Thread by @RuwanSubasinghe

Some thoughts on #Uber's decision to implement *part* of the UK SC ruling and what this means in the wider context.

- The shift in language on employment rights vs flexibility is VERY significant even if Uber was careful to say this is 'unique' to the UK'...

1/

#gigeconomy

...Uber's position has always been about a trade-off between employment rights (even if limited under 'worker' status) & flexibility. This shift has implications beyond the UK.
- Will Uber use this play to campaign for IC+/3rd category elsewhere? That will prob not change.

2/

- 'Workers' are entitled to certain employment rights under English law. True to form Uber was selective in which ones they *mentioned* in their PR/SEC filing. More concerning is if/how they will grant those rights w/out a union or proper enforcement

3/

tuc.org.uk/employment-sta…

- Of most concern was how they *chose* to ignore a key part of the ruling on 'working time' (moment from log-on to log-off). Uber's intention to 'break the law' is corporate citizenry at its worst. The enforcement agencies MUST step in. No company is above the law.

4/

- Uber unilaterally setting expenses formula when determining the minimum wage is problematic. This is why union recognition & a CBA are going to be CRITICAL - on this point, accessing other 'worker' rights like sick pay & OSH - all can be negotiated up from stat minimums.

5/

Credit to all involved in the litigation, reg battles, campaigning, organising, etc. Imperative that Uber is not allowed to only partially respect the law. We must hold them to account. Let's also recognise how significant this is - not just for the UK. A turning point.

6/6