Gig economy on trial as Uber fights drivers' employee status
We're talking no annual leave, KiwiSaver (another blow with the latest government contribution reduction slashed to $251 from $521 a year), sick days, maternity or bereavement leave, minimum wage, breaks, and few options for recourse if you're unfairly given the boot.
Contracting can be a win-win for employers wanting to outsource the work without strings attached, but like any romantic 'situationship', power imbalances and lopsided cost-benefit splits can leave you out in the cold.
That's especially true for the four Uber drivers now fighting for employee status in the Supreme Court.
How did we get here?
The case dates back to a landmark Employment Court decision in 2022. The contractors, through unions E Tū and First Union, sought 'employee' status prescribed in the Employment Relations Act.
At the time, Chief Judge Christina Inglis considered the nature of the relationship, who called the shots, who profited, what both sides intended, and whether the drivers were genuinely seen as part of Uber's business.
Despite the unorthodox employment model, Chief Judge Inglis rejected Uber's claims that it merely facilitated rides, concluding the company '... creates, dictates, and manages the circumstances under which its business is carried out, and driver labour is deployed in order to grow that business'.
Same same, but different
Enter the Court of Appeal decision released last year, which also found in favour of the drivers, but disagreed with the Employment Court's emphasis on the workers' vulnerability.
Instead, it took the Supreme Court's Bryson v Three Foot Six approach. It compared the contractual terms with the reality on the ground, asking: How much control did Uber exercise? How integrated were the drivers into the business? Could they meaningfully operate on their own account?
First, the court found the Uber-directed contract was offered on a 'take it or leave it basis with no scope for negotiation'. Clauses designed to steer away from employee status were, in Justice Lowell Goddard's words, 'window dressing'.
In practice, Uber controlled almost everything: fares, terms, conditions, complaints and customer contact. Drivers could not negotiate prices or reject too many rides without being penalised, and they had no way to build goodwill of their own, the court found.
Sure, they provided their own cars and phones, picked their hours and wore mufti, but this did not outweigh Uber's control or how integral drivers were to the business. No drivers, no rides, no Uber.
Let a good thing lie
In my view, this was a win for the underdog, with the potential to open the door for all drivers and gig workers to ask whether they too, are entitled to minimum rights. Great for worker bees but not so great for business.
It's therefore no surprise we are now at the Supreme Court, where Uber has warned that the court risks rewriting the rules for 20% of the workforce, consequently increasing compliance costs.
Uber claims that the court should adhere to the contract and its underlying intentions. Yes, Uber sets quality standards and prices, but drivers also determine when and where to log in, which jobs to take, and cover costs.
Conversely, the drivers contend that the contract is the baseline; the law was never meant for fine print to mask the true nature of the daily grind. They argue that the real essence of the model depends on control and subordination, not genuine independence.
Where to from here?
As we wait with bated breath for the Supreme Court's decision, it may already be too late for contractors suffering under the weight of big business.
Enter the Government's Employment Relations Amendment Bill, introduced last month. The new 'gateway' test promises, in the words of Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden, to 'provide greater certainty for all parties and allow more innovative business models'.
Under the proposal, a worker will be excluded from the definition of 'employee' if all the conditions are met: the contract must specify independent contractor status, they can freely work for others, they are not required to work set times (or can subcontract), they can't be fired for turning down extra tasks, and they must have time to review the deal.
If the contract's signed, sealed and delivered, even a 'take it or leave it' deal might lock you out of your rights for good. And who said romance was dead?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
10 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Strip club forced to remove posts about women suing firm
The owners of the Calendar Girls strip clubs have been forced to take down posts identifying dancers suing the firm. Seven women are currently pursuing an application in the Employment Court for a declaration of their employment status. A non-publication order was issued in May suppressing their identities after they raised concerns about their safety and damage to their reputations due to the stigma attached to the work they had been doing. One of the women has now returned to court alleging breaches of the order by Calendar Girls NZ Ltd, the company named as the defendant in their case. Chief Employment Court Judge Christina Inglis hastily scheduled a hearing this week to hear the woman. "I accorded urgency to the application given the nature of the alleged breaches and the concerns that had underpinned the making of the orders of non-publication in the first place," the judge said in a recent judgment. Lawyers get together The urgent hearing was set down for Thursday but was cancelled after lawyers for both sides got together and agreed non-publication orders should be respected. "The defendants confirm that they have removed all offending posts," Judge Inglis said. However, her judgment did not detail what was in the posts. The seven women are seeking a declaration that they were employees of Calendar Girls NZ Ltd under the Employment Relations Act 2000. Being an employee, rather than a contractor, gives entitlement to a wider range of legal protections, including minimum conditions, protection from discrimination, health and safety, and the ability to bargain collectively. In 2023, dancers from the Wellington Calendar Girls club attempted to bargain collectively after being offered a contract that they said was "manipulative". Nineteen were told to clear out their lockers and not to come back to work through a Facebook post after asking for changes to the way they were being paid. In seeking non-publication orders in the current case, filed in the Wellington Employment Court, the seven women raised several concerns about having their identities made public. Women in the clubs use a professional name while working there, and are instructed not to give their real names to customers. However, their case in the Employment Court has been taken using their real names. The women involved in the case feared publication of their identities would "severely impact" their employment and housing prospects, and their ability to travel. They said the stigma attached to their work at Calendar Girls had already led to judgments about their morality and respectability. The women are all young and fear damage to their reputations and the impact on their families. They also said they had safety concerns about former clients and members of the public. Dismissed from a government job One of the women is a member of a church and is worried about others in the congregation finding out. Others have had tenancy applications declined, and another woman said she was dismissed from a government agency when it became known she had worked in the sex industry. Judge Inglis has now made orders instructing Calendar Girls not to disclose the names, identifying particulars, or photographs of the seven women who have taken the case. She said this applied to "all forms of communication, including oral, written, electronic and any other medium". The substantive case has been set down to be heard in a five-day fixture in February 2026. Calendar Girls NZ Ltd is a Christchurch-based company which operates clubs in Christchurch, Auckland, Wellington and Queenstown. - Ric Stevens, Open Justice reporter
RNZ News
11 hours ago
- RNZ News
Calendar Girls strip clubs forced to take down posts about women involved in employment dispute
By Ric Stevens, Open Justice reporter of The owners of the Calendar Girls strip clubs have been forced to take down posts identifying dancers suing the firm. Seven women are currently pursuing an application in the Employment Court for a declaration of their employment status. A non-publication order was issued in May, suppressing their identities, after they raised concerns about their safety and damage to their reputations, due to the stigma attached to the work they had been doing. One of the women has now returned to court, alleging breaches of the order by Calendar Girls NZ Ltd, the company named as the defendant in their case. Chief Employment Court Judge Christina Inglis hastily scheduled a hearing this week to hear the woman. "I accorded urgency to the application, given the nature of the alleged breaches and the concerns that had underpinned the making of the orders of non-publication in the first place," the judge said in a recent judgement. The urgent hearing was set down for Thursday, but was cancelled, after lawyers for both sides agreed non-publication orders should be respected. "The defendants confirm that they have removed all offending posts," Judge Inglis said. However, her judgement did not detail what was in the posts. The seven women are seeking a declaration that they were employees of Calendar Girls NZ Ltd under the Employment Relations Act 2000. Being an employee, rather than a contractor, gives entitlement to a wider range of legal protections, including minimum conditions, protection from discrimination, health and safety, and the ability to bargain collectively. In 2023, dancers from the Wellington Calendar Girls club attempted to bargain collectively, after being offered a contract that they said was "manipulative". Nineteen were told to clear out their lockers and not come back to work through a Facebook post, after asking for changes to the way they were paid. In seeking non-publication orders in the current case, filed in the Wellington Employment Court, the seven women raised several concerns about having their identities made public. Women in the clubs use a professional name while working there and are instructed not to give their real names to customers. Chief Employment Court Judge Christina Inglis. Photo: NZ Herald / George Heard However, their case in the Employment Court has been taken using their real names. The women involved in the case feared publication of their identities would "severely impact" their employment and housing prospects, and their ability to travel. They said the stigma attached to their work at Calendar Girls had already led to judgements about their morality and respectability. The women are all young, and fear damage to their reputations and the impact on their families. They also said they had safety concerns about former clients and members of the public. One of the women is a member of a church and worries about others in the congregation finding out. Others have had tenancy applications declined and another woman said she was dismissed from a government agency, when it became known she had worked in the sex industry. Judge Inglis has now ordered Calendar Girls not to disclose the names, identifying particulars or photographs of the seven women who have taken the case. She said this applied to "all forms of communication, including oral, written, electronic and any other medium". The substantive case has been scheduled for a five-day fixture in February 2026. Calendar Girls NZ Ltd is a Christchurch-based company that operates clubs in Christchurch, Auckland, Wellington and Queenstown. This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
NZ Herald
21 hours ago
- NZ Herald
KiwiSaver hardship reveals hidden cost of this economic downturn
We had news last week that KiwiSaver members withdrew more than $470 million for hardship reasons in the past 12 months amid continuing economic stress. Inland Revenue figures showed $470.7m was taken out of KiwiSaver in the June financial year, up 56.6% from $300.5m over the prior period. Looking back through the figures, there has certainly been a big spike in withdrawals in the past two years, but they have been on the rise for several years. Since Covid, both the number of people withdrawing funds and the amount withdrawn have risen steadily. As a barometer of the general economic situation, that isn't great. But the bigger problem with these hardship withdrawals is that the ultimate cost is (quite literally) compounded through the years. More than $1.3 billion of KiwiSaver funds has been withdrawn for hardship reasons in the past five years. If we do some back-of-the-envelope calculations and assume this money could have earned around 7% returns for the next 20 years, then we get a figure of more than $5b that will be missing from the nation's pool of retirement funds by 2045. Given the current trend of withdrawals, I suspect this is a conservative estimate. I understand why we allow withdrawals for hardship. It doesn't make sense for people to lose their homes or to go hungry when they have thousands of dollars sitting in a KiwiSaver account, so I'm not advocating that we stop allowing the withdrawals. However, there is a hidden cost and the situation highlights just how crucial it is for the Government to put more focus on retirement savings. There is a lot more money coming out of the KiwiSaver scheme to fund people into their first homes. Since Covid hit, an average of about $1.2b a year has been withdrawn from KiwiSaver for first home purchases. A home is an asset at least, and home ownership is an important step on the path to financial independence. I suspect we just have to accept the first home buyer withdrawals as a feature of the KiwiSaver scheme. If young people are in the scheme from the start of their working life and have $10,000 or $20,000 to put towards a house deposit, they are probably ahead of where many in my generation were at the same age. But the reality is that as a nation, we're well behind on where we need to be with our retirement savings. According to Stats NZ projections, the percentage of the population aged 65+ will increase from roughly 16-17% in the early 2020s to about 19-20% by 2030. By 2050, around 24-26% of New Zealanders are expected to be 65+. The old-age dependency ratio (ratio of elderly to working-age population) is expected to nearly double between 2020 and 2050. Our annual superannuation bill already comes in at more than $20b, and Treasury has projected that to rise to about $45b by 2037. According to Budget 2025 data, New Zealand Superannuation costs $4352 per person per year, making it the third-largest area of government spending after welfare ($6181 per person) and health ($5804 per person). From the Treasury's long-term fiscal projections, spending on NZ Super is projected to grow from 4.3% of GDP in 2010 to 7.9% in 2060, an increase of 3.6 percentage points. It is also rising as a percentage of the Government's total tax revenue – from about 17% now, it is projected to rise above 21% by 2037. So we know we have a problem. It seems almost certain that the age of superannuation will have to be raised to 67 in the coming years – despite the current opposition of NZ First and Labour. Future governments will almost certainly come under more pressure to means-test. KiwiSaver, which currently has total funds of $122b, is one of our great hopes. But the total figure is flattering. There are more than three million KiwiSaver members so the average fund size is just $37,000. Hopefully, that will be skewed by a lot of young people who will see their savings grow dramatically in the next decades. That brings us back to the downside of withdrawing funds early for hardship, though. We need to be saving more, not less. Moves by the Government to lift the default contribution rate for both employees and employers to 4% from April 2028 were a step in the right direction. However, they pale in comparison to Australia's compulsory scheme, which requires 12% employer contributions. The scheme has the equivalent of $4.5 trillion invested, making Australia the fifth-largest holder of pension fund assets in the world, not per capita but in nominal terms. Australia, for the record, also allows people to withdraw funds for hardship, but one suspects fewer people there need to. If we want to make the most of the KiwiSaver scheme we have, we need to look more closely at who is withdrawing their money and why. Meanwhile, young Kiwis are voting with their feet and joining the Australian Superannuation scheme ... by virtue of moving to work there. Liam Dann is business editor-at-large for the New Zealand Herald. He is a senior writer and columnist, and also presents and produces videos and podcasts. He joined the Herald in 2003.
