Artwork

Content provided by NZME and Newstalk ZB. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by NZME and Newstalk ZB or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!

Mike's Minute: Uber decision could have a chilling effect

2:11
 
Share
 

Manage episode 436382649 series 2098285
Content provided by NZME and Newstalk ZB. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by NZME and Newstalk ZB or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.

The New Zealand Uber drivers have won their case in the Court of Appeal. It agrees with the Employment Court that Uber drivers should be employees, not contractors.

Other courts in other countries have broadly come down on the same lines.

But not in California. The other day, the court there agreed with the people. And the people had voted in a proposition that drivers should be contractors because that’s what drivers signed up to.

So you can ask, is democracy right? Or is a court right?

The court here said: the critical point is we think that while a driver is logged into the app, that driver has no opportunity to establish any business goodwill of their own.

I guess that’s true, but it makes no sense.

In a pure gig model, you get to choose. You choose to work, or you choose to not work. It's about flexibility. The moment you are an employee, yes you get leave, but you also lose some control. Despite what the court and the four drivers think, some people like flexibility and freedom.

The court said drivers couldn’t bargain with Uber. That, of course, is correct. But that’s the whole point of a gig deal. It's predicated on the idea that if the deal is so bad no one will work for them. And the counter to the no bargain and all the other lack of overarching rules and regulations, is it’s a simple take it or leave it.

If you find it too egregious, don’t take it. If you want a union, industrial action, pay agreements, time in lieu, and stop work meetings, be a teacher or nurse.

The tricky part now, apart from the fact Uber will take it to the Supreme Court, which they should, is that the government are reviewing Workplace Relations, and given its driven by ACT, I suspect it will be looking to free things up a bit and this court case and its decision may well be a victim of what eventually gets passed as law.

No, we don’t want seven-year-olds going down mines, hence we need protections. But it's not Victorian England, it's New Zealand 2024, and if you choose to be your own person, all power to you, and the courts can stay out of your life.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

  continue reading

5500 episodes

Artwork
iconShare
 
Manage episode 436382649 series 2098285
Content provided by NZME and Newstalk ZB. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by NZME and Newstalk ZB or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.

The New Zealand Uber drivers have won their case in the Court of Appeal. It agrees with the Employment Court that Uber drivers should be employees, not contractors.

Other courts in other countries have broadly come down on the same lines.

But not in California. The other day, the court there agreed with the people. And the people had voted in a proposition that drivers should be contractors because that’s what drivers signed up to.

So you can ask, is democracy right? Or is a court right?

The court here said: the critical point is we think that while a driver is logged into the app, that driver has no opportunity to establish any business goodwill of their own.

I guess that’s true, but it makes no sense.

In a pure gig model, you get to choose. You choose to work, or you choose to not work. It's about flexibility. The moment you are an employee, yes you get leave, but you also lose some control. Despite what the court and the four drivers think, some people like flexibility and freedom.

The court said drivers couldn’t bargain with Uber. That, of course, is correct. But that’s the whole point of a gig deal. It's predicated on the idea that if the deal is so bad no one will work for them. And the counter to the no bargain and all the other lack of overarching rules and regulations, is it’s a simple take it or leave it.

If you find it too egregious, don’t take it. If you want a union, industrial action, pay agreements, time in lieu, and stop work meetings, be a teacher or nurse.

The tricky part now, apart from the fact Uber will take it to the Supreme Court, which they should, is that the government are reviewing Workplace Relations, and given its driven by ACT, I suspect it will be looking to free things up a bit and this court case and its decision may well be a victim of what eventually gets passed as law.

No, we don’t want seven-year-olds going down mines, hence we need protections. But it's not Victorian England, it's New Zealand 2024, and if you choose to be your own person, all power to you, and the courts can stay out of your life.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

  continue reading

5500 episodes

Tous les épisodes

×
 
Loading …

Welcome to Player FM!

Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.

 

Quick Reference Guide