Uber lose tribunal claim

Uber is a mobile phone app which allows users to book a minicab.  The company which designed it is also called Uber.  Uber minicab drivers are all self-employed - or at least they were.

Two Uber drivers, supported by the trade union GMB, have recently won an employment tribunal claim whereby they are now deemed to be employees of Uber, and entitled to be paid the minimum wage.  Uber let it be known that they plan to appeal.

Uber has also reported that a large number of their drivers are unhappy with the tribunal ruling, as it undermines their self-employed status.  At the time of writing it is not clear how seriously their claims can be taken.

The minimum wage was created by the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.  I remember reading this act a few years after it was passed into law, and felt at the time that it could be clearer on at least some points.  On the one hand I don't expect governments to get legislation right first time, but on the other hand I think that a little more thought could have gone into the drafting of the act.

I remember many years ago a woman who ran a post office in the north of Scotland took the Post Office to a tribunal in a bid to be paid the minimum wage.  She won her case, and the Post Office announced that it would appeal.  They then abandoned their appeal, and instead defied the ruling, although the woman in question did have her payments increased.  About a year later another subpostmaster from Lancashire took the Post Office to tribunal in a bid to be paid the minimum wage, but was unsuccessful.

So far as I am aware, neither ruling was taken to appeal, and so neither ruling actually creates what is known as a binding precedent - in effect being the law.

Maybe now is the time for a revision of the minimum wage law.  As an absolute minimum, I think it should be a criminal offence for an employer who loses a tribunal claim to defy the ruling.  Either you abide by the ruling or you appeal.

Why this guff about Green?

As I write, the House of Commons has recently voted unanimously that the businessman Sir Philip Green should be stripped of his knighthood.  It is reported that this is the first time that MPs have ever held such a debate.  It is not however for MPs to determine whether or not someone should be deprived of an honour.  That decision rests with a  committee known as the Honours Forfeiture Committee.

The cause of this furore is that Green allegedly enriched himself and his family at the expense of just about everyone else connected with his company.

My first comment is that at a time when the lives of millions of people in this country are blighted by crime and poverty, our MPs have apparently got nothing better to do than denigrate an old man with lots of money.

If Green has broken any law, then let him be prosecuted.  If he has not broken any law, then maybe the House of Commons should debate whether or not the law on running limited companies should be revised.

For as long as I can remember, Britain has had a spiv economy, in which far too many company directors have been allowed to get rich without sufficient justification. Will that ever change?

Another comment is that the honours system in this country has over the years rewarded many people who make Green look saintly by comparison.  For example the evil warmonger George Bush holds an honorary knighthood, and the evil warmonger John Major is a Knight of the Garter.  Actually, these people were not really rewarded, because a knighthood is of course worthless.

Related previous posts include:
Who cares about the honours system?

The post-referendum political landscape

In the short space of time since the Brexit referendum, not a great deal seems to have changed in the realm of British politics.  David Cameron is no longer Prime Minister, but we still have a Conservative government.  Labour remains in opposition, with Jeremy Corbyn still at the helm.

Looking ahead, however, a lot could change.  Once Britain has left the EU, we will no longer be bound by the dictates of the European Union or its agencies.  We will still be bound by the dictates of the European Court of Human Rights, however, as that is an agency of the Council of Europe - an organisation which Britain has not yet voted to leave.

Another important point to note is that Britain will no longer have MEPs once Brexit has been achieved.  There will be no more European Parliament elections, as a result of which there will be one fewer set of elections conducted under a system of proportional representation.

It is possible that UKIP will cease to exist following Brexit, but I don't expect many people will be upset.  For example UKIP councillors can easily defect to another party, and thereby probably improve their chances of re-election.

Immigration will remain a big issue as there is no reason to think that Theresa May will limit immigration merely because it is easier for her to do so.  I therefore expect at least one anti-immigration party to enjoy some prominence in the year ahead, although not nearly enough to make a difference.

It is almost a truism of politics that you do not need to win power in order to exert an influence, and this is certainly true of UKIP.  It is no secret that David Cameron promised a referendum in order to stem the flow of support from his party to UKIP.

On immigration however it is a different matter.  In 2009, the British National Party had two MEPs, a London assembly member, and around one hundred councillors.  So far as I can make out, the only response to this from the establishment was to set up a parliamentary committee which did not achieve anything and was probably never intended to.

Related previous posts include:
Who murdered Jo Cox?
The power of the people