Uber drivers in the UK should be classified as workers and entitled to both paid vacation time and the minimum wage, according to a ruling Friday by Britain’s Supreme Court. But Uber’s London office is already disputing the scope and relevance of the ruling for its British drivers, insisting that its own rules have changed dramatically since the case was first brought by 25 drivers in 2016.

The UK Supreme Court ruling notes five reasons that Uber drivers should be classified as workers rather than independent entrepreneurs. First, the court pointed out that Uber drivers have no say in the amount charged for each ride—a number set by Uber. If Uber sets the price, how are they not the driver’s real employer?

Second, Uber sets the contract terms between riders and drivers through their app. Third, Uber constrains all drivers in their ability to accept and decline rides at will. Drivers are penalized if they decline too many rides, another point of fact that would make it pretty obvious Uber is an employer who’s holding all the cards in the employment relationship.

Fourth, Uber penalizes or bans drivers who don’t maintain a sufficiently high rating, another act more consistent with an employer-employee relationship. And lastly, Uber restricts the amount of communication between drivers and riders, something that wouldn’t be normalized if Uber drivers were really just working for themselves.

From the UK Supreme Court’s press release on Friday’s ruling:

Taking these factors together, the transportation service performed by drivers and offered to passengers through the Uber app is very tightly defined and controlled by Uber. Drivers are in a position of subordination and dependency in relation to Uber such that they have little or no ability to improve their economic position through professional or entrepreneurial skill. In practice the only way in which they can increase their earnings is by working longer hours while constantly meeting Uber’s measures of performance. The Supreme Court considers that comparisons made by Uber with digital platforms which act as booking agents for hotels and other accommodation and with minicab drivers do not advance its case. The drivers were rightly found to be “workers.”

[…]

Source: Uber Drivers Entitled to Paid Vacation and Minimum Wage According to UK Supreme Court

1. I am not a cat
2. I believe in the stock

A judge has ruled that Citibank can’t claw back more than $500m (£360m) it mistakenly paid out after outsourced staff and a senior manager made a nearly billion-dollar (£700m) user-interface blunder.The error occurred on August 11 last year, when Citibank was supposed to wire $7.8m (£5.6m) in interest payments to lenders who are propping up troubled cosmetics giant Revlon. But a worker at outsourcing mega-org Wipro accidentally checked the wrong combination of on-screen boxes, leading to the repayment of not only the interest but also the $894m (£640m) principal from the bank’s funds.Citibank has a “six-eyes” policy on massive money transfers of this type. In the Revlon fiasco, a Wipro worker in India configured the transfer using software called Flexcube, his local manager approved it, and Vincent Fratta – a Citibank senior manager based in Delaware, USA – gave the final OK for the transfer of funds, all believing the settings were correct.Below is a screenshot of the transfer set up by the first Wipro worker. He should have ticked not just the principal field but also the front and fund fields, and set their values to the necessary clearing account number. By leaving those two boxes unchecked and values empty – and wrongly assuming putting the account number in the principal field was a correct move – the entire principal of the loan, which was set to mature in 2023, was handed back to 315 creditors.UIIncomplete … The Flexcube interface for the infamous transfer. Click to enlarge. Source: US courts systemIt wasn’t until the next day that staff noticed the error, and sent out emails asking for the funds be returned – and hundreds of millions of dollars were. However, a group of 10 creditors refused to hand back their share the cash, amounting to more than $500m, leading Citibank to sue them in New York to recover the dosh.This week, the US federal district court judge presiding over that lawsuit sided with the lenders, saying [PDF] they had reasonable grounds to think that the transfer was legitimate and that they had legal grounds to keep their money.angry lego minifig man turns on anxious lego minifig manBarclays Bank appeared to be using the Wayback Machine as a ‘CDN’ for some JavascriptREAD MORE”The non-returning lenders believed, and were justified in believing, that the payments were intentional,” Judge Jesse Furman ruled.”Indeed, to believe otherwise — to believe that Citibank, one of the most sophisticated financial institutions in the world, had made a mistake that had never happened before, to the tune of nearly $1bn — would have been borderline irrational.”Since the amount sent back repaid the loaned amounts to the cent and no more, the judge ruled Citibank had no right to reclaim the money.”We are extremely pleased with Judge Furman’s thoughtful, thorough and detailed decision,” Benjamin Finestone, representing two lenders, Brigade and HPS Investment Partners, told CNN.That said, the saga isn’t over yet. The disputed funds are going nowhere, and are held under a temporary restraining order, to give Citibank a chance to challenge the ruling. “We strongly disagree with this decision and intend to appeal,” the mega bank said in a statement. “We believe we are entitled to the funds and will continue to pursue a complete recovery of them.”

Source: Citibank accidentally wired $500m back to lenders in user-interface super-gaffe – and judge says it can’t be undone • The Register