Gig economy on trial as Uber fights drivers' employee status
We're talking no annual leave, KiwiSaver (another blow with the latest government contribution reduction slashed to $251 from $521 a year), sick days, maternity or bereavement leave, minimum wage, breaks, and few options for recourse if you're unfairly given the boot.
Contracting can be a win-win for employers wanting to outsource the work without strings attached, but like any romantic 'situationship', power imbalances and lopsided cost-benefit splits can leave you out in the cold.
That's especially true for the four Uber drivers now fighting for employee status in the Supreme Court.
How did we get here?
The case dates back to a landmark Employment Court decision in 2022. The contractors, through unions E Tū and First Union, sought 'employee' status prescribed in the Employment Relations Act.
At the time, Chief Judge Christina Inglis considered the nature of the relationship, who called the shots, who profited, what both sides intended, and whether the drivers were genuinely seen as part of Uber's business.
Despite the unorthodox employment model, Chief Judge Inglis rejected Uber's claims that it merely facilitated rides, concluding the company '... creates, dictates, and manages the circumstances under which its business is carried out, and driver labour is deployed in order to grow that business'.
Same same, but different
Enter the Court of Appeal decision released last year, which also found in favour of the drivers, but disagreed with the Employment Court's emphasis on the workers' vulnerability.
Instead, it took the Supreme Court's Bryson v Three Foot Six approach. It compared the contractual terms with the reality on the ground, asking: How much control did Uber exercise? How integrated were the drivers into the business? Could they meaningfully operate on their own account?
First, the court found the Uber-directed contract was offered on a 'take it or leave it basis with no scope for negotiation'. Clauses designed to steer away from employee status were, in Justice Lowell Goddard's words, 'window dressing'.
In practice, Uber controlled almost everything: fares, terms, conditions, complaints and customer contact. Drivers could not negotiate prices or reject too many rides without being penalised, and they had no way to build goodwill of their own, the court found.
Sure, they provided their own cars and phones, picked their hours and wore mufti, but this did not outweigh Uber's control or how integral drivers were to the business. No drivers, no rides, no Uber.
Let a good thing lie
In my view, this was a win for the underdog, with the potential to open the door for all drivers and gig workers to ask whether they too, are entitled to minimum rights. Great for worker bees but not so great for business.
It's therefore no surprise we are now at the Supreme Court, where Uber has warned that the court risks rewriting the rules for 20% of the workforce, consequently increasing compliance costs.
Uber claims that the court should adhere to the contract and its underlying intentions. Yes, Uber sets quality standards and prices, but drivers also determine when and where to log in, which jobs to take, and cover costs.
Conversely, the drivers contend that the contract is the baseline; the law was never meant for fine print to mask the true nature of the daily grind. They argue that the real essence of the model depends on control and subordination, not genuine independence.
Where to from here?
As we wait with bated breath for the Supreme Court's decision, it may already be too late for contractors suffering under the weight of big business.
Enter the Government's Employment Relations Amendment Bill, introduced last month. The new 'gateway' test promises, in the words of Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden, to 'provide greater certainty for all parties and allow more innovative business models'.
Under the proposal, a worker will be excluded from the definition of 'employee' if all the conditions are met: the contract must specify independent contractor status, they can freely work for others, they are not required to work set times (or can subcontract), they can't be fired for turning down extra tasks, and they must have time to review the deal.
If the contract's signed, sealed and delivered, even a 'take it or leave it' deal might lock you out of your rights for good. And who said romance was dead?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
10 hours ago
- 1News
Murder victim Helen Gregory's eerie phone call the day before she was killed
"Not that I'm thinking of dying tomorrow or anything," said 79-year-old Helen Gregory, who would be killed in her home in the Wellington suburb of Khandallah the following day. The audio comes from a phone call to her bank, made on the evening of January 23, 2024. It was played to the High Court on Monday, where her daughter Julia DeLuney is charged with her murder. The trial is now in its fourth week. The court previously heard that DeLuney invested a large sum of money on her mother's behalf into cryptocurrency, which she had been trading in for years. In an email sent on January 22, two days before her mother's death, DeLuney told her mother her money had made a profit of more than $268,000 – "not a bad investment for six months", she wrote. ADVERTISEMENT She recommended they withdraw the profit, and leave the initial investment of $100,000 there to keep growing. DeLuney then told her mother she needed to pay $30,000 in exchange fees and tax liability to be able to withdraw the money. She said she could cover half, but needed her mother to pay the rest. The following morning, Gregory wrote back that she agreed it was a good idea to cash up. Julia DeLuney in the High Court (Source: DeLuney urged her not tell anyone about the profit. "Please please please don't show this to your friends, once people know that you've made some money they will change," she said. And in a later email: "Don't tell the bank about your crypto profits, they won't lend you a thing if you tell them that." On January 23, the day before her death, Gregory went to the bank and deposited $6000 cash into her daughter's account, according to written evidence from the bank assistant who served her. ADVERTISEMENT Later that day, she phoned up to take money out of her KiwiSaver. "We're pre-paying a funeral thing," she explained. "Not that I'm thinking of dying tomorrow or anything." This part of the recording was met by a collective intake of breath from the public gallery. But the Crown says DeLuney misrepresented her mother's money having made a profit. Attached to her initial email, DeLuney sent her mother a screenshot of her account's profit and loss for the past three months. But the screenshot was of someone else's earnings, the Crown says. Crown witness Detective Constable Tobias Weavers, who investigated DeLuney's crypto accounts, told the court today the screenshot matched a graph of a different user's account, publicly available on the leaderboard of crypto-trading platform WOO X. ADVERTISEMENT Crypto-currency expert Nicolas Turnbull told the court this afternoon the withdrawal fees were "totally false". "This is just a common tactic we see, especially overseas, where Kiwis get manipulated... especially older people... into paying these fees," he said. The Crown's case is that DeLuney attacked her mother and staged it to look like a fall, but the defence says, in the 90-minute window when she went to get help after the fall, someone else caused fatal injuries to her elderly mother. DeLuney cried quietly in the dock while her mother's voice played to the court. The trial continues, with only a handful of Crown witnesses to go.
Scoop
13 hours ago
- Scoop
A Radical Tax Plan To Avoid An Economic 'Car Crash'
Have you ever wished the tax you paid on your income was going into savings, rather than to the government? That's the idea behind a plan developed by former Finance Minister Sir Roger Douglas and University of Auckland economics professor Robert MacCulloch. They first developed the proposal in 2016 but have updated it for 2025. "Back in 2016, the original version said we're going to struggle with paying the welfare bills and there are going to be budgetary problems due to the aging population, from health to pension spending and we have to work out how to protect the welfare state so there are not cuts to those services," MacCulloch said. "At the time, Bill English had an economic advisory group that I used to go to in the Beehive and… he didn't have any interest whatsoever. I remember him saying, 'look that's for future governments to deal with and people will have to adapt'." But MacCulloch said the governments since then had done nothing to address the issue. Treasury and Inland Revenue have both raised questions in the past year about how the government will collect enough revenue to fund the increasing cost of NZ Super and healthcare. By 2060, 26 percent of New Zealanders will be over 65, up from 16 percent in 2021. MacCulloch and Sir Roger said that income tax on earnings up to $60,000 a year should instead be redirected into individual savings accounts to fund each person's healthcare pension and risk cover. That would replace much of the current public system with private provision. People who did not have enough in their individual accounts could still be helped by the public system, which would be funded on taxes collected on income over $60,000 a year. This would mean larger numbers of middle- and higher-income people paying for their themselves, while the system helped lower-income people. "It retains that wealth redistribution - so is not at all like the US system which leaves many low income people without proper healthcare. It's more like France where everyone is covered and everyone can choose whether they go public or private." MacCulloch said that would mean government costs were reduced, the quality of outcomes increased and the plight of low-income earners improved. He said too many low-income people had no savings in KiwiSaver. This model would help to address that. According to the model, an individual could save around $21,000 annually: $9450 into a health account, $7350 for superannuation, and $4200 for risk cover. A drop in corporate taxes would help fund employer contributions. "Our savings-not-taxation reform offers scope for efficiency gains in healthcare. It does so by opening up choice for individuals," MacCulloch said. "Rather than the government dictating where to go, people can choose their preferred public or private supplier." They would keep the pension but raise the age of eligibility to 70 over a 20-year period. Subsidies and interest-free loans for tertiary students would be means tested. They would scrap grants to the movie industry, winter energy subsidies to wealthy households, favourable tax treatment for owners of rental housing, and allowances to sectors such as forestry, fishing, and bloodstock. The money saved from these changes would be directed towards helping low earners build savings and cover the welfare needs of those who are chronically unwell. "Perhaps more than any other feature of our reform, it's the 'miracle of compound interest' that governments like New Zealand's are not taking proper advantage of," MacCulloch said. "If we can do this, it'll help our financial situation." He said the problem the government now had was that it was not set to return to surplus in any meaningful way. "What the government calls a return to surplus is a projection [of] a tiny surplus in 2029 and then [the deficit] blows out again with health and pension spending." He said many countries around the world were having to make changes because of similar pressures. But he said there was still limited political interest. "What I can tell you is by not going down this road, what they're not telling you is a slow motion car crash crisis is enveloping New Zealand and it's not my job to save the country with this. "I did the proposal. They have no interest. I've given up on them. But you know what? Without doing something like this, they're gradually descending into a situation where our entire health system is going to become run down." He said New Zealand had missed a chance to require compulsory retirement savings. "The average KiwiSaver balance is $30,000. A mandatory retirement scheme was set up by Keating around 2000 in Australia and the average balance in the Aussie system scheme is $300,000." He said the power of compound interest meant that large balances grew much faster, which meant New Zealand was being left increasingly behind. But his plan would allow New Zealanders to take advantage of that. Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the Government was not considering changes to the tax system of the sort proposed by Sir Roger and MacCulloch.
Otago Daily Times
15 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Murder victim's eerie message played in court
By Kate Green of RNZ "Not that I'm thinking of dying tomorrow or anything," said 79-year-old Helen Gregory, who would be killed in her home in the Wellington suburb of Khandallah the following day. The audio comes from a phone call to her bank, made on the evening of 23 January 2024. It was played to the High Court on Monday, where her daughter Julia DeLuney is charged with her murder. The trial is now in its fourth week. The court previously heard that DeLuney invested a large sum of money on her mother's behalf into crypto currency, which she had been trading in for years. In an email sent on 22 January - two days before her mother's death - DeLuney told her mother her money had made a profit of more than $268,000 - "not a bad investment for six months", she wrote. She recommended they withdraw the profit, and leave the initial investment of $100,000 there to keep growing. DeLuney then told her mother she needed to pay $30,000 in exchange fees and tax liability to be able to withdraw the money. She said she could cover half, but needed her mother to pay the rest. The following morning, Gregory wrote back that she agreed it was a good idea to cash up. DeLuney urged her not tell anyone about the profit. "Please please please don't show this to your friends, once people know that you've made some money they will change," she said. And in a later email: "Don't tell the bank about your crypto profits, they won't lend you a thing if you tell them that." On 23 January - the day before her death - Gregory went to the bank and deposited $6000 cash into her daughter's account, according to written evidence from the bank assistant who served her. Later that day, she phoned up to take money out of her Kiwisaver. "We're pre-paying a funeral thing," she explained. "Not that I'm thinking of dying tomorrow or anything." This part of the recording was met by a collective intake of breath from the public gallery. But the Crown says DeLuney misrepresented her mother's money having made a profit. Attached to her initial email, DeLuney sent her mother a screenshot of her account's profit and loss for the past three months. But the screenshot was of someone else's earnings, the Crown says. Crown witness Detective Constable Tobias Weavers, who investigated DeLuney's crypto accounts, told the court on Monday the screenshot matched a graph of a different user's account, publicly available on the leaderboard of crypto-trading platform WOO X. The Crown's case is that DeLuney attacked her mother and staged it to look like a fall, but the defence says, in the 90-minute window when she went to get help after the fall, someone else caused fatal injuries to her elderly mother. DeLuney cried quietly in the dock while her mother's voice played to the court. The trial continues, with only a handful of Crown witnesses to go.
