Report comment

My point, see below, is that whether Uber is or isn't a gig economy case, it should be.

There should be no separate category, whether intermediate, over-lapping or not, of 'worker'. If a person fits that description, then whether they or their 'employer' likes it or not, then either anything that applies to 'worker' has to apply to everyone working, including the self employed and non-manuals (including barristers and judges) or that should be a key fact for categorising the relationship as employment. If they really aren't, by any stretch of normal understanding - i.e. if they don't quack like a duck, but rather honk like a goose - then the law should not categorise them as either an employee or a worker.

And if they, the person they are contracted with, or the Revenue don't like that, then hard luck. It has to be accepted.