The victory against Uber by drivers and the GMB is an important one, and not just for the many workers suffering the effects of bogus self-employment and poverty wages at the hands of big companies (Uber drivers triumph in rights battle, 29 October). The rise of Uber has affected the livelihoods of traditional taxi firms all over the country and the pressure to drive down fares has compromised passenger safety.
Hedge-funded Uber’s success started with the Tory-Liberal coalition government’s deregulation legislation, which received the royal assent 18 months ago. While the consultation around the bill was going on, I supported the taxi trade here in Medway and many other drivers’ associations and their trade unions who lobbied against deregulation because they knew it would drive down wages and weaken the powers of local councils to determine how many cabs were licensed, or to maintain safe working practices.
In spite of the overwhelming consensus in the consultation that the new measures were a bad thing and the achievement of one of the highest responses ever recorded in a legislation consultation, the bill slipped through, demonstrating that the consultation was a sham. Drivers have endured loss of earnings and security, while passengers found themselves driven to their destination by out-of-town strangers, reliant on a sat-nav instead of a local driver who knew the shortest routes. If drivers have behaved badly or their vehicles are in poor condition, the deregulated environment has made it much harder to trace the culprits or to award sanctions against them.
The latest court ruling gives me hope that things can change and will embolden other exploited workers to challenge their employers, but if we want a fair and safe taxi trade, then everyone has to play their part. The lure of a cheap fare costs our community much more than the few pounds we think we are saving by taking the Uber option.
Cllr Teresa Murray
Deputy leader of the Labour group on Medway council
• The landmark ruling on Uber taxi drivers’ employment rights shows that the development of the so-called gig economy has, to date, been at the expense of the workers. This is hardly a surprise. Alongside the growth in self-employed workers we have seen a rise in the number of freelancers starting co-ops in order to create more security for themselves – and they have been doing this precisely because employers and legislation do not do it for them.
Whether the judgment on Uber will set a precedent for other employers remains to be seen. What is clear is that we need to find a way for self-employed workers – from taxi drivers to music teachers – to create greater financial security and less uncertainty for themselves.
Ed Mayo
Secretary general, Co-operatives UK
• I applaud the court victory of the Uber drivers and hope it begins a trend to ensure that workers are not exploited by rapacious organisations through false self-employment, zero-hours contracts or employment via an agency. It should also be a reminder that as consumers ever seeking lower prices we are unwittingly complicit in this exploitation. Perhaps we all need to remember that our low price is another’s low pay, and be willing only to buy from companies that treat their workers fairly, even if we have to pay a little more.
Michael Miller
Sheffield
• The rise of self-employment in the UK predates apps and Uber. HMRC must play a leading role in stemming the tide of bogus self-employment forced on workers by firms who regard employment status as a matter of choice rather than tax law. HMRC has a simple to use online tool to determine employment status – the Employment Status Indicator. Why does HMRC not compel firms to use the ESI for each new worker taken on (with sanctions for wilfully answering the questions wrongly) and to record the results in their records?
Malcolm Thick
Harwell, Oxfordshire
• We should welcome the Uber decision, but it is too early to celebrate. While there may be no obvious legal grounds for a challenge, the fact that the implementation of the decision will have widespread implications will not be lost on the government and employers. They will not be supportive. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that discreet pressure, behind the scenes, will be brought to bear to ensure that the appeals tribunal reverses the findings. I hope I’m wrong, but I have little faith in the sanctity of the British legal system.
Tim Webb
London
• Following on from the Uber drivers’ employment status victory, the construction industry was also guilty of dubious practices. Persons seeking work on building sites were handed an officially-designed checklist designed to check their employed/self-employed status, and told to “just tick these boxes and sign it”. Such men carried out exactly the same jobs as directly employed men on the same site. Although their registration with HMRC was essential, the absence of holiday pay was a constant issue and subject to legal challenges from time to time.
Peter Green
Rotherham, South Yorkshire
• Is the Guardian anti-union? There was no mention of the GMB, which took the case against Uber, in your front page article, nothing until the end of the piece on page five. And no mention in the accompanying page 5 pieces by Aditya Chakrabortty and Miles Brignall. Without the GMB there would have been no case. Even the Daily Mail credited the GMB on their front page. Why not the Guardian?
Tom Wilson
Lewes, East Sussex
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
