Read on Twitter
Uber worker's rights judgement in the Supreme Court coming up very soon
You can watch live here https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html
"The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses Uber's appeal"
Uber loses. But by how much?
Uber loses. But by how much?
For those watching along: the key question here is to what extent the Supreme Court makes its judgement based on Uber as it was in 2016, or as it is now
There will be many details to pore over, but I think we have our answer. The judge concluded: "Drivers are in a position of subordination and dependency to Uber," with reference to several conditions that continue to today
From Uber's point of view, this is a worst case scenario
From Uber's point of view, this is a worst case scenario
Live on @SkyNews just now. Struggling to express just what a stunning defeat this was for Uber. No-one who's followed this will be that surprised that drivers were found to be workers in 2016, but the judge's statement critiqued Uber as a whole. A big moment
This is also a huge victory for @jamesfarrar and @Yaseenaslam381. I've covered this case for five years and to me it seems endless, but they've lived it. On a human level you have to feel awed by their achievement
The judges also rejected Uber's attempt to limit how working time was defined, so James, Yaseen and the other claimants will be now be entitled to a potentially significant pay-out, as will any driver who joins their case
Approx 40,000 drivers worked for Uber in 2016
Approx 40,000 drivers worked for Uber in 2016
The key paragraph from the judgement
Not too strong to say this will resonate around the world
Not too strong to say this will resonate around the world
Statement from Uber. It's arguing that this judgement only applies to the company as it was in 2016 (and it has undoubtedly changed a great deal since then). But at least on initial reading the verdict - which was unanimous - looked much broader
That last line tells the story
That last line tells the story
My reaction on Sky News earlier. More on the 2016 question in the second half https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1362705603160858624
Important caveat: right now this judgement only applies to the Uber drivers who brought the case and potentially others who bring follow-up claims. It will be up to Employment Tribunal to decide how the law is applied
The argument will go on. But this was a big moment
The argument will go on. But this was a big moment
I have to go do cover covid now, so here's a final note
You're going to see a lot of takes today saying this was security vs flexibility. It was not. It was about control
You're going to see a lot of takes today saying this was security vs flexibility. It was not. It was about control
The question at the heart of this case was whether Uber controlled its drivers. If it did, it had responsibilities for them. That's the law
The judges found that Uber exercised near total control. It controlled them so "they had little or no ability to improve their position"
The judges found that Uber exercised near total control. It controlled them so "they had little or no ability to improve their position"
Uber has changed since 2016, so that control is less strict than it was. But the judges pointed to features - the practice of rating, for example, or penalising drivers for low acceptance rates - that still hold today
You might say: how can Uber operate properly if it can't control its drivers? It's a good question. It may well be that they can't (at least not without charging much higher prices)
But that is the question at stake here
But that is the question at stake here
The flexibility vs security debate is important, but it's for policymakers, not judges and lawyers. Their challenge is to design a system that keeps the best of Uber while also protecting the drivers. That's what @RSAMatthew was trying to do with his report
This isn't new. That's been the challenge all along
You have to wonder what might have happened if the Cameron government had been less keen to encourage Uber and had considered the legal issues more carefully https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4347676/David-Cameron-s-chum-ocracy-links-Uber-bosses.html
You have to wonder what might have happened if the Cameron government had been less keen to encourage Uber and had considered the legal issues more carefully https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4347676/David-Cameron-s-chum-ocracy-links-Uber-bosses.html
But we will never know. Now it's up to the present government to decide what it wants (as well of course as Uber and its drivers)
If you get a chance, do read the judge's press statement. It's short, accessible and potentially very significant
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0029.html
/ ENDS
If you get a chance, do read the judge's press statement. It's short, accessible and potentially very significant
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0029.html
/ ENDS
To answer this: not quite. The drivers in the case can make an application. So can any driver working in 2016 (I'm told there are 1000s waiting in the wings) 1/2 https://twitter.com/WarrenHeal/status/1362706776509054976
There was an important secondary judgement which will make a big difference here
The judges rejected Uber's attempt to define working time narrowly as time on a trip, so the calculation will include waiting time, time to trip etc. That increases the potential payouts 2/2
The judges rejected Uber's attempt to define working time narrowly as time on a trip, so the calculation will include waiting time, time to trip etc. That increases the potential payouts 2/2
