Report comment

Leaving aside Uber and this particular case, this is an area of law which desperately needs clearing up.

Irrespective of what suits employers, employees, the unions, Employment Tribunals and especially HMRC, it needs to be clear and straightforward. Everybody needs to know which they are, whether they are an employee, even if as a casual day-labourer or a self-employed contractor. And there must be no intermediate state where anyone is neither one thing nor the other. Nor must anyone be caught out by being told they have been taxed the wrong way or should have been charging VAT when they have suffered PAYE, or should have been collecting PAYE when they thought they were paying fees. Nor must anyone be able to play one status part of the time and the other at other times, as it suits them. That is so, irrespective of whether they are employer, employee or the Revenue.

And it needs to be founded in the realities of control and discretion, not the convenience of the taxation system.

If a person is employed, then they have employment rights, they can be told what to so. They can be sacked if they don't. They remain employed until the job is finished or they are sacked. They are also subject to PAYE.

If a person is not employed, then they don't have employment rights, they are free not to turn up, they are paid gross and they charge VAT unless their turnover is too low or the service isn't VATable.

If there are people whose situation means that although they are not employed, it is a policy decision that they should be given some rights comparable to those enjoyed by employees, then that must be explicitly legislated for, not picked up by arguing that people who wouldn't normally be employed, are because it's more compassionate to treat them as such.

That's my considered view, anyway.