Why Uber’s supreme court battle won’t solve its drivers’ biggest problem
Driving precariously
Many taxi drivers are in a very precarious position in their work, as bothmy research teamandothers have shown. Uber controls fares, aiming to be significantly cheaper than its competitors, and takes a 25% commission, which limits drivers’ earnings per mile. Our research suggests that after purchasing, maintaining, and running their vehicle, some Uber drivers in England earn as little as £5 an hour.
Some of our industry participants suggested that Uber has contributed to a systematic oversupply of drivers by attempting to ensure a driver is available whenever required. Local private-hire competitors have adopted some of the American company’s practices, such as offering bookings via an app, although their relationship with drivers was described to us as less impersonal. Other international private-hire platforms likeOla,Bolt, andKaptenare also entering the British market.
We found indications that the increasingnumber of drivershas combined with low earnings to lead some private-hire drivers to illegally “ply for hire:” they pick up fares without a pre-booking, which invalidates their insurance. This increases competition for Hackney drivers, some of whom said they now work significantly longer hours to survive. Forcing Uber to guarantee an hourly minimum wage may help by removing its incentive to recruit so many drivers.
Beyond the immediate implications of the ruling, re-designating drivers as workers would send a message that operators share some responsibility for drivers’ wellbeing. This particularly matters during the pandemic: male taxi drivers and chauffeurs in England and Walesare among thosemost severely affected by COVID-19, dying at over three times the average rate.
Drivers werepermitted to workduring the lockdown and played an important rolein transportingkey workers and patients. Yet itwas leftto local authorities and operators to set any rules around drivers and passengers wearingpersonal protective equipment.
Requirements for wearing masks on public transportdo not applyto private hire cars or Hackneys in England, unlike in Scotland. Drivers can refuse passengers without masks, but risk receiving a poor app rating or complaints to the operator, jeopardizing future work.
Due to their self-employed status, drivers only became entitled to government financial support from June, several months after employees. Even then, therehave been suggestionsthat many stilldon’t qualify– for example, if they derive less than half their income from self-employment or became self-employed after April 6.
The only institutions that acknowledge responsibility for drivers’ welfare are their trade unions, associations, and cooperatives. Significantly, the legal challenge to Uber involves several trade unions, rather than being led by parliament, councils, or operators.
Beyond the supreme court
Even if the supreme court rules in favor of workers – the decision is due in a few weeks – other factors that make drivers’ lives precarious still need to be addressed. Uber is facing a separatenew actionover its algorithm, with drivers complaining that there is little transparency about how it collects data about their work and uses it for things like allocating jobs.
Legislation governing the sector is alsowidely regardedas outdated, since it long pre-dates the Uber era, and isslowly being reformed. The sector wasderegulated in 2015to allow private-hire drivers registered in one local authority to operate anywhere in England and Wales. Our research suggests this has contributed to the over-supply of drivers in some areas since they can obtain a cheaper license with fewer restrictions from another local authority and use it to work anywhere.
This has encouraged divisions among drivers and made it more complicated for local authorities to enforce their taxi rules since they have to liaise with the local authority that issued the license. This could be addressed by changing the law to limit private-hire drivers to the licensing local authority. If local authorities could also cap the number of licensed private-hire vehicles in their area, as isalready the casein Scotland, this could make a big difference to the over-supply.
Such measures carry risks, however. Some of our research participants suggested that working as a private-hire driver was the last resort for some people, so any licensing restrictions would need combined with creating alternative work opportunities and support to help people change careers.
Finally, thelegislationimposesconditions aimedat protecting passengers’ safety and welfare, and this could be extended to include drivers’ welfare. For example, it could enable them to complain officially over unfair treatment as part of their licensing conditions. Indeed, if drivers are overworked, underpaid, and stressed, this hasclear negative implicationsfor passengers, so this is really part of protecting their welfare too.
This article is republished fromThe ConversationbyTom Vickers, Senior Lecturer in Sociology,Nottingham Trent Universityunder a Creative Commons license. Read theoriginal article.
SHIFT is brought to you by Polestar. It’s time to accelerate the shift to sustainable mobility. That is why Polestar combines electric driving with cutting-edge design and thrilling performance.Find out how.
Story byThe Conversation
An independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists.An independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists.
Get the TNW newsletter
Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.
