Report comment

To the previous post: I've conducted some of the earliest cases on worker status as advocate in the EAT, successfully, and advised clients on status for decades. My concern is some employment lawyers and businesses like PP giving the misleading impression to the public that worker status is some overly complicated thing. The test isn't. Nor is applying it in most cases where the person is in reality providing personal service as part of another's business and with no (as you mention) contractual, unfettered right of substitution-like Uber and PP. Obviously factual questions can be complex as can navigating the true contractual agreement in light of conflicting/confusing terms (again, Uber, PP). I set out a core question, I didn't say it was the only or determinative question. For most businesses employing casual staff (aka the "gig" economy), the answer is clear, subject, where applicable, to navigating unreal contracts. The myth that self-employed tax status is inconsistent with worker status was destroyed by the SC in Clyde & Co v Winkelhoff - where they explained some self-employed work for their own business and some as part of others. The latter are workers (subject to the simple words of the statute) but this myth amongst others persists. See Uber and PP's PR statements on that and the further myth they put out that flexibility as to when someone works can only be offered to them if they're not given any employment rights (and with their business avoiding their NI and employment rights obligations).