I am talking about the uber ruling. Hi and welcome to another edition of FYV.
I have been meaning to give our verdict on the recent ruling which see's the so called tech company Uber is in beach of employment law. The ruling states that Uber drivers are workers for the company and as such should receive holiday pay, paid rest breaks and the national minimum wage.
The GMB union described the decision as a "monumental victory" for some 40,000 drivers in England and Wales.
Uber said it would appeal against the ruling that it had acted unlawfully.
The San Francisco-based company had argued that its drivers were not employees but self-employed contractors.
The ruling accused Uber of "resorting in its documentation to fictions, twisted language and even brand new terminology", adding: "The notion that Uber in London is a mosaic of 30,000 small businesses linked by a common 'platform' is to our mind faintly ridiculous."
The TUC said the case had exposed the "dark side" of the UK's labour market.
General secretary Frances O'Grady said: "For many workers the gig economy is a rigged economy, where bosses can get out of paying the minimum wage and providing basics like paid holidays and rest breaks.
"What is happening at Uber is just the tip of the iceberg. Lots of people are now trapped in insecure jobs, with low pay and no voice at work. We need the government to get tough on sham self-employment."
Two drivers, James Farrar and Yaseen Aslam, argued that their actions were controlled by Uber, which meant they were employed by the firm - but that they did not have basic workers' rights. Nigel Mackay from law firm Leigh Day, which represented the two drivers, said: "This judgment acknowledges the central contribution that Uber's drivers have made to Uber's success by confirming that its drivers are not self-employed, but that they work for Uber as part of the company's business."This is a ground-breaking decision. It will impact not just on the thousands of Uber drivers working in this country, but on all workers in the so-called gig economy whose employers wrongly classify them as self-employed and deny them the rights to which they are entitled."
Similar cases are currently being brought against the courier firms CitySprint, eCourier and Excel as well as taxi firm Addison Lee. Each case will depend on the specific terms and arrangements between the individual and the company they work for. The trend of firms taking on self-employed workers who engage with work through apps may have to change radically, says Mr Bowery.Faced with similar employment tribunal claims, these firms may either have to change their business models, or pass the increased costs onto customers.
"When operated in the right way, many individuals, including some Uber drivers, highly value the benefits the gig economy can bring," adds Mr Bowery."These benefits do need to be balanced, however, against potential exploitation and we are unlikely to have seen the last of claims of this type as the gig economy continues to grow."
If you or you know someone who is working for one of these types of company weather its a courier company or a call centre, lets not put up with unfair treament any longer. Don't stay silent please,