It will be interesting to see how this works out legally, of course. But it makes sense that someone needs to pay the social security obligations pertaining to any making a livelihood through Uber.
Switzerland says Uber's an employer, sends social security bill
Switzerland is the latest country to decide that in spite of its protestations otherwise, Uber is an employer – at least in public liability terms. It's only a single case, but public liability insurer The Suva has decided that a driver is an Uber employee rather than an independent contractor. The Suva is responsible for …
COMMENTS
-
-
Friday 6th January 2017 08:58 GMT bpfh
I is confused
OK, I personally believe that once you sign up to Uber as a driver you are strung up to their terms and conditions that can be very restrictive, but shirley if you affiliate yourself with them as an independant, you have, at on a personal level, to pay state charges as an independant... that is after all their model...? No?
-
Friday 6th January 2017 09:06 GMT Pen-y-gors
Re: I is confused
Or, to put it another way, "Once you sign a contract with X as an employee you are strung up to their terms and conditions that can be very restrictive" - that's the point - if they're too restrictive then you ain't an independent contractor, no matter what the 'employer' tries to say.
And let's face it, independents tend to pay rather less in taxes than combined employer+employee - that's the loophole Uber are trying to wiggle through. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
-
-
Friday 6th January 2017 11:08 GMT Anonymous Coward
Been there
late '70's early '80's Europe was flooded with 'self employed' techs in the chemical and oil industries (and most likely in a lot of other places), a lot of them UK and Irish citizens, who didn't pay taxes in their country because they were 'abroad for longer than 6 months' and didn't pay it elsewhere because they were self employed and registered in another country than the one they were working in. Companies like MF Kent, Badger, John Brown (IIRC) employed them by the hundreds. Somewhere late 80's the taxman and social security woke up and hit them with very large back-tax bills.
They all went under. Many filed for bankruptcy. Some disappeared to less prohibitive climes. The contractors fled, or the ones that had built a life in their guest countries were left carrying the can.
I very much suspect we'll see something along those lines for Uber, AirBNB and all those 'service' companies in the not so far future.
-
-
Saturday 7th January 2017 01:47 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: Been there
"Companies like ...John Brown (IIRC) employed them by the hundreds."
Full disclosure. It wasn't me, I didn't do it.
-
Friday 6th January 2017 17:33 GMT wakero
There are many countries that know the concept of a virtual employer/employee relation:
If you are independent or a small company,. but have only 2-3 "customers", the tax authorities will assume you're an employer. This has been the case for all freelancers (typically IT people) since decennia in the Netherlands for example.
This makes sense and is only fair. And the same rules apply to Uber, of course.
-
-
Friday 24th February 2017 21:57 GMT katrinab
In the UK, the employer pays 13.8% of salary as NI contributions, employee pays 12%. If you are self-employed, you pay 9% of profit, after deduction of expenses.
In situations where expenses are allowable as a deduction for tax purposes for an employee, they are not allowable as a deduction for NI purposes.
-
-
-
Friday 6th January 2017 09:04 GMT Pen-y-gors
The Suva have a point
It's not that dissimilar to the old IR35 arguments that we had. Basically if you are told exactly what to do, where and when then you're an employee. For heaven's sake, one place I worked we had 'contractors' who had worked there full time for seven years and played for the company football team!!
If Uber simply set some minimum standards, and allowed drivers to bid for a job at a rate the driver offered, when they felt like doing a job, then they might get away with it. No wonder they're looking at autonomous cars! (Although what's the betting they attract a special tax levy - I seem to remember that in the early days of motor cars that employers paid a tax on chauffeurs)
-
Friday 6th January 2017 10:32 GMT casaloco
eh?
"If Uber simply set some minimum standards, and allowed drivers to bid for a job at a rate the driver offered, when they felt like doing a job, then they might get away with it" - isn't that effectively what Uber do... maybe I misunderstand... I thought the point was Uber set the rates based on demand and drivers chose to work when rates reach a level of interest? I though Uber drivers didn't have fixed hours, and could reject jobs if they wanted to? Has the way it works changed?
-
Friday 6th January 2017 14:01 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: eh?
"I though Uber drivers didn't have fixed hours, and could reject jobs if they wanted to?"
That's what they'd have you believe, but the tribunal in the UK proved pretty conclusively otherwise, including little facts like:
1) There is a formal disciplinary process routinely applied to drivers by Uber
2) Failing to clock up enough hours will lead to this process
3) Clocking on but not taking jobs will lead to this process
It's these three facts together with a bunch of others (e.g. Uber set the list of allowed vehicles, recruit through advertisement/interview/induction, set the route and ban alternatives, set the fare and ban negotiation of the fare) that damned Uber here in the UK. I would imagine it is set up exactly the same in other countries.
Paragraph 92 of the relevant judgement. It's a good read.
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/aslam-and-farrar-v-uber-reasons-20161028.pdf
-
-
Friday 24th February 2017 22:00 GMT katrinab
Re: eh?
Take Kabee for example. If you search for a cab via them, you will get a list of quotes from different local minicab companies, and you can pick the one you want. Kabee doesn't set the prices, the cab companies decide what they want to charge. Über however decide on a price and decide which driver to allocate the job to.
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Friday 6th January 2017 13:04 GMT bazza
Re: Switzerland is not worth it for Uber.
That said, self-driving cars are the future - but it might come as a surprise to Uber et al when Ford, Honda, et cetera, start running automated taxi services with their own fleets, rather than letting Uber do it.
Personally I doubt we'll ever get true fully autonomous full authority self driving cars, not with the roads as they are and the shared usage of them (bikes, horses, etc). Google are running away from the idea, Apple too, can't see anyone else pulling off a significant development.
I think the car manufacturers are indeed covering moves by Google, Uber etc. The difference is if they don't quite make it they'll still probably end up with something useful. Google, Uber won't - they've not got a foothold in making cars.
-
Friday 6th January 2017 16:54 GMT HamsterNet
Re: Switzerland is not worth it for Uber.
Humans should not be allowed to drive cars. We are all to reckless, to fallible and far far to slow to comprehend what's occurring.
Machines will drive for us and much more. Its just a matter of stating yes to both of these questions. 1) Will technology continue to advance at any rate? 2) Does cognition go beyond the human level?
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
-
Friday 6th January 2017 10:18 GMT Anonymous Coward
"Sharing Economy" compaines make money by...
not paying the same level of taxes that traditional companies pay. They leach from everyone and try to justify it by giving a small proportion back to their thithed workers and their end users.
If all companies stop paying taxes it's going to get awfully bumpy in Uber's non-taxis.
-
Friday 6th January 2017 10:37 GMT Anonymous Coward
I suspect Uber will lose this one
Swiss law is about the intent of law, not the letter so Uber is not going to get away with some clever rephrasing of existing law, and Switzerland has an increasing number of fine structures that are means tested (see, for instance, their drink driving penalties) so it may end up being rather painful for them.
There is, however, always the option of deciding not to operate in a country, but I suspect that the more legal cases they lose the more precedent they create for losing even more. Not that I think for one minute that such will prompt them to do the right thing, but it'll be interesting to watch.
-
Friday 6th January 2017 10:59 GMT Bob Rocket
Contractor or employee
If I can send a substitute driver on an Uber job then it is a contract, if not then it is employment.
If Uber thinks it is going to make money when autonomous vehicles become available then it is delusional.
The idea that we won't own our own vehicles is a ridiculous notion, car ownership will rocket.
There are four main reasons why people use public transport
unable/dislike to drive at all
unable/dislike to drive long distances
unable to park at destination
temporarily incapable of driving
Self driving cars solve for all four, no one uses public transport for fun.
Door to door commute times will be lower for autonomous vehicles versus public transport.
-
Friday 6th January 2017 16:59 GMT HamsterNet
Re: Contractor or employee
But why own your own autonomous car? When you can simply app one that will arrive fully charged, take you to your designation and then go off to another job.
If you do own your own Autonomous car, why not let Uber borrow it and make some money for you whilst you are not using it?
-
Friday 6th January 2017 19:02 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Contractor or employee
If you're willing to share a car with strangers who have ridden in it before you and pissed on the seats or left it smelling like someone died inside, then you should be more willing to use public transport. At least there's room to move away from people who smell or are doing unsavory things, and a better chance of someone doing something about it.
If the 'app you a car to appear' future arrives, it won't be Uber that does it. At least I sure hope not, because I refuse to do business with them out of principle.
-
-
Thursday 24th August 2017 13:01 GMT lukewarmdog
Re: Contractor or employee
There are other reasons besides "fun" that you can use public transport.
Those you provide are certainly not the four main reasons at all.
Cost is one issue, my annual bus pass is incredibly good value. If I'm in a different city I often just buy the 3/5/whatever travel pass that city has. At home my pass covers weekends so when I choose to go out somewhere, it just gets better and better value.
Environment is another one. I object pretty strongly to the number of cars driving around where I live so I bus. I could cycle and if there were less cars, maybe I will.
Convenience is another. Very often I'm going into a town/city centre. I can bus in, do my shopping, meet friends, go to the cinema.. all the things you can do in a shopping area basically.. then bus back. I also use the bus to commute to work/back, there's a bus stop outside my house and one outside work pretty much.
I'm not some kind of weird social introvert who is scared of public transport and the thought of having to sit next to someone.
I think once we get past the autonomous car and start looking at autonomous buses, we might be on to a winner. We don't need more cars no matter who isn't driving them.
-
Saturday 7th January 2017 15:56 GMT nematoad
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
"The UK recently made a similar decision, with its Employment Tribunal ruling that drivers are employees and entitled to the minimum wage, a ruling it said it would appeal."
Eh?
Do you mean to tell me that the government won a case and is so unhappy about it that it is going to appeal?
Surely you mean Uber is going to appeal?