Cable Forum - Uber licence revoked

Page 5 of 8

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Uber licence revoked (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33705423)

papa smurf

19-02-2021 13:33

Re: Uber licence revoked

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36071255)

Dude ... just accept you’re wrong. The Supreme Court is the last word on what the law means. It has looked at how Uber operates and says British law means Uber is the drivers’ employer. You can repeat your opinion until you’re blue in the face but that’s all it is - an opinion. And now it’s an opinion without any basis in fact, because the Supreme Court has made findings of fact.

The only way for Uber to *not* be their drivers’ employer in the UK is for Parliament to change the law.

They could fold the company then no one is employed, then re-employ under new contracts that are more favourable to uber ,i would imagine there is a way around this without breaking the court ruling.

nomadking

19-02-2021 13:39

Re: Uber licence revoked

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36071255)

Dude ... just accept you’re wrong. The Supreme Court is the last word on what the law means. It has looked at how Uber operates and says British law means Uber is the drivers’ employer. You can repeat your opinion until you’re blue in the face but that’s all it is - an opinion. And now it’s an opinion without any basis in fact, because the Supreme Court has made findings of fact.

The only way for Uber to *not* be their drivers’ employer in the UK is for Parliament to change the law.

1) I merely stated undeniable facts. You can't argue for a case X using reasons A, B, etc when those same reasons also apply elsewhere. I can well imagine that is a basic legal principle.
2) What "law" created them as employees in the first place. There wasn't one.

No doubt the drivers will be whining about what is to come. They won't able to work anywhere else at the time. They will have to be available throughout those fixed hours, not just when they feel like it or are not doing other work.

Hugh	19-02-2021 14:04

Re: Uber licence revoked

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36071257)

[/B]

They could fold the company then no one is employed, then re-employ under new contracts that are more favourable to uber ,i would imagine there is a way around this without breaking the court ruling.

Quote:

This is because the repercussions for Uber of this decision potentially extend beyond actually treating their workers properly.

Because Uber has been MASSIVELY avoiding paying UK tax for years.

Uber processes payments in Holland. Lots of tech firms do this to dodge UK and other countries' tax.

When you book an Uber, you are paying their Dutch subsidiary, but being driven around by one of their UK ones.

Beyond this (remember I mentioned tax) they have also not been paying VAT. That's one reason they get to undercut the prices of everyone else.

They do this by claiming that EVERY Uber driver is a tiny contracting cab firm. Who all then magically fall under the VAT threshold.

That's why this ruling has potentially larger repercussions. Because if they have employees, that very much reopens the debate about Uber THEMSELVES being the cab firm.

Which means they're then liable for VAT.

About £5billion of it, and counting.

---------- Post added at 14:04 ---------- Previous post was at 13:55 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36071259)

1) I merely stated undeniable facts. You can't argue for a case X using reasons A, B, etc when those same reasons also apply elsewhere. I can well imagine that is a basic legal principle.
2) What "law" created them as employees in the first place. There wasn't one.

No doubt the drivers will be whining about what is to come. They won't able to work anywhere else at the time. They will have to be available throughout those fixed hours, not just when they feel like it or are not doing other work.

The Supreme Court beg to differ.

TheDaddy

19-02-2021 14:15

Re: Uber licence revoked

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36071261)

the point was that Uber were saying they weren’t employed by Uber.

This gives a good explanation

https://www.londonreconnections.com/...-uber-not-app/

He’s updated it today (@garius)

https://twitter.com/garius/status/13...006006274?s=21

---------- Post added at 14:04 ---------- Previous post was at 13:55 ----------

The Supreme Court beg to differ.

The massive tax avoidance amounts to over a billion quid

1andrew1

19-02-2021 14:40

Re: Uber licence revoked

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36071259)

1) I merely stated undeniable facts. You can't argue for a case X using reasons A, B, etc when those same reasons also apply elsewhere. I can well imagine that is a basic legal principle.
2) What "law" created them as employees in the first place. There wasn't one.

No doubt the drivers will be whining about what is to come. They won't able to work anywhere else at the time. They will have to be available throughout those fixed hours, not just when they feel like it or are not doing other work.

They law doesn't work around people imagining what it is. ;)

papa smurf

19-02-2021 14:44

Re: Uber licence revoked

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36071267)

They law doesn't work around people imagining what it is. ;)

The police seem to think it does, but that's for a different thread.

Chris

19-02-2021 15:43

Re: Uber licence revoked

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36071267)

They law doesn't work around people imagining what it is. ;)

Willy Wonka, Attorney at Law may beg to differ ...

OLD BOY

19-02-2021 19:47

Re: Uber licence revoked

Well, the law is above us all, I guess. I will just make the observation that once again, the consumer loses.

And so do those Uber ‘employees’ who valued the flexibility that their flexible hours contracts gave them.

jfman

19-02-2021 19:50

Re: Uber licence revoked

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36071301)

Absolute nonsense OB.

Uber weren’t innovating they were simply reducing their tax liability at the expense of employees rights. There’s no winners, there other than Uber shareholders. As long as the consumer is a British taxpayer this is a resounding victory.

I’m sure Uber can operate a flexitime system if they really want to.

OLD BOY

19-02-2021 19:53

Re: Uber licence revoked

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36071302)

Try telling that to the punters when they see the consequences of this judgement.

jfman

19-02-2021 19:56

Re: Uber licence revoked

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36071304)

Try telling that to the punters when they see the consequences of this judgement.

Shrug.

If you can’t afford to give employees rights and pay British taxes under capitalism your business deserves to die rather than have you there as a parasite driving down revenues for genuinely sustainable businesses and working conditions across the board.

OLD BOY

19-02-2021 23:53

Re: Uber licence revoked

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36071305)

Shrug.

I wouldn’t have expected anything else from you, jfman. A complete disregard for those people who have a brain and deliberately choose to earn their living on a flexible basis.

I don’t care what trade unions think. I prefer to listen to what those affected by their decisions think.

I know that is unthinkable to guys like you, who are irreversibly politically indoctrinated. So your reply is already anticipated. And by the way, I disagree. Response unnecessary. Good night.

jfman

20-02-2021 03:55

Re: Uber licence revoked

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36071322)

A complete disregard for businesses that’s fundamental innovation is to avoid taxes that fund public services in the United Kingdom.

That shifts the tax burden onto local people in local businesses.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by “guys like me”. Taxpayers? It’s hardly indoctrination to think that those generating profits in the UK should pay tax in the UK.

If a bakery opened in my town that’s fundamental “innovation” was to not pay tax while other bakeries closed down due to not being competitive on price that’s a net loss to local people and local businesses.

Your economic ignorance, as ever, shines through Old Boy. Conned by Silicon Valley snake oil salesmen.

RichardCoulter

20-02-2021 04:54

Re: Uber licence revoked

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36071322)

I wouldn’t have expected anything else from you, jfman. A complete disregard for those people who have a brain and deliberately choose to earn their living on a flexible basis.

I don’t care what trade unions think. I prefer to listen to what those affected by their decisions think.

I know that is unthinkable to guys like you, who are irreversibly politically indoctrinated. So your reply is already anticipated. And by the way, I disagree. Response unnecessary. Good night.

And you aren't?

Damien

20-02-2021 10:08

Re: Uber licence revoked

Serves Uber right. There is a massive Silicon Valley arrogance that laws and taxes apply to other people and not them. They use technologies to centralise as much of the profit as possible to only a few hands whilst destroying countless other companies in their wake. They undercut everyone because they are willing to operate at a loss to dominate the market, they avoid paying tax and they exploit people.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:36.

Page 5 of 8

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page