wrote in message
...
In article , (tim...)
wrote:


The evidence that the drivers are like employees looked pretty formidable
to
me. They have almost no discretion over their work for a start, unlike
taxi
drivers.

Penalising drivers for not accepting offers is a pretty dumb thing for Uber
to do (it's not clear to me why the MO requires it [1])

but the rest all seems pretty normal to me

There are plenty of SE people subbing for companies with a national brand
name to uphold (think window fitters, for example) where it seems reasonable
for the major to dictate the presentational details of "how" the job is
done, once the subbie has accepted the job. The reputation of the brand has
an interest in that.

I can't see that that distracts from the genuine SE nature of the contract.

tim

[1] I can think of a few possibilities, but have no knowledge as to if they
are applicable

In message , at 11:07:20 on Sun, 30 Oct
2016, tim... remarked:

There are plenty of SE people subbing for companies with a national
brand name to uphold (think window fitters, for example) where it seems
reasonable for the major to dictate the presentational details of "how"
the job is done, once the subbie has accepted the job. The reputation
of the brand has an interest in that.

If your brand is commonly known as Carpet-Wrong, what do you have to
protect?
--
Roland Perry

On 2016-10-30 08:47:16 +0000, Roland Perry said:

Does that mean I have to give my self-employed window cleaner some
holiday pay if he asks (on top of the monthly fee)?

No, as he has to arrange that for himself.

The issue with self-employment is not with someone who very clearly is
running a sole-trader business like window cleaners often do. They
clearly have multiple customers, and clearly control their own business
- they have the absolute discretion, for instance, to take or not take
a given booking.

It gets cloudier when "self employed" people have only one customer,
e.g. many IT consultants, or when the "employer" like Uber is in
tighter control of when they work.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2016-10-30 09:50:42 +0000, Roland Perry said:

my daughter did a day's work being a marshal at an open day, and the
Uni insisted on putting her on PAYE.

That will simply be their policy.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2016-10-30 11:07:20 +0000, tim... said:

Penalising drivers for not accepting offers is a pretty dumb thing for
Uber to do (it's not clear to me why the MO requires it [1])

Quite. I never knew they did, and it seems very stupid to me. I
thought the idea with Uber was that you work when you want, and if not
enough people are working to serve the demand you simply encourage more
onto the road by upping the price (hence surge pricing).

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On 2016-10-30 11:07:20 +0000, tim... said:

Penalising drivers for not accepting offers is a pretty dumb thing for
Uber to do (it's not clear to me why the MO requires it [1])

Quite. I never knew they did, and it seems very stupid to me. I thought
the idea with Uber was that you work when you want, and if not enough
people are working to serve the demand you simply encourage more onto the
road by upping the price (hence surge pricing).

Maybe they're 'leaning' on their drivers in order to get a minimum level of
service up and running?

Uber launched in Brighton and Hove on Friday: when I looked for a car home
from the statiuon on Friday the app said 'No cars available', and I have
just got the same message now (13:10 on Sunday) at home in central Brighton.

--
DAS

On 30/10/2016 12:40, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2016-10-30 09:50:42 +0000, Roland Perry said:

my daughter did a day's work being a marshal at an open day, and the
Uni insisted on putting her on PAYE.

That will simply be their policy.


I'm not sure they had any choice under RTI. The P38 procedure was
abolished. I thought that just left certain harvest casuals and casual
beaters capable of being paid without PAYE if the employer has a PAYE
scheme.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In message , at
14:37:14 on Sun, 30 Oct 2016, Robin remarked:

my daughter did a day's work being a marshal at an open day, and the
Uni insisted on putting her on PAYE.

That will simply be their policy.

I'm not sure they had any choice under RTI. The P38 procedure was
abolished. I thought that just left certain harvest casuals and casual
beaters capable of being paid without PAYE if the employer has a PAYE
scheme.

And their once-a-year window cleaners... how are they paid?
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:37:14
on Sun, 30 Oct 2016, Robin remarked:

my daughter did a day's work being a marshal at an open day, and the
Uni insisted on putting her on PAYE.

That will simply be their policy.

I'm not sure they had any choice under RTI. The P38 procedure was
abolished. I thought that just left certain harvest casuals and casual
beaters capable of being paid without PAYE if the employer has a PAYE
scheme.

And their once-a-year window cleaners... how are they paid?

on a commercial contract

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:07:20 on Sun, 30 Oct 2016,
tim... remarked:

There are plenty of SE people subbing for companies with a national brand
name to uphold (think window fitters, for example) where it seems
reasonable for the major to dictate the presentational details of "how"
the job is done, once the subbie has accepted the job. The reputation of
the brand has an interest in that.

If your brand is commonly known as Carpet-Wrong, what do you have to
protect?

just because you can find one example doesn't mean that it's the norm

tim