The App Drivers & Couriers Union (ADCU), developed by Uber Aslam and Farrar applicants, is planning to fight Uber in the Supreme Court as it tries Confirm its business model in London, in a way that he says will undermine the Supreme Court decision and allow Uber to avoid multi-billion dollar tax.
It would be hard to believe that if Uber had won the Supreme Court case it would have never happened, says Matthew Taylor, Chief Executive of the Royal Society of the Arts and author of Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices. “Let’s be happy with it, but the fact is that if it weren’t for the work that the drivers did, as well as the agencies, we wouldn’t be here.”
One of the reasons Uber is making a deal could be a simple electronic issue, says Taylor. “Uber is a big company that cares about its reputation, and it works in the public eye. It’s possible that some companies will be forced to know what’s going on and that they have a good track record.”
At the moment the gig economy is stagnating in the face of repeated risks, says Susannah Streeter, chief financial analyst and market analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown. He predicts that there will be new statements, “not just for the sake of the people but for the many economic institutions with a strong focus on environmental protection, and the rights of workers in the forefront.”
But Uber’s partnership with GMB could jeopardize some of the necessary changes. ADCU promptly sent its opponents to engage with the company in the same way as GMB, saying that Uber’s definition of workers’ rights is a sticky one.
“Everywhere you look today, the tide of protectionist sentiment is flowing. It’s a huge obstacle for ADCU to reach the same level. For us, compliance with a few legal requirements should be the point of breaking any Uber agreement, “he said in a statement.
They said there were reasons to be “careful” about the deal. They cite concerns that drivers represented by GMB may receive “assistance” if they are fired from the platform. “We are confident that the whole process will be unanimous. “We will continue to protect our members and hold Uber accountable for unfair dismissal and any withdrawal permits,” he said.
“We communicate with Uber all the time,” Farrar says. “We have not requested a formal agreement or meeting to discuss it because we will not discuss with any employers any right to refer.”
But without government regulations, there is no compulsion for other companies to change their work ethic – it would be easy for them to change their employment contracts in an attempt to address the legal issues that Uber, Taylor says. They argue that instead of relying on the courts to do all the work, the government should make a report on the work.
In the five years since she wrote her first report on public service, Taylor says her attitudes have changed over job sharing to better reflect the state of the gig economy. Instead of having three official, active and independent positions, there should be only two: written or self-employed, affiliated with other countries in Europe and the US.
But the government has not implemented any ideas from its initial report, which it says reflects a “lack of urgency”. This, however, will change soon. “It simply came to our notice then [Supreme Court ruling] that it is not politically dangerous, to continue to do so [reform] in the meantime and that there will be no pressure on traders or depositors because all they are doing is making laws that the courts have already decided. ”