The BBC has the story on its web site – see link above
As a trade unionist and indeed as a Liberal I welcome this Employment Tribunal result.
There is a trend these days for companies to require those who do work for them to treat themselves as self employed. The question is why do that? Is it in the interests of the person doing the work, or is it to reduce employment costs and responsibilities? But if I understand this particular case properly then the requirement is not even full self employment rather a restrictive version of it.
A quote from the BBC web article – The ruling accused Uber of “resorting in its documentation to fictions, twisted language and even brand new terminology”, adding: “The notion that Uber in London is a mosaic of 30,000 small businesses linked by a common ‘platform’ is to our mind faintly ridiculous.”
The BBC has the story on its web site
Readers of this blog site may have twigged that the editor has some dyslexia type issues (words missing, letters in the wrong order etc.) so I am pleased to see this employment tribunal case being won.
I am of a generation where dyslexia was not really picked up by schools like it is today so it does beggar belief that a major employer has fallen foul of not making reasonable adjustments for it.
And here’s the latest on this sorry saga. What is it with Labour councillors, don’t they get it? It’s public money that has been used to pay the bill, money that should, in my humble opinion, have come from either Joe Anderson and/or his trade union. Have you ever heard of a new employer paying the legal fees of an employee associated with a dispute the new employee had with their previous employer?
And we are yet to hear why Joe’s trade union did not pay the legal fees. Surely he must have been a trade union member?
The echo has the latest in this saga – see link above.
It’s pushing it for Liverpool City Council to pay the bill for Joe’s employment tribunal never mind asking national tax payers to chip in. This tribunal and the costs of it should have been shouldered by Joe and his trade union in my opinion.
The Liverpool Echo has the story – see link above
As a former trade union officer it is clear to me that Joe’s trade union should have shouldered the burden of fighting any tribunal case. What on earth has it to do with his present employer the City of Liverpool? Did his union decline to fight the case? If so why? This is what my fellow Lib Dem Councillor Richard Kemp thinks:-
Liverpool City Lib Dem leader Cllr Richard Kemp has reacted angrily and says Mayor Anderson should pay the money back.
He said: “This is an absolute scandal. There is absolutely no justification in using council money to satisfy a private problem of an individual politician. Even if there was, the figures don’t add up. The dispute was about £4,000 per year. It would take 22 years to get the money back even if Anderson had won.
“If I asked every single elector in Liverpool what the £89,000 should be spent on, not one would say the Mayor’s private legal fees. This would pay for a year for 18 of the lollipop ladies that the council has laid off or moderate care costs for 20 elderly people at a time when our social services are being eviscerated by government cuts.
“Mayor Anderson should now do the decent thing and pay the money back.”