the recent ruling on the appeal by Uber (Re: Uber drivers are workers not self-employed) has concequences for external transport managers.
I don’t see how, but I’d be interested to read a detailed explanation of why you think this is the case.
I’m not (currently) working as an external TM, but one of my colleagues is on three O licences, these companies pay the the company we be both work for, and my friend’s remuneration comes via our company. He’s definitely an employee of our company but not of the three companies whose I licences he’s on.
One aspect they look at when determining if you should be employed is control over the work you do, when you do it.
I do my TM when I choose, I do it in the way I choose, they do not tell me what to do or when such that there is no control.
Sent from my BV9900Pro using Tapatalk
Thanks for the comments. Worth checking the “employment aggreement” and the “effective and continuous control”
Interesting concept. Just looking at a media update on the case, what are presumably some of the key questions were
Uber set the rates - ETM’s negotiate and agree a rate
Uber decides which jobs you do - ETM’s decide whether to accept the client
Uber prescribe the route (work done) - ETM’s role if agreed upon by discussion and agreement
Uber uses a discipline system - ETM’s well, this is the interesting bit, apart from being dismissed, are ETMs subject of the client’s disciplinary system?
Overall and even trying to make it work into being an employee, I can’t see the Uber case impacting the ETMs unless its to go through the process with the operator and document why they are or are not an employee so both sides know and agree where they stand.