As far as I understand, the UK situation was a court ruling about that an earlier general law should apply for the particular situation of Uber drivers and the other companies are likely to ensure that their situation is different and try to still treat them as contractors.
On the other hand, this is the government explicitly passing a law stating that they are to be treated as employees, so at least technically it's different, and IMHO preferable - clear laws to state what rules apply for a very common specific case that affects very many people, instead of waiting years on court rulings and appeals for each company separately.
The delivery companies can adapt to the same rules as any other employer. Nothing special is needed, their workforce costs just turn out to be a bit more expensive than they hoped - so they can rise the prices, decrease profitability or get out of the business. If some business model relies on an assumption that they will get a "separate economy" with weaker worker protections than what the country has decided all workers should have, and can't function when that assumption turns out to be false, then, well, that's on the people who made that mistaken assumption, they can try to compete with delivery companies with full-time drivers under comparable rules for worker protection and compensation.
There's no unalienable right to have all your drivers as non-employee contractors or to have your business model preserved, however, workers do have a right for state protection (e.g. section 40 of Spanish constitution), so one could even argue that the state has a duty to ensure that the gig economy (at least the most company-friendly models of it) does not happen.
Interesting. So if I offer a gig - contract work with clear terms and limits - and you accept the gig often enough, bam! You’re my employee whether either of us wanted to or not. Not buying it.
Or rather, "gig contract" employment is no longer valid in delivery services without meeting the minimum requirements spelled out by the ruling / government / regulator (I am sure the same ruling can also be applied to other businesses, but this particular case was delivery services).
10 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 32.4 ms ] threadGermany, France, and Italy have larger populations than Spain (in the EU), so it’s important those countries encourage similar outcomes.
On the other hand, this is the government explicitly passing a law stating that they are to be treated as employees, so at least technically it's different, and IMHO preferable - clear laws to state what rules apply for a very common specific case that affects very many people, instead of waiting years on court rulings and appeals for each company separately.
There's no unalienable right to have all your drivers as non-employee contractors or to have your business model preserved, however, workers do have a right for state protection (e.g. section 40 of Spanish constitution), so one could even argue that the state has a duty to ensure that the gig economy (at least the most company-friendly models of it) does not happen.