Uber is rolling out new benefits for drivers working through its platform in Europe, including sick pay, paid parental and bereavement leave, and compensation for work-related injuries, the BBC reported this week:
The insurance and compensation package will be available to all Uber drivers and Uber Eats delivery couriers across Europe. However, unions have questioned whether the package is new. In April 2017, Uber announced illness and injury insurance cover for its drivers. Uber drivers who wanted to join the scheme were required to pay £2 a week. …
Uber will provide drivers with a range of insurance coverage and compensation resulting from accidents or injuries that occur while they are working, as well as protection for “major life events” that happen whether the driver is on a shift or not. … Drivers are not going to get the kind of benefits they would enjoy as employees but there will be a little something to help them deal with life’s ups and downs.
The announcement comes just a month before an appeals hearing in a London court regarding Transport for London’s decision last September to revoke Uber’s license to operate as a private car hire operator in the city, on the basis that its “approach and conduct demonstrate a lack of corporate responsibility.” Uber has been allowed to continue operating in London while it appeals the decision, as it is scheduled to do at Westminster Magistrates Court on June 25, the BBC notes.
The battle with Transport for London is just one of several Uber is fighting in the UK and continental Europe. Last November, the company lost an appeal against a ruling by a British employment tribunal that its drivers were misclassified as independent contractors and are in fact entitled to certain rights as employees, including paid leave, overtime, and a minimum wage. Uber contends that classifying its drivers as employees would fatally disturb its business model and prevent it from offering the flexibility in terms of work hours and location that most of its drivers consider a benefit. Critics contend that this is a false choice and that Uber could maintain that flexibility while offering drivers a fuller range of rights and protections. Uber is pursuing further appeals in that case.
Paul W P/Shutterstock.com
With less than a year to go before the March 2019 deadline for finalizing a deal for the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, three separate reports have come out in the past week highlighting continued anxiety among employers in key sectors about their ability to meet their labor needs in a post-Brexit environment.
First, Tech Nation 2018, the UK’s annual government report on the country’s tech sector, identified access to talent, cost of living, and Brexit as the main challenges cited by the tech community in the country’s key tech hubs of London and Cambridge. Mike Butcher at TechCrunch criticizes what he sees as the government’s attempt to downplay the elephant in the room, arguing that the report “has been heavily spun to de-emphasise the effects of Brexit on the UK tech industry”—which he says will be severe when considering the impact Brexit will have on British tech companies’ other major concerns:
In the rest of the country, access to talent was cited as the most common challenge – affecting 83% of the UK’s regional tech clusters. Access a funding was a top 3 challenge in 49% of clusters and bad transport links were also cited. Funding is clearly also Brexit-related, given that funding from the European Investment Fund has collapsed since the Brexit vote. The European Investment Bank has slashed deals with UK VCs and private equity groups by more than two-thirds, with no equivalent funding from the UK government in sight. …
However, you probably won’t get that impression from the way the report is being pitched to the media … Instead, the report is filled with heady statistics about the UK’s booming tech industry. The report also makes absolutely no mention of the effect of the UK leaving the EU’s Digital Single Market.
Another report, released on Monday by TheCityUK, an organization that promotes the UK as a global financial center, warns that losing access to European talent will have a harsh impact on the finance industry. That report, prepared in partnership with EY, urges the government to reform immigration policies to allow the sector to maintain access to a pan-European talent pool, arguing that hiring European talent after Brexit through the existing mechanisms for non-European immigrants will increase the City’s costs for hiring international staff by 300 percent. “Simply applying the current immigration system for non-European citizens to European citizens after Brexit will not work,” TheCityUK’s Chief Executive Miles Celic said in a statement carried by Reuters. In response to uncertainty over the future of UK immigration law, banks have already begun preparing to shift staff from London to other European financial centers like Frankfurt to handle their continental business.
The UK’s Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled last week in favor of a bicycle courier working for Addison Lee who sued claiming that the taxi and courier company had incorrectly classified him as a self-employed contractor rather than an employee, Jo Faragher reported at Personnel Today:
The Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB) represented Christopher Gascoigne, who first took the taxi and courier firm to an employment tribunal last August. … The tribunal heard that Gascoigne had to re-sign his contract every three months, terms of which included: “You agree that you are an independent contractor and that nothing in this agreement shall render you an employee, worker, agent or partner of Addison Lee and you shall not hold yourself out as such.”
In dismissing Addison Lee’s appeal against Gascoigne’s claim, the EAT referred to the fact that Gascoigne had claimed he could get into a “tricky situation” for not accepting a job, and that his location was often tightly controlled so he was well placed for future deliveries during the day.
Gascoigne’s successful suit is the latest in a series of decisions to come out of the tribunal system against gig economy companies with businesses built on the contractor model, beginning with a ruling for Uber drivers in 2016 and for another bike courier for CitySprint in January 2017. Uber lost its appeal of the 2016 ruling last November, though the company said it would appeal again to higher courts, including the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is currently hearing an appeal by Pimlico Plumbers, which had lost a case brought against them in which one of their former plumbers was deemed a worker (a classification in UK law with more rights than “contractors” but fewer than “employees”), not self-employed.
Last week, the UK Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned a lower tribunal’s ruling in favor of a father who sued for discrimination after being denied enhanced pay while taking shared parental leave, Jo Faragher reported at Personnel Today, but returned the case to the lower court to reconsider whether the father in question was a victim of indirect discrimination:
In the case of Hextall v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police, a male worker claimed that his employer had discriminated against him because of his sex as he was only entitled to receive statutory shared parental pay, when the employer paid enhanced maternity pay. …
Mrs Judge Slade ruled that the initial tribunal had erred in applying a direct discrimination comparator (as in a woman on maternity leave) to an indirect discrimination claim, so the latter will now be heard by an employment tribunal at a future date.
This case was similar to that of Ali v. Capita Customer Management, in which the Appeal Tribunal ruled last month that the plaintiff Mr. Ali had not been discriminated against when his employer, which offered enhanced maternity pay to new mothers, told him he was entitled to the statutory rate prescribed in the UK Shared Parental Leave law for his paternity leave beyond the first two weeks.
In that case, the higher tribunal said it was an error to treat Ali’s circumstances as directly comparable to those of a woman who had recently given birth, ruling that maternity leave and enhanced maternity pay have an additional purpose of supporting the “health and wellbeing of a woman in pregnancy, confinement and after recent childbirth,” which goes beyond the purpose of parental leave generally.
New data from the UK’s Office for National Statistics show that the number of people working on zero-hours contracts throughout the country had increased by about 100,000 last year, Jo Faragher reported at Personnel Today earlier this week:
ONS reported that in the year to November 2017, there were 1.8 million contracts that did not guarantee a minimum number of hours, compared to 1.7 million in the year to November 2016. However, in terms of labour market share, zero hours arrangements still made up 6% of all contracts.
These controversial contracts, which do not guarantee employees work in any given pay period but obligate them to be on call for shifts that may or may not be assigned to them, have been the subject of intensely negative press coverage and mounting regulatory scrutiny over the past two years. Ireland has moved to regulate them nearly out of existence, while a Scottish MP has introduced legislation to ban them in the UK. The ONS’s last report on zero-hours contracts, issued last September, found that they were on a steep decline.
So what gives? Fortunately, Faragher reports, the office’s latest data almost certainly doesn’t indicate a reversal of the trend:
Brian A Jackson/Shutterstock
The UK government will propose legislation next month that will require companies to publish the ratio between the compensation of their CEO and that of their median employee, the Financial Times reported on Sunday. The rule is expected to come as part of a package of corporate governance reforms meant to address inequality by reining in executive compensation practices widely seen as excessive, which will also require boards of directors to demonstrate that they have acted in the interests of their companies’ employees, customers, and other stakeholders, rather than just the interests of investors. Large companies will also be required to certify compliance with a corporate governance code.
The writing has been on the wall for UK companies for some time now. The government first announced plans to institute a pay ratio reporting requirement last August, as well as to “name and shame” companies whose investors object to their executive pay packages. Recently, several large British companies have faced drubbings from investors and the media over the millions of pounds in bonuses they paid out to their top executives this year
At the beginning of this year, a report from the CIPD and the High Pay Centre revealed that the average FTSE 100 CEO earned £3.45m last year, or 120 times the £28,758 earned by the average British worker. At an average hourly rate of £898 per hour, the top CEOs earned more than the average employee by the third working day of the year, which campaigners quickly dubbed “Fat Cat Thursday.”
The UK government has issued a series of policy proposals designed to bolster the rights of workers in the country, hinting at new legislation on how workers are classified as employees or contractors, new rights for agency workers, and updated minimum wage and living wage policies, Emily Burt reported at People Management last week:
The government said it would look to amend the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 to remove the opt-out for equal pay, preventing organisations from recruiting workers on extended agency contracts that keep them on low pay through the ‘Swedish derogation’ loophole for businesses recruiting through agencies. This followed a recent report into agency workers, published in March by the TUC, which found that six in 10 agency workers were employed for more than a year in the same role at the same workplace, driving pay levels down. …
The government responded to calls by MPs to bolster the position of precarious workers by exploring a pilot of a pay premium to the national minimum wage and national living wage for workers on non-contracted hours, assisted by the Low Pay Commission.
The proposals come less than a year after the Independent Review of Employment Practices in the Modern Economy, led by Matthew Taylor, a former advisor to Tony Blair, released its findings and recommendations on how regulators should handle the gig economy. In its proposals last week, the government adopted some of these recommendations and indicated that it was considering others: