My driver was blunt. He has no desire to be an employee. He values his flexibility to take breaks and drive when and where he wants. In his view, the four plaintiffs who sued Uber were “ruining it for every other driver who values their flexibility like me.”
His views highlight the disconnect between the Court’s recent ruling and the realities of modern work. The ruling goes far beyond Uber, potentially undermining the foundations of flexible work arrangements that have become vital to many businesses. It could have far-reaching consequences for other businesses in New Zealand, many of which may now need to reassess their worker classifications.
The Court’s decision displays a worrying detachment from economic realities. It ignores the importance of flexibility in the modern workforce – not just for companies dealing with their workload but also for people working for these companies as it suits them.
The government recognises these issues. The National-ACT coalition agreement outlines the government’s aim to maintain the status quo for workers who explicitly sign up for contracting arrangements. They want to ensure these contractors cannot challenge their employment status in the Employment Court.
This part of the coalition agreement has become more urgent following the Court of Appeal's decision. Fortunately, in its Q3 2024 work programme, the government indicated that a law change in this area will be on the cabinet’s agenda in the coming months.
A clarification of the status of contractors makes sense, and not just to protect flexible arrangements. It would also spare the Court of Appeal embarrassment should the Supreme Court not concur with its reasoning and repeal the decision.
Employment relationships always require a ‘duty of loyalty’. But such a loyalty is hard to see where drivers routinely choose which jobs to accept from different platforms. The Supreme Court might review this and then reject the idea that such contractors are employees.
By clarifying the legal status of contractors, the government can provide the certainty needed for businesses to innovate. It can also enable workers to choose the employment arrangements that best suit their needs.
The economy certainly needs more flexibility in labour markets, not less.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
The Court’s decision displays a worrying detachment from economic realities. It ignores the importance of flexibility in the modern workforce – not just for companies dealing with their workload but also for people working for these companies as it suits them.
The government recognises these issues. The National-ACT coalition agreement outlines the government’s aim to maintain the status quo for workers who explicitly sign up for contracting arrangements. They want to ensure these contractors cannot challenge their employment status in the Employment Court.
This part of the coalition agreement has become more urgent following the Court of Appeal's decision. Fortunately, in its Q3 2024 work programme, the government indicated that a law change in this area will be on the cabinet’s agenda in the coming months.
A clarification of the status of contractors makes sense, and not just to protect flexible arrangements. It would also spare the Court of Appeal embarrassment should the Supreme Court not concur with its reasoning and repeal the decision.
Employment relationships always require a ‘duty of loyalty’. But such a loyalty is hard to see where drivers routinely choose which jobs to accept from different platforms. The Supreme Court might review this and then reject the idea that such contractors are employees.
By clarifying the legal status of contractors, the government can provide the certainty needed for businesses to innovate. It can also enable workers to choose the employment arrangements that best suit their needs.
The economy certainly needs more flexibility in labour markets, not less.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
1 comment:
If they’re employees then Uber has to buy their cars & pay for the running costs.
Employees are always protected from incurring revenue generating costs, unless they’re mugs (willingly use their own resources), or have a specific fixed-term contract that states otherwise.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.