Latest news with #UberDrivers
RNZ News
09-07-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
Uber court case: 'What we want is minimum entitlements'
The Supreme Court has been told that Uber's arguments against drivers being employees are "fairytales". Photo: AFP Uber driver's contracts were "repressive" and could be altered "at the stroke of a pen", lawyers for E Tū and First Union have told the Supreme Court in Wellington. Uber is appealing after losing a previous appeal against a landmark Employment Court decision in 2022, where four Uber drivers were granted workplace protection. This could give the drivers employee benefits such as leave entitlements, minimum wage and holiday pay. Counsel for the drivers Peter Cranney said they were seeking fundamental "human rights" in relation to the work they did for the company. "What we want out of it is minimum entitlements and we also want the right to unionise and to organise, because that's fundamental to human rights in any country such as ours and there's thousands of people that don't have it," Cranney said. Cranney told the court that Uber's arguments against drivers being employees were "Jack and the Beanstalk, fairy tales". He said courts overseas had ruled against the company's assertions of a contract between drivers and passengers - independent of Uber - and Uber's lack of control over drivers, and called them "fictional". "The passengers send a request to Uber and Uber doesn't say 'yes, I'll send a taxi', Uber sends a price and you accept it as the passenger. "It's nothing to do with the driver. The contract is formed at that point," Cranney said. Cranney said driver's pay and employment status could be instantly changed by the company "at the stroke of a pen". He said the contractual relationship between Uber and the drivers was "repressive" "It allows the engager [Uber] to do anything at all it wishes to do. It is a total surrender of all contractual power to Uber. "The driver has no control over the rider driver contract. It's not really a contract, it's a rule written by Uber. Uber controls the entire contractual relationship," Cranney said. Cranney highlighted an example in 2016 when the company unilaterally lowered fare prices in Auckland and Wellington by 20 percent - drastically altering the income drivers in the area were able to achieve. He went on to argue the company's points and level systems, which offered benefits to drivers who attained high levels of acceptance of jobs - at times dictated by the company - and who received low levels of complaints, constituted a degree of control greater than a traditional employer would exercise. "If you fall below 4.7 in your behaviour, through a system which they totally control... you're in big trouble. "You must have almost perfect behaviour or at least face the possibility of very serious consequences - if the car was smelly or wet or you said something out of kilter. But most importantly you must work these hours to get the points - after midnight and so on," Cranney said. He described the practise as an "intense form of control" and a "classic form of subordination". Yesterday counsel for Uber outlined their arguments behind the assertion drivers were not employees in the terms dictated by the Employment Relations Act (ERA). They said the Employment Court and the Court of Appeal had erred in their interpretation of the ERA in determining that drivers were employed to do work for hire or for reward while they were logged into the Uber app. They said drivers acted as independent providers of transportation services to "riders" and "eaters" with whom they entered into contracts using the app provided by the Uber companies. Uber's lawyers argued drivers had the freedom to work when and where they wanted using the app, and were also free to engage in other employment opportunities as a result of the arrangement. Counsel for the company told the Supreme Court drivers were fully aware of the contractual relationship between themselves and the company when they signed up to Uber. This morning lawyer Paul Wicks told the court drivers were in control of important business decisions in a manner not typical of an employee situation. "They decided whether, when, where and for how long to drive or whether to do other work instead. "They also had the ability to - and did - make business decisions around assets, business costs and organise their tax affairs. "Uber accepts that drivers did not have input into the structure but the drivers choose to accept and use it. They entered into a service agreement with knowledge of what the deal was and acted accordingly," Wicks said. The hearing is continuing this afternoon. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
South China Morning Post
08-07-2025
- Automotive
- South China Morning Post
80% of Hong Kong Uber drivers worried about quota and fees under new rules
Nearly 80 per cent of 4,800 Uber drivers polled in Hong Kong are worried that a strict quota or high licensing fees under coming new regulations for ride-hailing platforms will threaten their livelihoods. The results of the poll conducted by platform operator Uber in June were revealed on Tuesday, just days after Secretary for Transport and Logistics Mable Chan announced that a highly anticipated regulatory proposal would be submitted to the legislature before the end of the month Currently, it is illegal in Hong Kong for private vehicle drivers to accept paid customers without a hire-car permit, but ride-hailing platforms such as Uber, Tada, Amap, and Didi Chuxing operate such services without regulation. Amap is operated by Alibaba Group Holding, which also owns the South China Morning Post. These platforms, however, have faced objections from the city's taxi drivers, who have raised concerns about stiff competition and loss of earnings amid what they consider an unfair system. In January, the government said it planned to legalise ride-hailing platforms and open up the sector to all players, with a framework expected to be presented to lawmakers this year. 'Drivers are largely open to reasonable regulations that seek to enhance safety and professionalism. Sixty per cent of drivers think the most reasonable regulatory aspects are 'regular vehicle inspections' and 'obtaining ride-sharing driver or vehicle licenses',' Uber said in a statement.
RNZ News
08-07-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
Uber in Supreme Court over drivers employment rights
employment policy 21 minutes ago Multi-million dollar rideshare company Uber took it's fight over drivers employment rights to the Supreme court today. The Court is deciding whether it's drivers should be considered employees. This could give the drivers benefits such as leave entitlements, minimum wage and holiday pay. Bill Hickman reports.
RNZ News
08-07-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
Supreme Court hears Uber's case against employment rights
Multi-million dollar ride-share company Uber is arguing its drivers aren't employees at the Supreme Court in Wellington, as the fight over driver's employment rights came to the highest court in the country. It was Uber's second appeal against an Employment Court decision in 2022 to grant four Uber drivers workplace protection. The Court is to decide whether its drivers should be considered employees. A decision in favour of the drivers could lead to them claiming benefits such as leave entitlements, minimum wage and holiday pay. Uber is arguing drivers were independent providers of transportation services to "riders" and "eaters" with whom they entered into contracts using the app provided by the Uber companies. On Tuesday, counsel for Uber, Paul Wicks, said drivers were fully aware they were not signing up to a traditional employment relationship. Wicks told the court Uber did not dictate the hours that drivers worked, instead the app provided the drivers the service of linking them to the customers. "Uber offers the opportunity for drivers to earn an income anytime, anywhere. The offer is on the table for any fit and proper person with a driver's license, a car and a smartphone. You can use the Uber platform if and when you want to, in the same way as riders do," Wicks said. On Tuesday morning, the judiciary panel queried Uber's characterisation of payments made towards drivers - pointing out an illustration provided by the company appeared to show money flowing directly to the drivers from passengers. Uber's lawyer Nathaniel Walker conceded the funds were held by the company and paid out following the deduction of a service fee. He said the illustration actually depicted the effective contractual arrangement between riders, drivers and the company. "If individual drivers were responsible for collecting the fare into their own bank account, then remitting a services fee to [Uber company] Rasier NZ, matters would get exceedingly complex, exceedingly quickly," Walker said. "That how taxis work," interjected Justice Sir Joe Williams. Uber protest outside the Supreme Court. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone More than 50 drivers and supporters gathered outside the Supreme Court house on Monday as part of a protest organised by the unions defending the appeal. An organiser for the Wellington Uber drivers network, John Ryall, said the outcome of this case would have implications for other workers across the gig economy, who were employed in the same way. "We just think it's an insult to the workers involved. It's something that needs to be tackled and we're tackling it here," Ryall said. Mea'ole Keil was involved in the original case against Uber. He said there currently was an unfair employment relationship and classifying drivers as employees will have a huge impact on their lives. "The impact for drivers is that they will be treated fairly and with dignity when they go to work. And that they are paid a living wage so they can look after their families," Keil said. Former Uber driver and current Wellington City councillor Nureddin Abdurahman was hopeful the Supreme Court would uphold previous decisions granting drivers workplace protection. "I think it's really important for us. This is the day we've been waiting for a very long time and to see such a support means a lot," Abdurahman said. But those at the rally were concerned about what impact new government legislation could have even if the Supreme Court ruled in their favour. Last month Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden announced the introduction of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill to Parliament. Under the amendments - which in part were intended to provide greater certainty for contracting parties - a worker is classified as a specified contractor when there is a written agreement specifying that they are contractor, and they are not restricted from working for others. "Workers and businesses should have more certainty about the type of work being done from the moment they agree to a contracting arrangement," van Velden said at the time. The appeal would continue on Wednesday and was expected to take two days. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
08-07-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
Supreme Court hear's Uber's case against employment rights
Multi-million dollar ride-share company Uber is arguing its drivers aren't employees at the Supreme Court in Wellington, as the fight over driver's employment rights came to the highest court in the country. It was Uber's second appeal against an Employment Court decision in 2022 to grant four Uber drivers workplace protection. The Court is to decide whether it's drivers should be considered employees. A decision in favour of the drivers could lead to them claiming benefits such as leave entitlements, minimum wage and holiday pay. Uber is arguing drivers were independent providers of transportation services to "riders" and "eaters" with whom they entered into contracts using the app provided by the Uber companies. On Tuesday, counsel for Uber, Paul Wicks, said drivers were fully aware they were not signing up to a traditional employment relationship. Wicks told the court Uber did not dictate the hours that drivers worked, instead the app provided the drivers the service of linking them to the customers. "Uber offers the opportunity for drivers to earn an income anytime, anywhere. The offer is on the table for any fit and proper person with a driver's license, a car and a smartphone. You can use the Uber platform if and when you want to, in the same way as riders do," Wicks said. On Tuesday morning, the judiciary panel queried Uber's characterisation of payments made towards drivers - pointing out an illustration provided by the company appeared to show money flowing directly to the drivers from passengers. Uber's lawyer Nathaniel Walker conceded the funds were held by the company and paid out following the deduction of a service fee. He said the illustration actually depicted the effective contractual arrangement between riders, drivers and the company. "If individual drivers were responsible for collecting the fare into their own bank account, then remitting a services fee to [Uber company] Rasier NZ, matters would get exceedingly complex, exceedingly quickly," Walker said. "That how taxis work," interjected Justice Sir Joe Williams. Uber protest outside the Supreme Court. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone More than 50 drivers and supporters gathered outside the Supreme Court house on Monday as part of a protest organised by the unions defending the appeal. An organiser for the Wellington Uber drivers network, John Ryall, said the outcome of this case would have implications for other workers across the gig economy, who were employed in the same way. "We just think it's an insult to the workers involved. It's something that needs to be tackled and we're tackling it here," Ryall said. Mea'ole Keil was involved in the original case against Uber. He said there currently was an unfair employment relationship and classifying drivers as employees will have a huge impact on their lives. "The impact for drivers is that they will be treated fairly and with dignity when they go to work. And that they are paid a living wage so they can look after their families," Keil said. Former Uber driver and current Wellington City councillor Nureddin Abdurahman was hopeful the Supreme Court would uphold previous decisions granting drivers workplace protection. "I think it's really important for us. This is the day we've been waiting for a very long time and to see such a support means a lot," Abdurahman said. The appeal would continue on Wednesday and was expected to take two days. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
