Pros And Cons Of Uber Holiday Pay

The prospect of holiday pay is essentially an extension to the guaranteed standard living that comes with legal employment. Even as Uber drivers are working whenever they would like some extra income, they are entitled for the equivalent to ‘average pay a worker got over the previous 12 weeks (in which they were paid)’ (gov.uk). The prospect of holiday pay discourages overwork by Uber drivers that could potentially drive up the risk of accidents on the road, but also prevents Uber from exploiting its drivers for maximum profit, warranting their standard of living. However, the major economic argument for the implementation of holiday pay is the increased productivity of their drivers could potentially compensate the time off during their paid

The notion of Uber being a drive-hailing platform means that actual and potential drivers alike, most of them will be independent contractors that only take driving as a side job in their free time to earn some extra income. In a sense, choosing to work as an Uber driver is the way they choose to spend their legal paid holiday, or even after their primary job, when they are still felling productive. The ‘productivity’ effect in this case is therefore only limited at best, as it only affects the small portion of ‘full-time’ drivers that take Uber driving as their primary job and income. Such argument would be even weaker for potential drivers. As Uber is now obliged to pay existing drivers even when they are not working, Uber will have to either raise fares that can result in less demand to the service, or to cut cost by limiting the number of drivers on its platforms. Even so, both measurements work against the interest of actual and potential Uber

One will be the promotion of sudo-labour unions; by representing most of its drivers a union might held sufficient collective bargaining power enough to contest similar employment rights without the intervention of law and tribunals. In such a case, most members would be happy to drop prospects like holiday pay in exchange for, say, a minimum contract guarantee or a better pension scheme. Requiring Uber to comply disclosure standards equivalent to public companies also helps. Although Uber’s turbocharged management approach played a notable role in Uber’s $70 billion market value, the lack of clarity aggravated its recent scandals about how the firm treats its employees and drivers. Well past the stage of a startup, going public serves to the advantage to Uber through access to a much larger capital market, while leveling the playing field between the management, creditors, along with actual and potential Uber drivers. What the government could do is to encourage it. Either way, a recent UK tribunal case that Uber drivers are not self-employed and so should be subject to traditional labour rights does not serve to the advantage of actual and potential drivers. The sensible thing UK’s government should do is to protect the collective bargaining rights by actual and potential Uber drivers, and upheld