[ad_1]
The App Drivers & Couriers Alliance (ADCU), formed by the original Uber claimants Aslam and Farrar, also plans to fight Uber in the High Court because it tried To verify its business model in London, They claimed that the move would damage the Supreme Court’s decision and enable Uber to avoid billions of pounds in tax bills.
Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the Royal Society of Arts and author of the Taylor Review of Modern Work Practices, said it is hard to believe that if Uber wins the Supreme Court case, the agreement will not be reached at all. “Let us be happy about this, but the reality is that we would not have been there if it weren’t for the work done by the drivers and the union.”
Taylor said that part of Uber’s motivation for the deal may be a simple matter of optics. “Uber is a big company that cares about its reputation and operates under the eyes of the public. It is possible that other companies that are also concerned about their reputation and have a high reputation for doing things will face increasing pressure.”
Susannah Streeter, senior investment and market analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, said that for now, the performance economic base has largely gained a foothold and avoided repeated attacks. She predicts that a new situation will emerge, “not only because of public opinion, but also because more and more institutional investors are focusing more on environmental, social and governance issues, and workers’ rights are getting more and more attention. .”
But the agreement between Uber and GMB may distract further changes needed. ADCU quickly raised objections and contacted the company in a similar way to GMB, on the grounds that Uber took the interpretation of workers’ rights as the main sticking point.
Overall, this is a step in the right direction, but there are major obstacles to the way ADCU reaches a similar agreement. For us, compliance with the minimum legal requirements should be the starting point for any union agreement with Uber,” they said in a statement.
They said there are reasons to “be cautious” about the agreement. They mentioned their concern that if the drivers represented by the GMB were fired from the platform, they might receive “preferential treatment.” “We believe that any such arrangement is illegal. We will continue to defend our members and hold Uber responsible for all unfair dismissals and any unfavorable licensing actions that result from them.”
“We have been communicating with Uber,” Farrar said. “We have never asked for recognition of the agreement, nor even a meeting to discuss the recognition of the agreement, because we will not negotiate statutory rights with any employer.”
Taylor said, but without government legislation, not only is there no pressure from other companies to change employee status-they can easily adjust work contracts to circumvent the same legal challenges as Uber. He believes that the government does not have to rely on the courts to complete all the work, but needs to produce its employment bill.
In the five years since he wrote the original report on government work practices, Taylor said that his views on the classification of employment status have changed to better reflect the reality of today’s gig economy. Compared with other countries/regions in Europe and the United States, the status of employees, workers and self-employed contractors should not only be three: employed or self-employed.
But the government has not yet implemented any of the recommendations in its original report, which he said is worrying “lack of urgency.” However, this may change soon. “There is a feeling that the court has already done this. [Supreme Court ruling] The political danger is reduced and they can continue to do so [reform] Now, entrepreneurs or investors will not retreat, because all they do is legalize what the court has decided. “
[ad_2]
Source link
