjective if you ask me.
There are plenty laws that block unions being formed. A easy example that comes to my mind is the classification of the worker. If the worker is not classified as a employee then they cannot form a union. For example in the case of uber, they are all classified as "self employed" so they cannot form a union.
I hold the belief that employees have the right to unionize and there should be laws in place that outlaw employers from firing people because they want to start a union.
Uber isn't forced to operate a taxi service and people aren't forced to work for them.
But they are employees. It's dumb to think businesses should be able to bypass employment laws by saying their employees aren't really employees.
Uber drivers win key employment case - BBC News
Ok so I know this is just for the UK but it has potentially far reaching consequences and is bad news as far as I'm concerned. I am all for workers rights but I really think this is a massive blow to the gig economy, and I also believe that the gig economy has been a hell of a good thing for a great many people.
As far as I'm concerned, the likes of uber and airbnb opened up entirely new avenues of income for people, where they can earn money on their own terms and on their own clock, and the positives for society were amazing, making services like lift sharing, food delivery and home rental far, far, far more efficient. What this decision has done is shoehorn this new type of industry into existing models of industry, and ignores the potential and potential benefits of such services. I think it's a great example of how our legislative and judicial bodies are so far unequipped to handle how quickly the technological world moves, or maybe how they're in the pockets of existing industries that stand to lose from the gig economies successes.
England has different laws though.An employee is under the direct control of the employer. That's not the case with Uber drivers. They are free to work or not work as they please. I can't understand how this would ever fly in the states. Are franchise holders employees of the franchise company? Not so far they're not. Are taxi cab drivers employees of the taxi company? Not so far they're not. Are Realtors employees of the company they represent? No. And so many other examples.
This sounds like a very strange ruling. Makes me wonder about the end game.
If the 'UBER' owners are smart they will shut their company down now.
Why? It's not like they won't still be making a profit.
Maybe...maybe not. Having to create an HR team to manage benefits and then to pay benefits may absorb whatever profits they are making.Why? It's not like they won't still be making a profit.