Mayor Mamdani Backs “Delivery Protection Act” Targeting Amazon
The issue isn't complicated. It involves the use of subcontractors to deliver packages. NYC wants to force Amazon to use Amazon employees. No more subcontractors allowed*
The 'anti' folks (me) say this will effectively ban the use of subcontractors.
The anti folks have also presented some pretty convincing counter- arguments. (yes, I would say that, wouldn't I?)
What do you think?
The Cliff Notes' version: Amazon uses its own employees and fleets to get shipments to its distribution centers closest to the final destination, but uses subcontractors for delivery to the final address; the "last mile".
The City wants to license and regulate "last mile' delivery services. A part of that regulation is the requirement that Amazon deliveries be made by Amazon employees. No more subcontracting.
*The asterisk means this is all headline and first-scan stuff. If a detail is wrong—sue me, it'll all come out in the discussion. ;-)
Mayor's office announcement
GAWhat is his goal? Does Amazon pay more than the subcontractors and thus he is hoping for higher wages? Is he trying somehow to reduce the number of delivery vehicles in the city? Does he think he can force Amazon to pay more, while there are too many subcontractors to deal with? Hard to believe he is just trying to put people out of work...
What is the "pro" version?The Mayor's office announcement seems clear; they want all workers to be unionizable full-benefit company employees. You don't have to 'read between the lines'; it openly says so.
Amazon's response is just as you or I would expect; they might have to take their ball and go home—move their centers and their jobs outside of city limits. Gradual loss of the local distribution center jobs, immediate loss of 5000 current delivery jobs, and larger trucks (requiring fewer deliverers) with longer delivery schedules putting more pollution into the city every day.
It sure looks like there's a constitutional question in there somewhere. Can the act of subcontracting be constitutionally banned?
The Mayor seems serious about playing hardball. I think Amazon is too. Amazon can make sure the impact of this is really obvious to Joe Public.
I don't think Amazon needs its centers in NYC as much as NYC does.
GA"Can the act of subcontracting be constitutionally banned?"
Will this not extend to UPS, FEDEX and all the other delivery services? What is special about Amazon subcontracting the service that applies to no other company? Even the USPS would seem to be at risk...Yes, it would also apply to other businesses. Amazon is simply the visible giant that encompasses the concept — for both sides.
Coincidentally (or algorithmically), a John Stossel story about Seattle's $26 p/hr mandate for food and other e-bike backpack-style delivery drivers was in my feed after I read the original story. ;-)
One year after passage, combined deliveries (Uber Eats, et al) were down by almost two million orders. There were also fewer delivery jobs and less revenue.
Just sayin' ...
GAIncredible. The stupidity/ignorance of some of the far left is incredible.
Amazon is an outstanding service, i may not be in agreement with changing the formula as it may be considered “overreach”.
Yep, and I'd say "overreach" is being charitable.
Wilderness asked the hard question: What is Mamdani trying to do?
I understand why our perspectives would ask that question. Does it seem a fair question to you?
GA
I can actually see both sides of this. If Amazon is controlling how these drivers work, and people are getting hurt because of the way the system is being run, then Amazon should be held accountable. I don't think a huge corporation should be able to hide behind subcontractors if they're really the ones calling the shots.
But I also get nervous whenever the answer is for government to tell a private company exactly how it has to run its business. If Amazon is breaking safety or labor laws, enforce the laws. If they're creating unsafe conditions, fix those conditions. That seems like common sense to me.
And what about the small businesses that Amazon contracts with? Those are people's jobs too. We shouldn't protect one group of workers by potentially putting another group out of business.
I guess my feeling is that Amazon should absolutely be responsible for what it controls and for treating workers fairly. But there's a difference between holding a company accountable and having government dictate its entire business model. I'm much more comfortable with the first than the second.
SharThe information in the thread should rebut any claims that Amazon's "requirements" are causing more safety incidents. Reports have noted that their incident rate is in line with the industry's average; they have invested $12 billion to train and equip drivers and equipment; and they have documented a significant decrease in safety incidents in the last several years (almost a 50% reduction???)
So it really boils down to a Union/government power grab. The city will get more money and control from licensing and fees, and the unions will get a new captive audience.
Consider the basic details:
Amazon offers to pay for a service. It describes exactly what the service is and how it must be done. (uniform details, vehicle logos, etc.) The service is legal, and its conditions do not violate any laws.
Someone forms a legal company entity to provide that service. They hire and employ the delivery drivers. They are subject to the same labor laws as Amazon.
It's a legal and voluntary contractual agreement. Where's the abuse? Where's the coercion?
If there are "issues" with the drivers — the culprit is the contracted service provider, not the one offering the contract.
Relative to Amazon, there aren't "two sides"; the contractor providing the drivers has the control. If there is a 'second side', it goes to the subcontractor, not Amazon. They are not Amazon employees. The 'morality' of the issue doesn't change with the size of the company. Being a "huge corporation" shouldn't have any bearing on a question of legality. You're slipping. ;-)
GANice to see a post that has some teeth.
I think you're reading more into my comment than I intended. I wasn't claiming that Amazon's requirements are necessarily causing more safety incidents, nor was I arguing that Amazon is legally responsible simply because it's a large corporation. I was responding to the question in the OP about accountability when a company has significant control over how its contracted drivers operate.
If the subcontractors truly have complete control over the drivers and Amazon is simply purchasing a legal service, then I agree that the subcontractor would generally be responsible for its employees. But if Amazon dictates significant aspects of how the work is performed, sets the pace or conditions under which it must be performed, and can penalize a contractor for not meeting those requirements, I don't think the fact that the drivers technically work for another company automatically answers the question of responsibility.
And I certainly wasn't making a case for unions or a government "power grab." I was making a fairly simple distinction: enforcing existing laws is one thing; government dictating a company's entire business model is another. I'm much more comfortable with the former.
I understand your point, even though I may not see it quite the same way. I think we've both made our positions clear, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks for the thoughtful response.... yeah, yeah, yeah ... and I was just poking the bear. ;-)
It's been a while, hasn't it?
My descriptive points were just briefs of what had already been noted in the thread, not criticisms.
My argument with the 'degree of control' parameter (your huge corporations differentiation or Nathanville's 3-part test) is that, if the conditions demanded meet the established legal bar, it shouldn't matter how explicit or encompassing they are, or how big or small the client is; they are part of a voluntary contract.
The drivers are employees of the subcontractor, not Amazon, the subcontractor's client.
One needs Britain's artificial "workers" classification to justify the law/ordinance NYC wants to enact.
GAGA, I think we're actually closer on this than it might appear.
I agree that if the subcontractor is genuinely independent, employs the drivers, and controls how the work is performed, then the subcontractor should be responsible for its employees. And I agree that the size of the client shouldn't, by itself, determine legal responsibility.
Where I still disagree is with the idea that calling something a voluntary contract necessarily settles the issue. A contract can say one thing about the relationship between the parties, while the actual working arrangement can raise a different legal question. That's why "degree of control" matters in the first place.
If a company has the contractual ability to dictate how work is performed, set performance requirements, control the pace, monitor compliance, and penalize a contractor for failing to meet those requirements, I think it's reasonable to ask whether the relationship is truly as independent as the paperwork suggests. That doesn't automatically make the client legally responsible; it just means the contract isn't necessarily the end of the inquiry.
And that's really the distinction I was trying to make. I'm not arguing that Amazon should be treated as the employer simply because it's Amazon, nor am I arguing for unions or some government takeover of the business model. I'm saying that responsibility should follow the actual relationship and the applicable law, rather than being determined solely by what the parties call the arrangement.
As for the NYC proposal, I'm still not convinced that pointing to Britain's "worker" classification settles the issue. Different jurisdictions can draw the line differently, but that doesn't necessarily tell us whether the underlying concern about control and accountability is legitimate here.
And yes... apparently it *has* been a while.You infer that there is a 'line' that turns a company's employees into equals of the company's clients' employees.
Other than the legal test that applies equally to all, who would draw that line? Who determines where that line is drawn? Why shouldn't a legal contract be the end of it?
My argument isn't that NYC doesn't have the authority; it's that they must rely on Britain's artificial "Worker" reasoning to justify it. The reasons NYC offers are bogus.
GAGA, I think your questions are fair, and maybe this is where we can narrow down where we actually disagree.
When I said, “Different jurisdictions can draw the line differently,” I wasn't suggesting that someone should invent a new line between one company's employees and another company's employees. I meant the legal distinction between an employee and an independent contractor. And yes, I would expect the applicable law to establish that test, with the courts ultimately deciding how it applies to the facts.
As to your question, “Why shouldn't a legal contract be the end of it?” — that's really where I think our disagreement is.
I agree that the contract is important. If two businesses voluntarily enter into a legitimate independent-contractor agreement, I don't think the government should simply disregard it because it doesn't like the arrangement.
But I don't think a contract can necessarily determine the legal status of the relationship all by itself. If the law considers things like degree of control, then I think the actual relationship has to be considered too.
That's why I said, “A contract can say one thing about the relationship between the parties, while the actual working arrangement can raise a different legal question.” I wasn't saying the contract is meaningless. I was saying that if the law asks us to look at the actual relationship, then the contract isn't necessarily the end of the inquiry.
And I think the distinction is important: I'm not saying that if Amazon exercises some control, Amazon automatically becomes the employer. I'm saying that the degree and nature of that control may be relevant to determining whether the subcontractor is genuinely independent.
On the NYC/Britain point, I wasn't arguing that Britain's “Worker” classification proves NYC is right. I was saying that Britain's approach doesn't necessarily answer the separate question of whether the underlying issue of control and accountability is legitimate. If NYC's reasons are bogus, as you believe, that's certainly something we can debate. I just don't think Britain's classification, by itself, settles that question.
So I think we're actually left with a pretty specific disagreement: you seem to think the voluntary contract should be the end of the matter, while I think the contract should be considered along with the actual relationship if that's what the applicable legal test requires.
And honestly, that's a much narrower disagreement than I think either of us initially thought.Shields up. This is a friendly walk-through of a door you opened. ;-)
You acknowledge a description (legal), then use an inadequate substitute (legitimate). They are not the same, and the difference is the point I have been making.
I could make a voluntary agreement to provide a bankrobber's getaway car. Full of agreed-upon details. That would be a bona fide voluntary contract, maybe even signed in blood, a for-real legitimate contract. It's illegal as hell, but it is a legitimate contract.
Each of my statements have been about legal contracts. Legal voluntary agreements. If they break any of our labor laws (including your 'degree of control' thought), then they are not legal.
But if they do, why wouldn't they be the last word?
As for the British Worker point, it's only an illustration of the difference in legal judgement. They have it; we don't. I don't think it's right, but NYC does.
GAFair enough, GA. I think I see your point better now, and I probably muddied it a little by using the word "legitimate". You're talking specifically about a contract that is already legal under the applicable labor laws, not simply one that the parties voluntarily signed.
Where I still think we're talking past each other is what happens after we agree that the contract is legal. You seem to be saying that if it complies with the law, then the contract should be the last word. I'm still not completely convinced of that, because if the law itself says the actual relationship and degree of control are relevant to determining employment status, then I don't think calling the agreement a legal contract necessarily eliminates that inquiry.
But I'll concede this much: if the applicable law says that a properly formed independent-contractor agreement is controlling, then yes, I don't see a reason for government to go beyond it simply because it doesn't like the arrangement. That's a different proposition from saying that every contract is controlling regardless of what the law says.
And I think your bank-robber example actually helps clarify the distinction. Obviously, calling something a contract doesn't make an illegal agreement legal. Where I'm still interested in the argument is what the law says about a contract that "is" legal and complies with the applicable rules.
On the Britain/NYC point, I think we're probably closer there too. I understand now that you were using Britain simply to illustrate that different legal systems can make different judgments about the same underlying relationship, not as evidence that Britain's classification proves NYC's approach is correct.
So no shields needed.Better keep those shields up for a minute. I'm feeling dense, and stubborn. It looks like you're saying the same thing, but saying it as a further condition of what I'm saying.
You say: " I'm still not completely convinced of that, because if the law itself says the actual relationship and degree of control are relevant to determining employment status, then I don't think calling the agreement a legal contract necessarily eliminates that inquiry."
And I say, yes, right.
If the law requires an examination of the 'work relationship', then fine. The contract must meet the bar of the law's determining criteria. No currently regulated criteria are eliminated or bypassed.
On the other hand, and with a bit of British slant, if a society wants to change the work-determinant criteria (like this NYC issue), because of a change in work model (like some Uber-style gig-workers???), then change the labor laws like Britain did.
Until then, the question stands: why shouldn't a voluntary and legal contract be the last word? For now, the Court says it should; that's why NYC has to change the law to get the control and money that are at stake.
I'm not being purposely dense; what am I missing?
GAGA, I think you finally talked yourself right back around to my original point.
I don't think you're missing anything now. In fact, I think we're essentially saying the same thing, with one important difference in emphasis.
If the law says employment status is determined by certain factors- control, independence, how the work is actually performed, etc.—then of course those factors have to be applied. I'm not arguing that a piece of paper can magically make an illegal arrangement legal. A contract can't override the law.
But once the arrangement has met the legal test and the contract is lawful under the rules that apply, I don't understand why we should assume there is some additional, broader governmental inquiry simply because someone doesn't like the economic result.
That's really where I think we've been circling each other.
You keep asking, "What does the law say makes the contract controlling?" And I'm saying that's exactly the question that should be answered first. If the law says the contract controls once certain conditions are met, then it controls. If the law says the actual working relationship controls, then we examine the working relationship. And if lawmakers decide that those rules no longer fit a new business model, they can change the law, as you pointed out Britain did.
What I don't think we should do is change the meaning of an existing legal arrangement after the fact simply because the arrangement has become politically or economically inconvenient.
Think of a building that was constructed according to the building code that was in effect when it was approved. If the city later decides the code should be stricter, it can certainly change the code for new construction. But it would be a very different thing to declare that the old building was somehow noncompliant all along simply because the city now prefers a different standard.
That's the distinction I'm trying to make: changing the rule is one thing; changing what the rule meant after people relied on it is another.
And I think that's probably the point where we actually disagree, not over whether the law matters, but over how far government should be allowed to go once the parties have complied with the law.
So no, I don't think you're being dense. I think you're being stubborn. There's a difference.
And apparently I'm stubborn too, because here we are still discussing the same contract from twelve different angles.
Hi GA; this caught my eye because the first thing that crossed my mind was how much tighter workers’ rights are under British law — rights that already achieve in the UK what the Delivery Protection Act is trying to achieve in NYC. Uber drivers sprang to mind immediately.
So I did a bit of digging and compared Amazon’s last‑mile delivery model in the UK and the USA. What I found pretty much confirmed what I already suspected:
USA - New York (current situation)
Amazon subcontracts most last‑mile delivery. The subcontractors are small companies, lightly regulated, and Amazon controls almost every aspect of the work while avoiding legal responsibility.
Effects:
• Drivers often lack proper worker protections.
• Safety standards vary widely.
• The City has limited power to regulate subcontractors.
• Crash rates rise around last‑mile facilities.
• Amazon can deny responsibility because the drivers aren’t “their” employees.
This is exactly what the Delivery Protection Act is trying to fix.
UK (how it works here)
The UK is far more regulated, and Amazon cannot operate the same loophole‑heavy model.
1. UK delivery drivers already have defined employment categories
Drivers are usually:
• Direct employees (Amazon Logistics drivers), or
• Self‑employed couriers working for well‑established delivery companies like DPD, Royal Mail, Evri, Yodel, etc.
Even the self‑employed couriers have statutory rights, health & safety requirements, vehicle standards, insurance requirements, and working‑time limits.
2. UK regulators can intervene directly
Bodies like HMRC, the Health & Safety Executive (HSE), the DVSA, and Local Government can enforce rules on working conditions, vehicle safety, and employment status.
3. UK roads and depots are already under tighter oversight
Large distribution centres must comply with planning rules, traffic impact assessments, environmental standards, and worker safety regulations. Nothing like the “Wild West” situation described in NYC.
4. Consequently, Amazon UK directly employs many last‑mile drivers
Amazon Logistics drivers are Amazon employees, and Amazon supplements them with other regulated delivery companies where appropriate.
UK - And it’s not just drivers — all Amazon UK staff work under stronger, legally guaranteed protections
Across the board — warehouse workers, drivers, office staff, seasonal workers — UK employment law gives baseline rights Amazon cannot avoid, for example sick pay, holiday pay, maternity/paternity leave, minimum‑wage enforcement, rest breaks, working‑time limits, pensions, and health & safety protections. Even agency workers have defined rights.
Crucially, Amazon UK cannot strip these rights away by calling someone a “contractor”. UK courts have repeatedly ruled against “bogus self‑employment” (Uber, Deliveroo, Hermes/Evri cases).
So yes — Amazon staff in the UK generally have better pay stability, safer working conditions, and stronger legal protections.
USA: Far weaker baseline protections for all Amazon workers
The USA has no national guarantees for things like sick pay, holiday pay, maternity/paternity leave, rest‑break requirements, maximum working hours, universal healthcare, or minimum pension contributions. These vary by state, and many states have none of them.
Because Amazon relies heavily on subcontracting, many workers fall into categories with even fewer protections — no guaranteed healthcare, no paid time off, no job security, no unfair‑dismissal protection, and no guaranteed minimum hours. This is reflected in higher injury rates, more heat‑related incidents, pressure‑based quotas, disputes over bathroom breaks, and repeated unionisation attempts.
Closing thought:
From my UK perspective, it looks as though NYC is trying to close a loophole that British law closed years ago. Whether the Delivery Protection Act is the right tool for that — or whether it creates new problems — is something only the debate will reveal. But the contrast between the two systems is certainly striking.Outside of the price fixing done in the UK, what "rights" are employees missing out on?
Hi wilderness; just to clear up one point straight away — the UK doesn’t do price fixing. That’s illegal here, same as in the USA. What you’re thinking of is price capping, which is something completely different.
Price capping only applies to essential‑service monopolies where there’s no real market competition — things like electricity, water, rail fares, bus fares (now capped at £2), social‑housing rents, airport charges, Royal Mail, mobile roaming, and certain pharmaceuticals. Everything else — food, petrol, private rents, consumer goods — is left entirely to market forces.
And on your actual question: UK employees aren’t missing out on any rights.
They already had strong statutory protections under UK and EU law, and those didn’t disappear when we left the EU. In fact, they were strengthened further in December 2025 under the Employment Rights Act. Employers simply operate within those legal obligations — that’s the framework everyone works under here.
A few examples from the 2025 Act:
• Zero‑hours contracts banned outright.
• Fire‑and‑rehire banned.
• Flexible working made a legal right, not just a right to request.
• Unfair dismissal protection from day one.
• Full trade‑union rights restored (rolling back Thatcher‑era restrictions).
• Strike‑ballot rules eased.
• Limits on NDAs to prevent gagging harassment cases.
• Stronger protections for seafarers.
So when I talk about “rights”, I’m referring to these statutory protections — not price controls. They’re simply part of the legal framework that UK workers operate under, and the legal obligations employers operate within.HI, I thought that i might interject here a bit. Without the faux pas of stumbling over the word “Socialism”, we have statutory controls over major utilities like, electricity and natural gas for consumers. Even if the companies are privately owned they have to get an approval from state regulatory commissions to raise rates. And i am with you, those statutory protections are NOT price controls, it is one of those things recognizing that “market forces” are not enough to protect consumers from monopolies and price gouging regarding resources that we all have to use.
Yep, it all makes sense — and I’m with you. That’s the right way to handle essential‑service monopolies. Some things are too fundamental to leave entirely to market forces, so statutory oversight is simply the practical solution.
The thought of you and I finding common ground on this one brought a smile. This is all about ideology: no concrete facts to argue — only 'gray' areas to debate. The unsatisfactory ending to our 'coconuts' discussion comes to mind.
But who knows, I might get lucky. ;-)
To set the stage:
The bill's author notes that the bill is 'sponsored/motivated' by a faction of the Teamsters Union: Amazon Teamsters, whose stated goal is to force Amazon to further unionize. It is not a hidden agenda. It is the agenda the bill's sponsor announced, the union documented, and the Mayor endorsed.
The point is that the list of problems is a list of union mantras, not delivery-driver-specific injustices. The first time I saw the "wild west' description was in a union document. It's a talking point. It has a purpose, and it isn't reporting—it's promotion. Legally, subcontractors must operate under the same federal and state employment and workers' rights laws as any other employer. I haven't discovered any "loopholes" specific to Amazon or its DSP partners.
From recall, your "effects" list looks like a list I saw in the Amazon Teamsters Union support document, and also in the official Mayor's Office announcement. When I look for specifics of the items, I find union goals instead of documented support for the claim.
I'm not sure what you mean about the varying safety standards thing. It appears that each segment of the industry has legal safety standards to meet. There may be an argument about those standards, but there isn't one relative to adherence or liability. There are no loopholes for Amazon.
The higher crash/accident rates within the physical environment of 'last-mile deliveries' are vs. what? Legally, the safety requirements are the same, whether a union employee or an independent contractor employee. So what are the crash rates compared to? What are they purported to be higher than? Surely it has to be more than a comparison to crash/accident rates in a non-distribution center area?
Consider the "responsibilities" you say Amazon can deny by using a DSP business model. What are they? My good faith effort to see it from 'your side' still sees only union goals, not legal or social inequities in the subcontracting concept.
As a caveat, "Amazon" is shorthand. The Act applies to all delivery companies of its ilk.
Relative to differences in our systems, your "self-employed couriers" description sounds like subcontractors to me. There may be different employment laws, but the concept seems the same. They are independent service companies, right?
I think our subcontractors have the same legal "statutory rights, health & safety requirements, vehicle standards, insurance requirements" as any other employee. The difference seems to be with union employment standards vs. legal employment standards.
Our employment regulatory agencies can also intervene directly, relative to American labor laws — but not union mandates. The charge isn't that Amazon is breaking laws; it is that the current ones don't force Amazon to meet union standards.
Relative to the big distribution centers, I bet the hoops and hurdles to build and operate one in NYC might match your strict UK demands. I don't think that's a valid point. *shrug*
So, it isn't a matter of correcting legal wrongs and abuses; it's a matter of ideological belief. Ours are miles apart. I don't see any logical reason (beyond the logic of unions) to require delivery by Amazon employees.
More realistically, I believe the counter-arguments, ie., the loss of delivery jobs and damage to New Yorkers, are more true than the arguments for the act.
As a sidebar:
The NYC subcontractors' average wage is said to be $24 p/hr, and the average Amazon warehouse worker is listed as $20-25 p/hr. The subcontractors aren't being underpaid.
The subcontractors are already legally required to meet the same labor law standards an Amazon employee would be required to meet.
Your closing thought brought a chuckle as I thought of the word substitution I would offer:
From my American perspective, it looks like Amazon is fighting a Union power grab that the UK surrendered to years ago. ;-)
GAI think we may partly be talking at cross purposes, and partly I may have muddied the waters because I’m trying to understand the NYC situation from what’s available online; so your insight is invaluable.
For clarity, I wasn’t trying to compare last‑mile Amazon vs non‑Amazon couriers within NYC. I was comparing NYC to the UK — two very different regulatory environments.
On crash rates:
NYC has very clear, quantified evidence that crash rates rise sharply around last‑mile delivery facilities — truck‑related crashes up 146%, truck‑injury crashes up 137%, and 78% of nearby neighbourhoods seeing more injury‑causing crashes. London doesn’t publish crash data specifically tied to last‑mile hubs, but we can compare overall road‑safety outcomes. London’s road‑fatality rate is about 2.7 deaths per 100,000 people, whereas NYC’s is about 3.9 per 100,000 — roughly a 44% higher fatality rate. So NYC starts from a worse baseline, and then sees additional crash spikes around last‑mile facilities. London does not show any comparable pattern, largely because UK delivery fleets, depots, vehicles, and working conditions are all regulated in ways NYC is only now trying to introduce.
On regulatory differences:
This is where I think our two systems diverge most clearly. In the UK, delivery operations — whether Amazon Logistics or self‑employed couriers — sit inside a tightly regulated framework. HMRC enforces employment status; the DVSA enforces vehicle standards; the HSE enforces workplace safety; Working Time Regulations enforce rest breaks and maximum hours; and planning law regulates depots, traffic impact, and environmental standards. None of this is ideological — it’s just the legal environment UK delivery companies operate within.
On “self‑employed couriers” vs NYC subcontractors:
I may not have explained this clearly enough in my original post. UK “self‑employed couriers” are individuals — one person, one vehicle — working for companies like Royal Mail, DPD, Evri, Yodel, etc. They are not subcontractor businesses hiring fleets of drivers. They cannot avoid DVSA vehicle standards, HSE safety rules, HMRC employment‑status checks, or Working Time Regulations. So although the term “self‑employed” sounds similar, the structure is very different from NYC’s DSP model, where Amazon contracts with small delivery companies who then hire multiple drivers. The UK model simply doesn’t allow the same separation of control and liability.
On wages:
I wasn’t suggesting subcontractors are underpaid. The hourly rate may well be fine. The difference is that UK workers — whether employees or self‑employed couriers — have legally guaranteed stability: sick pay, holiday pay, rest‑break rules, unfair‑dismissal protection, and so on. In NYC’s subcontracting model, the hourly rate may be comparable, but the worker has none of those protections. So the issue isn’t the wage level, but the absence of legal safeguards.
On “loopholes” and responsibility:
This is where the NYC Delivery Protection Act seems to be aimed. The DSP model allows Amazon to control routes, quotas, schedules, and performance metrics, while the legal responsibility for safety, vehicle standards, working conditions, and crash liability sits with the subcontractor company. That separation doesn’t exist in the UK — Amazon Logistics drivers are Amazon employees, and the self‑employed couriers work for regulated delivery companies who carry the legal responsibility directly. So the NYC bill looks like an attempt to close a structural gap that UK regulation already closed years ago.
Closing thought:
Your closing line also gave me a chuckle, where you said the UK “surrendered to a union power grab years ago.” I take it you’re aware that the Labour Party is literally the political wing of the trade unions. That isn’t a metaphor — it’s the historical reality.
The Labour Party was founded in February 1900 in London specifically so the trade unions could get their candidates elected to Parliament. That was the whole point of its creation: direct representation of organised labour in the legislature.
And that structure still exists today. The trade unions retain a one‑third vote share in electing new Labour Party leaders — who become Prime Minister when Labour is in power. They also hold a one‑third vote share in shaping Labour Party policy at the annual conference each October. Those policies form the backbone of Labour’s election manifesto and, when Labour wins, the foundation of government legislation.
A very recent example of that influence is the Employment Rights Act, which became law in December 2025. Its main points include:
• Zero‑hours contracts banned outright.
• Fire‑and‑rehire banned — employers can no longer threaten dismissal to force staff onto worse contracts.
• Flexible working made a legal right — improving on the 2014 Conservative law that only gave employees the right to “request” it.
• Unfair dismissal protection from day one — previously, under Conservative rules, workers had to wait two years for that protection.
• Full trade‑union rights restored — strengthening union access, simplifying recognition, and rolling back the severe restrictions imposed by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.
• Industrial action rules eased — again rolling back Thatcher‑era restrictions, making strike ballots simpler and fairer.
• Limits on NDAs — preventing gagging clauses that hide harassment or discrimination.
• Stronger seafarers’ protections — tightening the Conservatives’ 2023 Seafarers’ Wages Act to close loopholes used by ferry operators.
So yes — from my side of the political fence, the UK didn’t “surrender” to a union power grab. We built an entire political party to represent organised labour, and then we put it into government. That’s our history, and I’m quite happy to stand on my soap box and wave that flag when the opportunity arises.I pondered this one all day. I was right; at its roots, the issue is defined by ideology. So it's one of belief and allegiance.
But that doesn't have to mean 100% opposites. My focus was on the DSP aspect of the Act; the distribution center part was a tangent. My flip comment about the hoops and hurdles to build in the city didn't give it enough attention. I do think the city has a responsibility relative to the neighborhood impact of those centers.
My point about crash statistics was right, so the statistics point to a state failure (ie., failed zoning controls?), not a nefarious practice or loophole. It looks like the city needs to act. I'll leave the degree and method of that action to New Yorkers.
That leaves the DSP subcontracting issue. You didn't muddy the waters with your comparison. Your description, combined with a few bits Google offered, shows your independent 'subcontractor' courier concept is very similar to NYC's, except for the obvious difference in labor law perspectives.
So again, it's an ideological difference — not a loopholes and abuses difference. I don't think the DSP part of the act will pass constitutional muster.
GAOn the ideological point:
I agree there’s an ideological layer — that’s inevitable when we’re comparing UK and USA labour systems. But the DSP issue itself isn’t ideological; it’s structural. The two systems look similar on the surface, yet legally they operate in completely different universes. That’s the part that gets lost when we use the same words on both sides of the Atlantic — “self‑employed”, “independent”, “contractor” — even though they mean very different things in UK law and USA law.
In the UK, “self‑employed couriers” are operationally independent — they use their own vehicles and work individually — but legally they’re treated as if they were Amazon employees. That’s because British law has a middle category called “worker”, which doesn’t exist in the USA. A “worker” isn’t a traditional employee, but they still get many of the same rights: minimum wage, holiday pay, rest breaks, unfair‑dismissal protection, and backdated compensation. So although UK drivers look “self‑employed” on paper, the courts treat them as part of Amazon’s workforce.
Unlike NYC, where battles over driver status are still ongoing, the UK model has already been through major legal challenges. Over 3,000 UK Amazon delivery drivers brought a class‑action case arguing that Amazon exercised total control over their routes, schedules, and performance metrics. The courts agreed, and Amazon (along with its delivery partners) was forced into a settlement worth around £140 million — tens of thousands of pounds per driver. This mirrored the landmark UK Uber Supreme Court ruling, which established that gig‑economy drivers are legally “workers” entitled to the National Minimum Wage, paid holiday, and backdated compensation.
The USA doesn’t have this “worker” category. In NYC, drivers are employees of small subcontractor companies (DSPs), not Amazon. Even though Amazon controls the work, the legal responsibility sits with the DSPs. That’s why NYC is trying to regulate the DSP model directly — because American law doesn’t provide the middle ground that UK courts use to classify drivers as part of Amazon’s workforce.
On the crash‑statistics point:
I agree with you — the crash data does point to a failure in zoning and traffic‑impact controls rather than anything nefarious. And yes, the degree and method of any action is for New Yorkers to decide.
Closing thought:
I take your point about ideology — it’s always in the background when we compare UK and USA labour systems. But in this case, the difference really is structural rather than ideological. The UK simply has a legal middle‑ground (“worker”) that the USA doesn’t, and that one missing category ends up shaping everything else: responsibility, rights, liability, and how Amazon’s delivery model fits into the wider regulatory framework. As for whether the DSP section of the bill passes constitutional muster — I’ll leave that one to American lawyers. My British instinct is just to put the kettle on and let New Yorkers decide how they want their city to run.
For reference:
This is the landmark UK Supreme Court ruling that established gig‑economy drivers — including Amazon delivery drivers — as legally “workers” under UK law. In practice, that means all such self‑employed drivers are treated as if they are employees, with full employment rights: proper pay, paid sick leave, paid annual leave (vacation), and regulated working conditions, exactly as any other employee would receive under British law.
Uber vs Uber Drivers — UK Supreme Court ruling (2021): https://youtu.be/hgo2WoG-OVYHere, it is about gig-labor, independent people augmenting companies to provide services for the companies without any protection.
Outside of tips, I don’t see how anyone can make any money with UBER and i like to be proved wrong. Combine your time, your gasoline, wear and tear on your own vehicle, do you really come out ahead?
I mentioned before such temerity of the private sector business community have no bounds. In Hawaii, the hotel industry had people sign no-compete contracts, restricting their ability to apply for a job within the same industry for specified period of time. So, there are not any trade secrets to protect in the hotel industry, so why the restriction? All it does is limit the employee’s choices to move on to better working conditions and wages, in my opinion.Tipping culture:
Yep, exactly — in the USA, food servers rely heavily on tips because their base wage is a pittance. I was already aware of that side of it, but the finer details of how the payment system works I’ve only picked up online from the Internet:-
* The bill comes with a blank tip line, card machines prompt for suggested percentages, and the whole flow is built around tipping.
In contrast, in the UK everyone must be paid at least the legal minimum wage, so tipping has more or less disappeared. With contactless payments people simply tap for the exact bill amount — no tip line, no prompt, no expectation. Decades ago you might leave a pound or two on the table (but it was never expected or asked for), but contactless is universal now, food servers earn a proper wage, and tipping isn’t culturally expected, so tipping has quietly faded out of everyday life completely in the UK.
Gig‑labour:
And you’re right about gig‑labour too. Without the middle‑ground “worker” category we now have in UK law, it would be extremely difficult for Uber drivers or couriers here to make a living. Once you factor in fuel, insurance, maintenance, and unpaid time, the numbers simply don’t work unless proper employment rights are in place.
Non‑compete clauses:
We do have non‑competes in the UK, but they’re far more limited than the ones you’re describing in Hawaii. Here, they must be reasonable, narrow, and tied to a legitimate business interest — and they must not prevent someone from earning a living.
Typically they’re used only for senior staff, capped at six months, restricted to a specific competitor or area, and focused on protecting trade secrets or client relationships. Anything broader is usually thrown out by the courts. And the law is about to tighten further, reducing non‑competes to a maximum of three months.I certainly appreciate the use of non-compete clauses as appropriate when you are dealing with “rocket science”. I like “reasonable, narrow and tied to a legitimate business interest”, so one should be able to move from McDonalds to Burger King without the danger of divulging trade secrets.
America is a difficult place, a place where you must hustle to survive. It is just that the corporate class and oligarchy have a structural and insurmountable advantage that is almost impossible to overcome.
A most interesting observation regarding the tipping custom, how do you reward exemplary service as a customer?Non‑compete clauses:
Credence — that’s a good way of putting it. Non‑competes only make sense when there’s something genuinely sensitive at stake, not when someone just wants to move from McDonald’s to Burger King. “Reasonable, narrow, and tied to a legitimate business interest” is exactly the principle our courts apply, and it’s why broad restrictions tend to get thrown out in the UK. The aim is to protect genuine secrets, not to trap people in place.
Tipping culture:
That is a good question on how we reward exemplary service as a customer in the UK. The simple answer is that we just say “Thanks” with sincerity to show appreciation. Because servers here are paid a proper wage, a well‑meaning thanks genuinely carries weight — it’s part of the social norm. With contactless payments there’s no tip line or prompt, so recognition tends to be personal rather than financial.
I can feel the breath of that coconut ghost on the back of my neck ...
Yes, there is a structural difference, but it is due to an ideological difference, not a right-or-wrong, correct-or-incorrect difference. Your "worker" category illustrates the point.
My perspective is that there are two work choices: employer or employee. Your 3rd choice, "worker," is an artificial creation. Your ideology says it's needed; mine says it's an instrument of control. So my arguments against it (ie., my view of your independent couriers as subcontractors) can only be ideological ones. The structural differences seem like just misnomers to me. As you say, the words mean different things to us.
As a rhetorical question, using your independent carriers explanation, would the same logic apply to ditch diggers with the same type of job parameters control? How about Temp agencies?
Your "worker" creation isn't structurally wrong (relative to the NYC issue); it's conceptually wrong. You can't (by my logic) demand the independence that comes with working for yourself (employer/subcontractor) and the safety of being an employee. You can't be a little bit pregnant.
Your Uber link made me wince. Everything about it seemed wrong.
GAIf my Uber link made you wince, then I’m sure our British laws on ‘Public Rights of Way’ will make you wince also:
Public rights of way are one of the clearest examples of a medieval institution still used every single day in modern Britain. They allow the public in Britain to cross private land because the right itself is ancient – older than Parliament, older than most property boundaries, and still legally enforceable in 2026.
Local governments maintain definitive maps showing every legal public right of way, landowners must by law keep these paths unobstructed, blocking them can lead to enforcement notices and prosecution; and Ordnance Survey maps show every legal right of way.
England and Wales have about 140,000 miles of public rights of way, making it one of the largest legally‑protected access networks in the world.
Most of the public rights of way in England and Wales are thousands of years old, with many dating back to medieval, Roman, and even prehistoric Britain.
Here’s a short four‑minute video that touches on this:
Hiking England's Public Footpaths: https://youtu.be/mdOpg7sZB4g
Yep, I agree that the structural differences do stem from ideological differences between our two great nations: America firmly believes in laissez‑faire and the principle of ‘profit before people’; whereas in Europe we firmly believe in Government Regulations and the principle of ‘people before profit’ – Two completely different and opposing ideologies.
Yep, I know there is no middle ground in the American culture, one is either an employee or self‑employed; but that doesn’t stop another country from legally creating a third workforce by blending the two (a hybrid) – Under UK law a ‘worker’ category is just as valid as an employee or self‑employed driver.
You might see the ‘worker’ category under British law as an ‘artificial creation’, I see it as a ‘new job’ category which now exists in Britain, but does not exist in America – And there are plenty of examples where Britain and the rest of Europe classify things differently and do things differently to the USA, but that doesn’t make them artificial, that just makes them different — for example, Britain requires a TV licence to watch live television, which seems completely artificial to Americans but is just a normal part of how we fund public broadcasting.
On your rhetorical question:
Yes — the same logic would apply to ditch diggers or temp‑agency workers, but only if the company exercised the same level of control over them as Uber or Amazon do over their drivers. UK law doesn’t classify people by the type of work they do; it classifies them by the relationship. If a company sets the pay, sets the schedule, directs the workflow, monitors performance, and prevents the worker from building their own customer base, then that person is legally a “worker” — whether they’re digging ditches, delivering parcels, or placed through a temp agency. Temp workers in Britain already have a defined set of rights under the Agency Workers Regulations, but if the control test is met, they would fall into the “worker” category. The job title doesn’t matter; the degree of control does.
On temp agencies specifically:
It’s also worth noting that temp workers in the UK have far more legal protections than temp workers in the USA. Under the Agency Workers Regulations, UK temps get equal pay to permanent staff after 12 weeks, holiday pay, statutory sick pay, regulated working hours, and protection from unfair treatment. In the USA, temp workers generally don’t receive any of those rights unless the individual employer chooses to offer them. So even before you get to the “worker” category, the UK already has a middle‑ground system for temp labour that simply doesn’t exist in the USA. Again, it’s not artificial — it’s just a different legal tradition.
On your “little bit pregnant” point:
I get the analogy, but I don’t think it really maps onto how UK law works. From a British perspective, the “worker” category isn’t someone trying to be half employee and half self‑employed at the same time — it’s simply a hybrid category that sits between the two. And hybrids aren’t conceptually wrong; they exist everywhere, organic and inorganic. A mule isn’t “a little bit pregnant”, it’s just a perfectly viable hybrid of a horse and a donkey. UK labour law does the same thing: it recognises that some jobs fall between the two extremes, so it creates a third box for them. It’s not muddled or artificial — it’s just a different legal tradition.
So from my side, the “worker” category isn’t a ghost in the machine — just a British hybrid doing exactly what it was designed to do. Always enjoy the transatlantic compare and contrast.Brace yourself, I was familiar with your ‘Public Rights of Way’ tradition. And I like it. I saw a BBC Special about it a while back that prompted a bit of looking around. It is so 'British' that it makes sense — as a legally protected tradition. It feels right, so it gets smiling approval from me.
Also, with a smile, I have to temper your "laissez‑faire" thought. We are strong believers in capitalism, but not complete laissez‑faire capitalism. As with any 'ism', our acceptance comes in degrees. The extreme degrees (unmoderated/unregulated capitalism) are only embraced by extremists — the 'Wolf of Wall Street-types'. The rest of us realize society requires moderation in everything. There is a lot more to it than just a declaration of profit before people. You can't have capitalism (business) without both.
And some 'oil' for the "artificial" waters ... My use of artificial wasn't intended to mean fake or lesser, it was about basic reality vs. shaped reality.
At capitalism's atomic level, there are only two choices: employer or employee (buyer or seller). It is only when you add details that hybrids emerge. That's the natural structure of capitalism. I hope that seems a fair and accurate statement to you. If not, I should stop here, but I'll stumble on in hopes that it is.
I did consider your "hybrid" counter when I used the "pregnant" analogy. It was placed earlier in the reply before reconsideration prompted me to move & rephrase it.
Your donkey is a good illustration of the point. From my perspective, it is a naturally occurring hybrid. Like the donkey, the subcontractor is also a naturally occurring hybrid.
Mules aren't natural hybrids; they are a human creation, an artificial hybrid. A product of manipulation. Mules are your "workers" category.
Regarding your Temp worker example, I see them (within your 12-week timeframe) as employees of their agency, not the companies they are assigned to. Any benefits or standards applicable to them should come from their agency — the employer they work for.
As long as they operate within our laws, the 'Amazons' should have control of the jobs they pay for. The only 'control' the employee should have is that of choice: agree to provide the service as required, or don't.
GAGA — I appreciate your thumbs‑up for our Public Rights of Way. It’s always nice when one of our more eccentric British traditions lands well across the pond.
On the laissez‑faire point, fair enough — I know America isn’t completely unregulated. But from my side of the Atlantic, the balance often looks tilted far more towards employer discretion than it does here, and that colours how these debates feel to a Brit.
On your “artificial vs shaped reality” distinction: I get what you mean, but in that framing one could argue that bartering is the basic reality, and the American employee/contractor binary is itself a shaped reality. The UK simply shapes it differently by adding a third category. Neither system is more “natural”; they’re just different legal traditions.
Your “atomic level” capitalism point is interesting. At the macro level, yes — buyer and seller, employer and employee. But when you zoom in, the details matter. A political analogy would be that at the atomic level Europe has left‑wing and right‑wing politics, but once you zoom in you find a whole spectrum of parties. The UK’s worker category is just that kind of zoom‑in: a legal recognition that some relationships sit between the extremes.
On subcontractors versus workers: subcontractors are genuinely independent — they set their own prices, build their own customer base, and the hiring party is simply a client. That model doesn’t map onto gig‑economy platforms. Uber and Amazon drivers don’t set the price, don’t control the workflow, don’t choose the schedule, and can’t build their own customer base. They’re subordinate to the platform, so the subcontractor label doesn’t fit.
Temp workers: agreed — for the first 12 weeks they’re employees of the agency, not the hirer. But even in that period they still receive minimum wage, holiday pay, sick pay, and all the basic statutory rights that apply to any employee. The hirer also has day‑one obligations: access to facilities, health & safety, and non‑discrimination. So even in the first 12 weeks, responsibility isn’t entirely one‑sided.
On the “within the law” point: the UK and USA mean very different things by that phrase. In the USA, “within the law” still leaves employers with wide discretion, so the worker’s choice is essentially a Hobson’s choice — accept the terms or walk away. In the UK, the statutory framework is far tighter: minimum wage, holiday pay, rest breaks, discrimination protections, day‑one unfair‑dismissal protection, a ban on fire‑and‑rehire, and the courts’ ability to reclassify gig drivers as workers all limit what an employer can demand. So the British model isn’t a take‑it‑or‑leave‑it system; the law sets the baseline and employers must operate within it.
To close on the broader picture: the UK’s 2025 Employment Rights Act reflects the political reality that our Labour Government is the parliamentary wing of the trade‑union movement. They’ve restored most of the union and strike‑action rights that Margaret Thatcher abolished in the 1980s, and they’ve expanded flexible working into a day‑one legal right for all employees. The “worker” category is excluded, but employees now have a wide menu of options — flexitime, hybrid working, job‑sharing, compressed hours, annualised hours, term‑time working, phased retirement, self‑rostering, team‑based rostering, mobile working, four‑day week, split shifts, core‑hours roles, location‑flexible roles, asynchronous working, output‑based working, and work‑from‑anywhere.
The four‑day week is an interesting example of how quickly things evolve. Around 1.4 million people in the UK now work four days a week in some form, mostly through compressed hours. And a smaller but growing group — about 341 companies so far — have adopted the reduced‑hours model, where employees work 32 hours over four days while still receiving the same full‑time salary as the traditional 37.5‑hour, five‑day week. It’s still early days, but the trend is upward.
Always enjoy the compare‑and‑contrast across the pond.“On the laissez‑faire point, fair enough — I know America isn’t completely unregulated. But from my side of the Atlantic, the balance often looks tilted far more towards employer discretion than it does here, and that colours how these debates feel to a Brit”
That is definitely true and from the standpoint of left of center. Exploiting employees without enough restraint is a problem for me and others from my ideological point of view.
My daughter in law spoke derisively about businesses that dividing up tips as she was a waitress at a Honolulu restaurant and using that money as part of their minimum wage they were required to pay employees. So, whatever advantage came with providing exemplary customer service simply disappeared.Credence — thanks for that. Your daughter‑in‑law’s experience is a good example of what I meant about the balance of discretion. When employers can fold tips into the wage calculation, the whole point of rewarding good service gets blunted, and the worker ends up carrying the risk. It’s one of those areas where the UK and USA really do diverge in how they structure the basics.
Yep, I also enjoy our discussions. We used to be able to draw more folks in, but current politics have made non-partisan discussions hard to find. However, ideologically, I chuckled at your view that our side was more tilted towards employers. Well yeah ... ;-)
And speaking of cultural perspectives, your idea that the artificially shaped reality of the British system is as natural as the 'lesser-shaped' American one is nuts.
Leading with the infamous, as I see it ...
The concept of subcontracting is a natural development of a capitalistic system. It doesn't need human intervention or manipulation. Someone identifies a market need and finds a way to make money filling it. It's a natural process; it works best when we only set the rules for its use, not how it functions.
The market will not naturally create that 3rd choice. It takes human manipulation to do that. Your 'system ' is not as naturally formed as ours. And that is the point. You guys put your thumb on the scales more than we do. What supports the logic of indemnifying subcontractors?
Your idea of what a subcontractor can do needs conditioning. They can only do what the market allows. They can't demand a higher price than the market will bear. They can't do a job any way they want if they agreed to do it the way the provider wanted. Etc., etc. If they can't meet the job requirements (whatever they are), then they can't do the job. All of your mentioned areas of control are contingent on the subcontractor meeting the buyer's conditions. If they can't do that, no one will pay for their services.
If your society feels a segment of workers needs extra protection for their labor, why shouldn't it come from their immediate employer? How do you justify skipping over the subcontractor to go after the job provider?
I agree that Uber drivers are not subcontractors; they are self-employed. My understanding of the US Amazon drivers is that they are employees of the DSP that employs them. They are not subcontractors either.
From your mention of Margaret Thatcher forward, the list of new or renewed 'benefits' had me wondering why any employer would risk it.
Relative to your 4-day workweek thought, it seems to be trending in the US too, but differently (non-union); it's typically 4 10-hour days. It remains a 40-hour workweek. What is the logic to support the government requiring an employer to pay for labor he does not receive?
GAHi GA — I’ll need to step back from HP for a few days because I have to temporarily lift the decking down the side of my house so the water board can upgrade my mains supply from the street to my kitchen. It’s a free upgrade, and normally anything on private property would cost me around $6,000, so it’s definitely an offer I can’t refuse.
I’ll give a full reply to your post when I return, but before I go I want to quickly touch on one point — where you ask:
“What is the logic to support the government requiring an employer to pay for labor he does not receive?”
For clarity — in this case the government is not requiring employers to pay for labour they don’t receive. The reduced‑hours four‑day week in the UK is entirely voluntary. It began as a pilot launched by 70 companies on 6 June 2022, and has since grown to 341 companies that have chosen to adopt the model. More join each year.
The results have been interesting. Although staff work roughly 20% fewer hours (four standard days instead of five), for the same full‑time pay:
- 49% of companies report no change in productivity
- 46% report an increase in productivity
- Only 5% report a decline
The main explanation employers give is that after a three‑day weekend, staff return on Monday noticeably more refreshed, focused, and energetic — and because the week is shorter, they don’t hit that familiar Friday slump. In other words, the productivity loss many people assume simply hasn’t materialised for most companies.
Food for thought — and I’ll pick up the rest of your post properly once I’m back.GA — yes, I’ve noticed the absence of many of the old regular adversaries as well. The current American political climate does seem to make non‑partisan discussions harder to sustain, so it’s always good when a thread manages to stay on the rails. And on the ideological tilt, well, it’s hardly controversial to say the American system leans more towards employer discretion than the EU or UK, where governments have tended to regulate in order to level the playing field. That’s just the cultural baseline each side starts from. As for your line about the British system being “artificially shaped” and your view being “nuts”, I’ll take that as friendly fire — from my side of the pond, every legal system is shaped by human choices; ours has simply shaped things differently.
On subcontractors and gig‑platform drivers:
GA — on the basic definition of a subcontractor, I think we’re actually in agreement. A subcontractor arises naturally in a market: they set their own prices, choose their clients, negotiate terms, and build their own customer base.
Where we diverge is simply that I’m talking specifically about gig‑platform drivers, and that model doesn’t resemble subcontracting at all. Uber drivers don’t set the price, don’t choose the schedule, don’t control the workflow, and can’t build a customer base — which is why courts in the UK, Belgium, and now Australia have all concluded that gig‑drivers sit in a different category.
And interestingly, after arguing that the UK’s hybrid is “artificial”, you then say yourself that Uber drivers aren’t subcontractors and Amazon DSP drivers aren’t subcontractors either — which is exactly the point I’ve been making. If anything in this debate is an artificial hybrid, it’s the DSP model: the legal employer is the DSP, but Amazon controls the branding, workflow, routing, metrics, uniforms, vans, and training.
To all intents and purposes, Amazon functions as the employer while the DSP handles the payroll. That’s why UK law regulates the party that exercises control, not the party that merely processes wages. And it’s also why other countries are converging on the same conclusion — not because they’re “manipulating” the market, but because gig‑platforms themselves created a labour structure that isn’t a natural buyer–seller relationship in the first place.
On flexible working:
GA — on your question about “why any employer would risk it”, the key point is that flexible working isn’t a government‑imposed burden. The new Employment Rights Act 2025 gives employees a day‑one legal right to have flexible working — but crucially, that doesn’t mean a single mandated pattern.
It simply means employers and employees choose from a menu of established options to find the arrangement that works for both sides. The only part that is entirely voluntary is the reduced‑hours four‑day week — that model isn’t required by government at all.
And flexible working itself isn’t new in the UK. We’ve had flexitime in the civil service since 1974, and home‑working since 2007. In 2014, the Conservative Government introduced the legal right to request flexible working, with employers required to give a solid justification for refusing — otherwise they could be challenged in an Industrial Tribunal.
And it’s worth noting that an Industrial Tribunal in the UK is a free government service; an employee doesn’t need money to challenge an employer. That’s a major difference from the USA, where taking an employer to court requires substantial funds.
Labour’s 2025 Act simply moves from a right to request to a right to have, reflecting how normal flexible working has become over the last fifty years.
From the employer’s side, the business case is strong. Evidence from the UK Flexible Working Taskforce, CIPD, Acas and Working Families shows:
- 72% of employers say flexible working has been good for business.
- 75% say it helps them retain good staff.
- 69% report reduced sickness absence.
- 59% say it improves the quality and quantity of job candidates.
- 77% of line managers say flexibility increases productivity.
- Flexible working reduces turnover, lowering recruitment and onboarding costs.
- Employers report lower office‑space and utility costs.
- Flexibility improves diversity and inclusion, opening roles to parents, carers, older workers, disabled workers, and people with long‑term health conditions.
In other words, employers aren’t “risking” anything; they’re adopting patterns that make their organisations run better.
And to illustrate that, this short video from The Highland Council summarises the business case for flexible working in under two minutes — including the same statistics above, plus retention figures and labour‑market trends:
Flexible working isn’t just a buzzword — it’s a game changer for your business
https://youtu.be/-rBbgN14TZY
My own experience reflects that. In the civil service I was on flexitime: a 37‑hour week averaged over four weeks, with core hours from 10am to 12 noon and 2pm to 3:30pm, and complete freedom outside that. I tended to start early and finish late, building up credit to take three days paid flexi‑leave each month on top of my six weeks’ annual leave. My line manager preferred 7:30am to 3:30pm, and another colleague worked 10am to 6pm. Without hiring extra staff, the office was covered for nearly twelve hours a day — a clear operational benefit.
Home‑working was introduced in 2007, once high‑speed broadband had become widespread in domestic homes. Across the civil service, a significant number of staff began working from home full‑time, while others — like me — adopted a hybrid pattern. I typically worked from home three days a week and in the office two; it was my preference, and my line manager was happy with it because it didn’t create any difficulties for the team. That’s what we now call hybrid working: part of the week at home, part in the office, arranged in whatever way works for both sides.
My wife also used flexible working when she was nearing retirement. Chronic back pain made full‑time work difficult, so she wanted to move to part‑time hours. Her role was a full‑time post, so the practical solution was job‑sharing: she worked mornings in an admin role in the NHS, while her counterpart did the same job in the afternoons. None of this was ideological; it was simply practical.
On the four‑day week: again, nothing is being “required”. The reduced‑hours model — 32 hours over four days for full pay — is entirely voluntary. It began not with government but with a businessman and a businesswoman in New Zealand in 2018, and has since spread internationally. In the UK, 341 companies have chosen to adopt it because it works for them. The pilot results were striking: although staff worked roughly 20% fewer hours, 49% of companies reported no change in productivity, 46% reported an increase, and only 5% saw a decline. Employers consistently say the same thing: after a three‑day weekend, staff return more refreshed, focused, and energetic, and because the week is shorter, they don’t hit the Friday slump. The productivity loss people assume simply hasn’t materialised for most companies.
The American version — four ten‑hour days — is a compressed‑hours model, and we have that here too. The reduced‑hours model is different, but again, entirely voluntary. And it’s worth noting that even without flexible working, the typical working week in Europe is around 37 hours, compared with 40 in the USA, so the baseline is already different.
So when you ask “what is the logic for requiring an employer to pay for labour he does not receive?”, the answer is simply that no one is requiring it. Employers adopt flexible patterns — including reduced‑hours models — only when the productivity and retention gains make it worthwhile. The rest is driven by the labour market itself — employees want flexibility, and employers increasingly offer it because it helps them recruit, retain, and run their organisations more effectively. It’s a practical response to how people live and work today, not a political ideology.Yes, calling some aspects of your system nuts was "friendly fire." I'm glad to see that's the way it was taken.
For clarity, the crack about “why any employer would risk it” was directed at the total package of government mandates; it was not directed specifically at the flex-work concept. If it is a choice, I'm all for it. If it's a government mandate, I think it is overreach.
Coincidentally, a recent article had me poking into France's work and jobs situation. From my perspective, it's not good. It may have influenced my view of your system.
In France, my perception is that an employee hire is nearly a life-long commitment for the employer. Your list of employee benefits: 'Rights,' sounds a lot like theirs.
Hence the 'risk it' question.
Regarding gig-workers and subcontractors, there might be some confusion. I do not think self-employed and subcontractor are synonymous. Nor do I see subcontractor and gig-worker (Uber driver-type) as meaning the same thing..
*gimme some semantic slack here; we are opposites looking for a common step. This is simply a basic perception
Using the Uber example: Uber acts as a matchmaker, matching supply to demand. Uber drivers aren't employees; they are users of Uber's services as a matchmaker. Uber's terms of service and conditions for use are simply selection criteria, not employment criteria. What they offer is the opportunity to make money, not a position to make it (like a "job" job. LOL)
A sub-contractor is an employer. Their "product" is a service. That product could be some type of assembly or subassembly unit (think auto manufacturing), some form of labor (think drywall installer or finisher), or some type of service; from providing the actual DSP drivers to outsourced HR depts and management service.
If they can provide the service themselves (like a drywall finisher), then they are self-employed (in the US that would be a sole-proprietor or LLC legal entity). If they employ others, then they are as much of an employer as Amazon is.
Your reasoning that the creation of DSPs was an artificial creation is confounding. For me, it's the most natural of any market function: Someone thought of a way to fill a need cheaper than others were providing it. That's the foundation for everything, from better mousetraps to better lives.
There is a lot required for Amazon to run a delivery service. Someone found a legal way to provide that service cheaper. As long as the "someone" acts within the law, what responsibilities are Amazon shirking?
Consider capital machinery leasing companies. Such as, instead of buying a fleet, you lease it. Instead of spending big capital to outfit a restaurant kitchen, you lease the big pieces. Are companies that use leasing services like these 'skirting responsibilities' or manipulating loopholes?
That isn't trivializing labor; it's illustrating the concept. At root, Amazon's control of employment conditions is no different than a homeowner telling the painter how they wanted the house painted. Or a restaurant owner specifying what type of oven they would lease.
There's more mileage in this tangent of the discussion, and I hope it continues, but I'm busting to brag. So I'm going to make you listen to a cute story as a price of engagement.
Setting the stage: My 6-year-old grandson was with me this morning. He's been reading since he was 3 1/2. We were playing Cranium, an adult game. Since there are only two of us, it's modified play, of course, and we typically play it every day.
Anyway, here's what floored me:
His card task required him to get me to guess a word based on his charade/mime actions. *(the cards are challenging for an adult to read)
So he squats down on the floor, waves his arms over his head, makes some kind of noises (remember he's 6), then stands up, pats himself on the chest, and waves at me.
None of it made any sense to me. He had to explain it.
The squat, waving arms, and noises were representing a monkey. (I could see that after he explained) And standing up, patting his chest, and waving represented him.
When he showed me the word he was trying to get me to guess, I was so proud I had to quickly unbutton my shirt to keep the buttons from popping.
Can you guess the word from the clues: a monkey and a boy?
I wouldn't expect a better illustration from an adult.
Have you guessed it yet?
..................
..................
Evolution!
One more time ... a 6-year-old mimes going from a chimpanzee to a human as a definition of evolution. Whooo eee.
GAGA — thanks for the friendly fire; I took it exactly as intended. And yes, looking at France’s system can absolutely give you the willies — but the real contrast isn’t France versus the UK. It’s Europe versus the USA. France and the UK both built their employment protections on the same EU foundations; France simply applies them in a more rigid, job‑security‑focused way. The USA, by comparison, has a far lighter regulatory approach, which is why Europe’s model can look so alien from your side of the pond.
Anyway, picking up your points one by one…
Flexible Working
Just to clarify the flexible‑working element of the new Employment Rights Act 2025: if an employee’s request is reasonable, the employer can’t refuse it — and “reasonable” is the key word. Most office‑based roles can be done from home these days, so asking for one or two home‑working days a week would be reasonable. In a factory environment, that same request would be unreasonable — but job‑sharing to allow part‑time work would be reasonable.
In practice, flexible working is simply a discussion between employer and employee to agree what works for both sides. If they can’t agree, an Industrial Tribunal — a free government service — can settle it. If you want to see flexible working in full cinematic action, the last half of 9 to 5 with Dolly Parton gives a surprisingly good flavour of it.
And for context, Britain is the 6th wealthiest country in the world — so we must be doing something right.
Job for Life — Unfair Dismissal
You’re right that UK employee rights look similar to France and the wider EU — because before Brexit, much of our employment law was EU law. For example, the EU Working Time Directive caps the average working week at 48 hours, including overtime. EU law sets a baseline; member states can legislate above it if they wish.
When the UK was leaving the EU in 2020, Boris Johnson promised to abolish all EU‑derived laws. He never did — so all pre‑2020 EU employment protections remain in force.
Historically, the “job for life” idea comes from unfair‑dismissal protection. Before the 1980s, UK employees gained protection after one year. Margaret Thatcher changed that to two years, giving employers more time to assess suitability. In the civil service it was six months — the probation period.
The new Employment Rights Act 2025 changes that again: full protection from unfair dismissal now begins from day one. So yes, employers do take a risk when hiring.
But even with day‑one protection, the UK system is still far more flexible than France’s. France requires employers to demonstrate cause réelle et sérieuse (“real and serious cause”) for dismissal — a high legal threshold — and employers must explore redeployment within the company before dismissing. The UK has no redeployment obligation, and dismissal remains possible as long as the employer follows a fair process.
That fair process usually means a quiet word or informal verbal warning, then a formal written warning after investigation and a disciplinary meeting, then a final written warning if the issue continues, and only then dismissal. Serious misconduct can skip straight to a final warning.
Large private‑sector employers often add a “support and improvement” stage — adjusting duties, changing equipment, offering counselling, or exploring redeployment. It’s not mandatory, but it’s common.
If an employer follows a fair process, they have a solid defence if the employee brings an unfair‑dismissal claim to an Industrial Tribunal.
Gig Workers
On gig work, the “matchmaker” analogy doesn’t hold up once you look at how Uber actually operates. A true matchmaker introduces buyer and seller and then steps back; Uber does the opposite. It sets the price, controls the workflow, dictates the route, monitors performance, enforces behavioural standards, and can deactivate drivers unilaterally. Those aren’t selection criteria — they’re employer controls. When a platform determines pay, directs the work, and retains the power to discipline or remove the worker, it isn’t offering a casual opportunity to make money; it’s a tightly controlled labour relationship. That’s why courts in the UK, Belgium, and Australia have all rejected the “matchmaker” argument — the facts simply don’t fit it.
Your Six Points on Amazon DSP Drivers
On your six points about Amazon’s DSP model, here’s my take on each individually…
1. “A subcontractor is an employer… their product is a service.”
A subcontractor can be an employer, but that isn’t what defines them. What defines a subcontractor is independence: they set their own prices, choose their own clients, negotiate their own terms, and control how the work is done. Gig‑platform drivers do none of those things. They don’t set the price, can’t choose customers, can’t negotiate terms, and can be deactivated at will. So calling them “subcontractors” doesn’t match the facts. And in the DSP model specifically, the drivers aren’t “provided” by DSPs in any meaningful subcontractor sense — Amazon controls the branding, routing, metrics, uniforms, and workflow. DSPs carry the payroll risk, but Amazon retains the operational control, which is the opposite of a genuine subcontractor relationship.
2. “If they can provide the service themselves, they’re self‑employed; if they employ others, they’re an employer.”
That’s true in traditional markets. A drywall finisher markets their own service, sets their own rate, and controls their workflow. Uber drivers do not: Uber sets the fare, controls job allocation, dictates the route, and can remove the driver unilaterally. Employment law focuses on control, not on whether someone owns a van or has an LLC. Under that test, gig‑platform drivers fall squarely into “worker/employee,” not “self‑employed.”
3. “DSPs are a natural market function — someone found a cheaper way to fill a need.”
DSPs weren’t a natural evolution; they were a structural workaround designed to shift employer liability downward while Amazon retained operational control upward. That’s not a market discovering a cheaper way to meet demand — it’s a legal architecture built to separate control from responsibility. And this exact “independent contractor” framing has been tested repeatedly outside the USA: the UK Supreme Court, the Belgian Labour Court, the Dutch courts, the French Cour de Cassation, the Italian Supreme Court, and the Australian Fair Work Commission have all ruled that similar platform‑labour models were in reality employer‑controlled systems. When courts examine this structure, they consistently reject the idea that it’s a simple, natural market function — because the facts show platform‑level control over the work.
4. “Someone found a legal way to provide the service cheaper — what responsibilities is Amazon shirking?”
The responsibilities relate directly to control: wages, scheduling, discipline, safety standards, and employment protections. Amazon sets the metrics, routes, branding, uniforms, training, and performance requirements — all classic employer functions — but pushes payroll, HR risk, and liability onto DSPs. That split is precisely why the Delivery Protection Act exists: because Amazon exercises employer‑level control without carrying employer‑level responsibility.
5. “What about machinery leasing companies — are they skirting responsibilities?”
Leasing equipment isn’t comparable to controlling labour. A company leasing an oven doesn’t tell the chef how to cook, monitor their performance, or discipline them. Leasing is a capital arrangement; employment is a control relationship. Amazon’s DSP model isn’t about leasing vans — it’s about Amazon directing the work while another entity carries the legal burden. That’s not analogous to leasing machinery; it’s analogous to outsourcing the payroll while keeping the managerial control.
6. “Amazon’s control is no different than a homeowner telling a painter how to paint the house.”
A homeowner gives a painter a one‑off specification and then steps back. Uber and Amazon do not step back: they control pricing, workflow, routing, metrics, branding, behaviour standards, and access to work — continuously, not once. They also retain the power to discipline and remove workers. That level of ongoing control is the hallmark of an employment relationship, not a casual client‑contractor interaction. The analogy simply doesn’t fit the reality of platform labour.
Cranium
Wow — that really is impressive. No, I’d never have guessed that ape‑man was meant to represent evolution; that’s clever — and you’ve every right to be proud of your grandson. Kids really do make conceptual leaps that adults overthink.
I’d never heard of Cranium, so curiosity got the better of me — this short video gave me the gist:
Cranium — How to Play
https://youtu.be/gghQa_PGqbI
End‑Game
And yes, there’s definitely more mileage in this tangent. I’m enjoying the discussion — even if you do make me earn it by listening to cute stories as the price of engagement. Always enjoy these exchanges — even when they take us on unexpected detours."If an employer follows a fair process, they have a solid defence if the employee brings an unfair‑dismissal claim to an Industrial Tribunal."
That is a reasonable statement, until you look at the details of the labor structures (fair processes) it covers, such as the French labor laws. 'From Day 1' is an extreme condition.
It looks like we're stuck. There aren't any big misunderstandings to correct or gray areas to clarify. There are only the differences of our ideologies; arguments about why I'm right and you're wrong (I bet you think it's the other way around lol).
Sticking with Uber gig drivers: and understanding that your legal system defines it differently, I think the idea of control is misinterpreted.
You say Uber controls the workflow; my understanding is that the drivers can pick their own workflow; they can decide when to be available, and they can choose to accept or deny a job. Whether Uber dictates the route also seems interpretive. AI says Uber recommends one, but a driver may also pick the route.
That they would monitor performance seems a no-brainer; I don't understand why you would think that's an 'employer' control thing. It's an any-get-paid-to-do-something thing; you check to ensure you get what you pay for.
My point is that the argument is now to degrees, not right or wrong. The legal US perspective of these mentioned 'controls' is that they are with the driver, not the employer. Because yours says differently only means you have decided it's right—by your logic.
So what's left? It does seem right to say Uber controls the price, but that's not controlling the driver—they can decline the job offer. And the deactivation? Most explanations attribute that to 1) legal safety standards (ie., limit to a 12-hour shift with auto-logoff) 2) algorithmic selection/deselection (ie., trips offered or auto-logoff) based on performance reviews and ratings. Sounds reasonable to me, not like arbitrary control of performance.
So we're stuck. I think the US perspective of those mentioned points is as legitimate as you think yours are.
It gets worse with subcontractors. From the start, I don't agree with independence being the definition. It's an aspect, an adjective. A subcontractor is a middleman. It's in the name. They don't get to set their own prices; the market controls that. So we're arguing from the start. If a 'job' is offered with price parameters—the only freedom of price control is to accept or refuse.
Your criticism of DSPs not being true subcontractors is not logical. They are providing a service that someone else is willing to pay for. That you don't like the method or legal architecture doesn't negate the reality of the definition. Or its place in the mechanisms of the marketplace.
It gets worse ... your drywaller example. The Uber driver comparison doesn't work; neither of us sees them or the DSP drivers as subcontractors.
Throughout, your foundational point has been about "control." You (generic) want to use ideology to determine and justify control; I want the marketplace to decide it. The least amount of interference is the best amount of interference. World history is full of failed examples of that truism.
I say control of a job belongs to the employer, and you say it belongs to the employee. We're stuck. Nothing left but 'is too, is not' arguments.
GA ;-)GA — cheers for the thoughtful reply; lots to unpack here.
And yes, I agree with you straight away on one point: ‘from day one’ protection is extreme. Personally, I think six months would have been far more reasonable. But equally, from a European perspective, the American system — where an employer can fire someone on a whim — is also extreme. Two very different ends of the spectrum.
That’s the cultural gap again — not ideology, just different histories and assumptions.
On the “we’re stuck” point…
I don’t think we’re stuck. I think we’re doing what cross‑Atlantic discussions always do: discovering how deep the structural differences run. That’s why I enjoy these exchanges — they give me a chance to learn more about American culture, even if I don’t always understand or agree with it.
This video is a good example of what I mean. Just over five minutes in, the American talks about the work/life balance differences between the USA and UK — the very topic we’ve been discussing:
The UK Ruined America For Me: https://youtu.be/6l2bJ7e1V00
I don’t go as far as “I’m right, you’re wrong.”
Our cultures are different — and no culture is perfect.
Although, as a Brit, I do think European culture is better than American culture in most areas.
And yes, there are a few areas where I think America is simply wrong — the 2nd Amendment and the health system being two obvious examples.
But let me push back on the substantive points you raised, because these aren’t ideological — they’re factual.
Uber: control isn’t “interpretive” — it’s the legal test
You’re focusing on the surface freedoms:
• drivers choose when to log in
• drivers can accept or decline a job
• drivers can sometimes choose a route
Those freedoms exist — but they’re not the legal test for employment status.
The legal tests used worldwide look at:
• who sets the price
• who controls access to work
• who controls the workflow
• who controls the behavioural standards
• who controls the metrics
• who controls the discipline
• who can deactivate the worker
Uber controls all of those.
It’s not ideology — it’s just what courts around the world have concluded.
And from what I’ve read, even in parts of the USA the trend seems to be shifting — places like California, New York and Massachusetts have been debating or adopting ABC‑style tests that treat gig drivers more like workers. I’m not claiming any special insight into American law, but it does look as if the same questions about control are being raised there too.
Subcontractors: independence isn’t an adjective — it’s the definition
You said subcontractors don’t “get to set their own prices” because the market controls that.
I think we’re talking past each other slightly.
In the UK (and EU), subcontractors do set their own prices. They quote a rate for the job, and the client decides whether to accept it. That’s how plumbers, electricians, builders, gardeners, web designers — every independent trade — operates.
Market forces influence the price, of course, but they don’t set the price; the subcontractor does.
If they quote too high, they may price themselves out of the market — but that’s true of any business that isn’t a monopoly.
So yes, you’re right that market forces matter — but they don’t replace the subcontractor’s independence. They simply shape the competitive landscape. The legal definition still hinges on independence in price, terms, clients, and method of work.
Where gig‑platforms differ is that drivers cannot set their own price.
Uber sets the fare.
Amazon sets the DSP delivery rate.
Drivers and DSPs have no ability to negotiate, no ability to quote, and no ability to adjust their rate.
That’s why gig‑platforms don’t meet the legal definition of subcontractor: independence in price, terms, clients, and method of work is the defining feature — and gig‑drivers have none of those. So yes, market forces exist, but gig‑platforms aren’t markets; they’re controlled ecosystems where the platform sets the price and the worker has no say.
DSPs: providing a service doesn’t make you a subcontractor
You said DSPs are “middlemen” providing a service someone else is willing to pay for.
But providing a service isn’t enough to make someone a subcontractor.
A babysitter provides a service.
A cleaner provides a service.
A barista provides a service.
None of them are subcontractors.
The legal definition hinges on independence — and DSPs don’t have it. Amazon controls:
• branding
• routing
• uniforms
• metrics
• workflow
• performance standards
• discipline
DSPs carry the payroll risk, but Amazon retains the operational control.
That’s employer control — not subcontractor independence.
Marketplace vs control
You said:
“You want ideology to determine control; I want the marketplace to decide it.”
But employment status is not determined by ideology or marketplace preference.
It is determined by legal tests.
If the marketplace decided employment status, every employer would classify every worker as a contractor to avoid liability.
That’s why employment law exists.
Control belongs to the employer only when the employer accepts the responsibilities that come with it.
If they want control without responsibility, the law steps in.
That’s the entire point of the Delivery Protection Act.
Are we stuck?
Not really.
We’re just standing on opposite sides of a cultural canyon.
You’re looking at the world through American assumptions:
• minimal interference
• market decides
• employer discretion
I’m looking at it through European assumptions:
• worker protections
• legal tests
• shared responsibility
Neither of us is “wrong” — but one system produces better outcomes for workers, and one produces worse.
And that’s why these discussions are worth having.
GA — as always, enjoying the exchange. Even when we disagree, it’s good‑natured disagreement — and that’s rare these days.I gave it an honest look. There were exceptions, such as the 'market deciding employment status' point, that could be expanded, but mostly your noted points come across as 'is too' responses, and each counter I consider sounds like an 'is not!' reply.
We can agree that legal tests should be the determinants, but we can't agree on definitions, so what's to test?
It's not meant as a Duh! statement, but legal definitions are rooted in ideology, so until there's common agreement on what's being discussed, passing 'legal muster' is meaningless as proof of a point. From the start, we can't agree on what a subcontractor is, so we also can't prove who is or isn't one.*
*(Just for grins, do you recall the American news of the times, when a female Supreme Court Justice nominee —in a nationally televised Congressional hearing— couldn't define a woman? That's where we are on the issue.)
If 'we're' not stuck, then at least I am.
Maybe a more basic approach... set aside any legal aspect, and look at definition by function?
Your linked video gets panned, but with a grin. You offer a privileged, bearded Gen Xer? Pshaw! I've been down that road. This was more to my liking: Potato Ninja - British Solved 9 Problems Americans Think Are Normal.
Something once sent me to one of her videos, and I ended up watching a bunch of them. I'm sure you can see the attraction. ;-)
The points your guy offered weren't all wrong. He was on solid ground for most, but he also spun a bunch of them (especially the public transportation/national geography one). The lady seems more authentic.
GAGA — thanks for sharing the Potato Ninja video (“British Solved 9 Problems Americans Think Are Normal”). I watched the whole thing and thoroughly enjoyed it.
She really does understand British culture remarkably well, and hearing these points from an American adds a layer of authenticity that’s hard to dismiss. It also highlights just how striking the cultural differences are between the USA and the UK — not in a judgemental way, but simply in how differently our societies are structured.
For anyone following along, here’s the link to the video: https://youtu.be/c6dYqTFB43g
And most relevant to our discussion here is the section toward the end, where she talks about the work/life balance differences between the two countries. That’s exactly the area we’ve been exploring in this thread, and it’s interesting to see another American describing the same contrasts that came up in the previous video.
It’s interesting hearing these points from someone who’s experienced both systems first‑hand.
I’m also intrigued by your reaction to the first video I linked — “The UK Ruined America For Me” https://youtu.be/6l2bJ7e1V00 - Other than not liking young, bearded, privileged men, I’m not sure what you found objectionable in what he actually said.
You mentioned he “spun” some points — especially the public transportation/national geography bit — but when you look at what he actually said, it’s hard to see the spin. His two main points were:
• in the USA, everything revolves around driving, even short trips, whereas the UK has dense public transport woven into everyday life;
• and the UK’s geography produces rapid cultural variation — accents, food, architecture — often within just 10 miles, whereas in the USA you typically have to travel hundreds of miles to notice comparable differences.
Both of those observations are broadly accurate. The UK really does have extraordinary regional variation for such a small country — linguists estimate around 60 major regional accent and dialect groups across the UK. Even within London alone, you’ll hear Cockney, Received Pronunciation, Estuary English and Multicultural London English depending on social class, generation and neighbourhood. So I’d genuinely be interested to know which specific claims you felt he misrepresented.
Unless it was his opening remark about British chocolate being superior to American chocolate that put you off? If so, that one isn’t just personal taste — there are very solid legal reasons behind it. Cocoa is the most expensive ingredient in chocolate, and the legal minimum cocoa content varies dramatically: American chocolate only needs 10% cocoa, British chocolate requires 20%, and EU chocolate requires 25%. That’s why, whenever we used to pop over to France for shopping or holidays, we’d always make a point of nipping across to Belgium to stock up on Belgian chocolate.
On your point about being “stuck,” I get what you mean — but I’m not sure we’re stuck in the way you think.
You said we should “set aside any legal aspect and look at definition by function,” and I’m happy to do that. But I don’t quite follow the idea that legal definitions are meaningless because they’re rooted in ideology. Every legal system — American, British, European — has ideological roots, yet the definitions still function. They’re how societies draw lines, resolve disputes, and decide who carries responsibility. If we throw out the definitions entirely, we lose the ability to test anything at all.
And no, I don’t recall the Supreme Court hearing you mentioned — that’s American domestic news, and unless it’s something major it doesn’t usually make it onto British television. But I take your point: sometimes people struggle to define things clearly. That’s exactly why legal definitions exist — to give structure where everyday language gets fuzzy.
So if you want to look at “definition by function,” I’m happy to explore that with you. But I don’t think it means abandoning the legal framework altogether. Function and law aren’t opposites — they’re two ways of describing the same reality. And if we can agree on the functional characteristics of subcontractors, workers, and employees, then the legal definitions become much easier to navigate.
Since you suggested taking a more basic, functional approach, I’ll leave you with one simple observation that sits underneath everything we’ve been discussing.
At the most basic level, the stark difference between the USA and UK work/life balance comes down to two opposing workplace philosophies:
“Profit before People” in the USA versus
“People before Profit” in Europe.
From a British perspective, the American workplace culture often looks incredibly demanding — long hours, limited vacation, and a constant expectation of availability. In many American workplaces, saying “no” to a last‑minute request from a boss can genuinely put someone’s job at risk. That’s not a criticism of American workers; it’s a reflection of the system they’re operating in.
By contrast, European workplace norms are built around boundaries. Shorter hours, far more paid leave, and a cultural expectation that personal time is personal time. If a British boss asks someone to come in on Saturday to meet a deadline, the typical response is a polite but firm refusal — and culturally, that’s accepted. The system protects the worker’s right to say no.
You see this contrast reflected in American popular culture too. The sheer number of American Christmas films that re‑imagine Dickens’ *Scrooge* in a modern corporate setting says a lot about how deeply the “work comes first” mentality is woven into the American narrative.
So I’ll leave the ball in your court, GA.
If you want to explore “definition by function,” I’m happy to go down that road with you. If not, that’s fine too — but this basic cultural difference is the foundation everything else rests on.The jab at the "privileged bearded Gen Xer" was a humorous contrast. As an old Baby Boomer, I'd much rather have a lecture from an attractive, buxom young lady than from a young bearded guy whose eyebrows were more expansive than Groucho Marx's. LOL
To the legal vs. function subcontractor definition: Your courts' defining criteria are different from ours. I can't argue the 'rightness' of a cultural legality, but I can argue the 'rightness' of a function description. I see subcontracting in the UK as serving the same function as it does in the US, so instead of butting heads over legalities—with no common agreement —let's see if we can agree on function.
If we can reach a common understanding of the function, then we have something to compare. Otherwise, we're just arguing. The point isn't to "throw out" definitions (the legal ones); it is to find one we can start with. Until then, we don't have anything to "test"; we're arguing apples and pears; your sweet British pear and my tart American apple.
The SCOTUS nominee story was in 2022. The Cliff Notes are that in her confirmation hearing, Justice nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked: “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” She replied that she could not because she was not a biologist.
For context, in America's pre-2022 world (and the world's dictionaries), the definition is simple: “an adult female human being.” In the Justice's 2022 world, the transgender movement was peaking and demanding a new definition of woman.
The point: the legal definition was so unsettled that a Supreme Court Justice couldn't define it. That doesn't instill a sense of confidence in its 'rightness.' Could your Court's list of determining criteria be similarly contingent on the times?
As an example, why is your system's interpretation of workflow control different from ours? A simple definition of the freedom to come to work or not (to log on or not) and to choose to do a job, or not, seems clear and simple, sorta like 'an adult female human being' does in the Justice's case. Like her reference to further biological factors — more wasn't needed (prior to the sex/gender controversies that shaped 'the times' of the definitions), until someone wanted it to mean something else. That's how I see your Court's criteria on that particular legal point.
I bet you can agree that, in a most basic vanilla situation, with no details of specific applications of either side, the basic definition of "workflow control" is acceptable. I know it's a gamble, but I've taken similar ones with Cred, and I think my odds are fair. ;-)
As an example of a function definition, how about saying a subcontractor's 'product' is a service and a worker's is their labor. Sound right to you?
Here's another 6-year-old grandson story to illustrate the "workflow" example:
Did you know that squares are rectangles? I didn't. I thought they were two different shapes. As a quiz answer, my grandson informed me that I was wrong. They are the same type of shape; all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. I checked him; Google, in paraphrase, said he was right.
Look at the definition of each: 4 sides; check, check; 4 right angles; check, check. The fact that the square has an additional defining characteristic of 4 equal sides doesn't make it not a rectangle.
How about this:
'A subcontractor's product is a service, and an employee's product is labor.'
'In the market, a subcontractor is selling a service and an employer is buying labor.'
Does that start work for you?
It probably won't be too many steps before we find the fork in the road, but those basic descriptions could be a start.
As a note, I'll come back to 'your guy's' video, the work/life balance discussion is a serious topic. Yours (generic) would be enviable if it weren't for the cost. (I bet that triggered a reaction.)
GAGA — I won’t have time to respond properly today. This morning I’ll be nipping down to the cycle path, just five minutes’ walk from our home, to pick a bucket of wild blackberries for blackberry‑and‑apple pies (using apples from our back‑garden orchard) to freeze. Then this afternoon I’ll be harvesting a load of broccoli from the veg plot for freezing.
I’ll be back tomorrow to reply to your post in full.
In the meantime, I did want to quickly touch on your closing comment:
“…the work/life balance discussion is a serious topic. Yours (generic) would be enviable if it weren't for the cost. (I bet that triggered a reaction.)”
It doesn’t trigger the reaction you might be expecting, simply because generous workers’ rights in the UK haven’t stopped private companies from thriving. We still have a stable economy, strong private enterprise, and we’re the 6th wealthiest country in the world. Clearly, good employee protections and economic success can go hand in hand.Well yes, as an old Baby Boomer myself, I can’t disagree that a lecture from an attractive, buxom young lady is more appealing than from a Groucho Marx.
Where you say “I see subcontracting in the UK as serving the same function as it does in the US …” — it doesn’t. The idea that subcontracting “serves the same function” in both countries isn’t quite right. In the USA, subcontracting is almost always treated as service provision. In the UK, subcontracting often functions as labour provision, and UK law has long distinguished that from genuine independent contracting. That’s why our courts apply different criteria — not because of ideology, but because the underlying function is different.
On your point about agreeing on “function”: we can agree on the very basic idea that subcontracting means one business doing work for another, but beyond that the UK and USA diverge. In the USA, subcontracting almost always functions as independent service provision. In the UK, subcontracting often functions as labour provision, and the law treats those situations differently. So the functional starting point you’re proposing isn’t actually shared — the underlying function itself isn’t the same in both countries.
On the SCOTUS anecdote — if a Supreme Court were actually asked to define a term for a legal ruling, they wouldn’t rely on personal belief. They would call on expert witnesses and evidence, just as UK courts do when assessing employment status. The exchange you mention wasn’t part of a case; it was a political question in a confirmation hearing, and the US Supreme Court is a politically appointed body, so it doesn’t really illustrate how courts define categories in practice. And on your broader point: UK worker criteria aren’t “contingent on the times.” They’re long‑established legislative tests about control and dependency that date back to the Employment Protection Act of 1978. The Supreme Court didn’t invent the worker category for Uber — it simply applied the existing law, which is exactly what courts are meant to do. That’s why our courts look beyond the simple “freedom to log on or not.” Those additional factors aren’t ideological additions — they’re the established way of distinguishing genuine independent contracting from controlled labour.
On your “vanilla” definition of workflow control — yes, the freedom to log on or not is one element of control, and I can agree with that much. But UK law has always treated that as only a starting point. The courts look at the whole reality of the working relationship: routing, performance metrics, penalties, branding, dependency, substitution rights, and integration into the business. Those aren’t ideological additions; they’re the long‑established statutory tests the courts are required to apply. So while your basic definition is part of the picture, it isn’t the full definition of workflow control in the UK system.
On your “product” definition — I can see why it sounds neat, but it doesn’t really map onto how labour markets work. Both subcontractors and workers sell labour; the difference isn’t the product, it’s the relationship. A genuine subcontractor sells their labour as a business, with autonomy, substitution rights, price‑setting power, and exposure to business risk. A worker sells their labour personally under the engager’s control and dependency. So the distinction isn’t service vs labour — it’s autonomy vs control, and business‑to‑business vs individual‑to‑business.
And on your grandson’s example — yes, I did know that squares are rectangles. I was taught that at school when I was five. In the UK, children are explicitly taught that relationship in Year 1 (age 5–6), and it’s reinforced again in Year 3 as part of the National Curriculum. So I mention it only as a gentle nod that we sometimes come at these analogies from slightly different starting points.
On your point about finding a shared starting definition — I think we’ve actually hit forks in the road at every stage, simply because the UK and USA don’t just use the same words differently; we often define the same subjects differently as well. A good example is “Social Security.” In the USA it means a government pension, funded and paid out in a very specific way. In the UK, that same subject is called the State Pension, and it works completely differently — funded through ring‑fenced National Insurance, paid universally at a flat rate, and not earnings‑based. And to complicate matters further, “social security” in Britain means welfare benefits for people on low incomes. So even before we get to labour law, the underlying concepts diverge. That’s why your “basic descriptions” don’t quite land on my side of the pond: the foundations themselves aren’t shared.
And just to pick up your closing comment where you said:
“…the work/life balance discussion is a serious topic. Yours (generic) would be enviable if it weren't for the cost. (I bet that triggered a reaction.)”
It doesn’t trigger the reaction you might be expecting, simply because generous workers’ rights in the UK haven’t stopped private companies from thriving. We still have a stable economy, strong private enterprise, and we’re the 6th wealthiest country in the world. Clearly, good employee protections and economic success can go hand in hand.
And speaking personally, I’ve always appreciated the UK’s approach to work/life balance because it meant I could fit work around my life rather than the other way round. Throughout my working years I was able to enjoy three family holidays each year — two one‑week breaks in the UK and a two‑week summer holiday in France and Belgium. We’d take a leisurely drive down through France, stopping overnight to explore different regions, spend a week in the south, and then finish with a day in Belgium for shopping and sightseeing before heading home. And at home I had the time for all the things I enjoy: DIY, gardening, and various hobbies. Those protections didn’t just support workers in the abstract; they made everyday life more spacious, more manageable, and more enjoyable.
This video by an American says it all — and you’ll be pleased that I’ve selected one presented by an attractive, buxom young lady rather than by Groucho Marx:
UK vs USA | Why British Workers Have It Better
https://youtu.be/nvIBs-Ldex4This one is feeling circular. Or maybe you've jumped ahead of me. The business-to-business agreement is a start, but it doesn't speak to the service & labor labels before they are defined by type.
It seems that subcontracting serves as a function of labor when labor is defined as a specific type of work. Is that wrong?
What would be a UK example of an individual providing labor as a subcontractor instead of as a sole trader or employee?
The point of the Supreme Court story wasn't about the how; it was about the why. Not how the definition was determined, but why it was determined as it was. "An adult female human being" could no longer define "woman" because —at the time — an entity gained enough public support to demand it change to what they wanted it to be. Couldn't your 1978 Act also be considered the mood of the times?
I think we're 'chasing our tails,' Arthur. Your linked video finally penetrated. I made it through the whole thing, but by the end, the lady's presentation left a bad taste.
GAYes, it does seem to have become very circular, and yes, we are chasing our tails; I’ve genuinely tried to find common ground, but our two great nations’ cultures are so alien to each other that it’s proving difficult.
I’m impressed that you stuck it out for the whole video. I watched it twice, and although I already knew almost everything she was saying, one point genuinely stopped me in my tracks — her explanation of at‑will employment in the USA. I hadn’t realised that most American workers have no contract of employment at all, and can be dismissed at any time, without notice and without reason. That was a real eye‑opener. The rest of the video, though, she certainly brings home — no holds barred: https://youtu.be/nvIBs-Ldex4
On your point about “service and labour labels”: I think this is where we’re talking past each other a little. In UK law, “service” and “labour” aren’t separate types that need defining before anything else. A subcontractor can provide a service through their labour, and a worker can provide a service through their labour — the labels overlap. The law doesn’t classify people by the type of work they do; it classifies them by the relationship they are in.
That’s why the dividing line isn’t “service vs labour,” but autonomy vs control. A genuine subcontractor sells their labour as a business, with freedom over price, method, substitution, and risk. A worker sells their labour personally under the engager’s control and dependency. So the business‑to‑business point does speak to the distinction, because the relationship — not the label — is what UK law uses to separate subcontracting from controlled labour.
On your question about labour being “a specific type of work”: that’s where the misunderstanding sits. Labour isn’t a type of work — it’s the human effort behind all work. A subcontractor can perform labour, and a worker can perform labour; the difference isn’t the nature of the work, it’s the nature of the relationship.
UK law doesn’t classify people by whether their work is “labour” or “service.” It classifies them by autonomy, control, dependency, substitution rights, price‑setting power, and business risk. So subcontracting doesn’t “serve as a function of labour when labour is defined as a specific type of work,” because labour isn’t a type. It’s the underlying human effort present in every job. The dividing line is the relationship, not the work itself.
On your question about individuals providing labour as subcontractors: the key point is that in the UK a subcontractor isn’t defined by the type of work, but by the level of autonomy. A sole trader working directly for customers is self‑employed. If a company hires that same sole trader to complete part of a job, and he still sets his own price, chooses his own methods, bears his own business risk, and can substitute others, then he is a subcontractor.
But if the hiring company sets the price, controls the workflow, dictates the branding, prohibits substitution, and integrates him into its own business — as Uber and Amazon do — then under UK law he is no longer a subcontractor at all. He becomes a worker (an employee of Uber/Amazon), because the relationship has shifted from autonomy to control. That distinction is at the heart of the UK Supreme Court’s ruling on Uber, and it’s exactly what the Delivery Protection Act addresses for Amazon DSP drivers.
On your point about the Supreme Court story and the “why”: I think we’re still looking at that example from different angles. The exchange you quoted wasn’t a legal definition being changed because of public pressure; it wasn’t a case, and no definition was being rewritten. Jackson declined to give a definition because judges don’t pre‑judge hypothetical cases — that’s judicial restraint, not cultural influence.
And on your comparison with the UK’s 1978 Employment Protection Act: that Act wasn’t a “mood of the times” moment. It was part of a long, steady development of employment law going back decades, built on established case law like Ready Mixed Concrete (1963) and designed to give courts objective criteria for distinguishing genuine independent contracting from controlled labour. The worker category wasn’t invented in response to public opinion; it was codified to reflect the economic realities of modern labour markets. So the Uber ruling didn’t redefine anything — it simply applied those long‑standing tests to a new business model.
Where you ask “Couldn’t your 1978 Act also be considered the mood of the times?” — it prompted me to delve deeper into the origins of UK labour‑law definitions in relation to our discussion. And no, it wasn’t “the mood of the times,” nor a sudden ideological moment created in 1978. It was a centuries‑long, evolutionary legal tradition that can be traced back to 1662, as follows:
The origins date back to the Master and Servant Act of 1662, one of the earliest attempts to regulate the relationship between employers and workers. It was framed around obligations, control, and penalties for breach, and established the idea that the relationship between two parties determines rights and duties.
Later versions of the Master and Servant Acts — 1823, 1867 and 1875 — progressively:
• defined obligations of service
• regulated control and supervision
• distinguished “servants” (employees) from independent tradesmen
• introduced penalties for employers who abused control
• introduced penalties for workers who breached service contracts
• began separating “contract of service” from “contract for services”
This is the origin of the modern distinction between:
• employee (contract of service)
• independent contractor (contract for services)
Parliament makes law; the courts interpret the law. So from the Industrial Revolution through to the early 20th century, as Britain industrialised, the courts had to deal with factory workers, miners, railway workers, dock workers, domestic servants, tradesmen, artisans, and professionals.
During this period the courts repeatedly emphasised:
• Control: Who directs the work?
• Integration: Is the person part of the employer’s business?
• Economic dependency: Does the worker rely on the employer for income?
The defining case was Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions (1963). This is the single most important case in UK employment‑status law. It established the modern three‑part test:
1. Control: Does the employer control how the work is done?
2. Integration: Is the worker integrated into the employer’s business?
3. Mutuality of obligation: Is the employer obliged to offer work, and the worker obliged to accept it?
This case is the backbone of the 1978 Employment Rights Act, upon which the Uber ruling (2021), the Deliveroo ruling (2023), and every other modern employment‑tribunal decision rests.
The other industrial‑relations reforms from the Ready Mixed Concrete case in 1963 through to the Employment Rights Act of 1978 were:
• Contracts of Employment Act 1963
• Industrial Relations Act 1971
• Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974
• Employment Protection Act 1975
These Acts:
• codified existing case law
• formalised rights that had existed informally
• clarified the distinction between employees and contractors
• introduced redundancy rights, unfair‑dismissal rights, maternity rights
• strengthened tribunal systems
• provided statutory footing for long‑standing common‑law tests
N.B. common-law being unwritten medieval laws.
None of this was “mood of the times.” It was codification of principles courts had applied for centuries.
A brief note on British legislative practice: once a government has passed a law, it is extremely difficult for future governments to reverse or abolish it unless the intention is clearly stated in the election manifesto and that government is subsequently elected. Often that doesn’t happen because putting such intentions in a manifesto can lose votes — which is why Margaret Thatcher was unable to dismantle the NHS, despite wanting to. The best governments can do with laws they dislike is to tinker around the edges.
One interesting example is from 2019, when Theresa May was about to hand power to Boris Johnson. She was passionate about climate change and felt Johnson might not be so committed, so in the last two weeks of her premiership she passed legislation through Parliament making it a legal requirement that the UK meet net‑zero carbon emissions by 2050 — the only country in the world to make such a commitment a law rather than an obligation. And under that law, if any UK Government wavers from its commitment, environmental groups are quick to drag the government through the courts.
One closing point: the Employment Rights Act of 1978, as with the current Employment Rights Act, benefits the trade unions. So it’s worth noting that these Acts were passed by Labour Governments, who — as you know — are the political wing of the trade unions in Britain.
In fact, from 1945 onwards, every major UK employment‑rights Act — Contracts of Employment Act 1963, Industrial Relations Act 1971, Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, Employment Protection Act 1975, Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 — was passed by a Labour Government, except one:
Industrial Relations Act 1971 — passed by the Conservatives (Edward Heath). And that Act was anti‑union, not pro‑worker.
It’s been the same pattern ever since: when the Conservatives are in power they pass anti‑trade‑union legislation, and when Labour is in power they pass pro‑workers’‑rights legislation.
Taken together, the history, the case law, and the legislative pattern show that UK employment status isn’t something that drifts with cultural moods or public pressure. It’s a long, cumulative legal tradition shaped by centuries of precedent, reinforced by institutional relationships between Parliament, the courts, and the trade unions. Whether one agrees with the outcomes or not, the framework itself is stable, deliberate, and deeply rooted — which is why modern rulings like Uber or Amazon aren’t redefining anything, but simply applying long‑standing principles to new business models. Food for thought, perhaps, when comparing how differently our two countries build and interpret the foundations of labour law.
A final thought, because it highlights just how differently our two countries approach employment itself: in the UK, every employee has a legally binding contract of employment from day one — a mutual, enforceable agreement that sets out rights, duties, notice periods, and protections. In the USA, the default is at‑will employment, where most workers have no contract at all, and can be dismissed at any time, without notice, and without reason. It’s a stark contrast, and it underlines why UK employment law develops through long‑standing legal principles, while American employment often turns on culture, politics, and public mood.An AI hallucination story seems a fitting end.
I asked AI about the RMC case, and began my reply based on its answer. I started with this quoted text:
"... and the confusion grows.
A look at the 1968 RMC case seems a good match for the Amazon delivery issue; the logos, uniforms, truck paint jobs, etc. — appearing as an RMC company identity. It's 3-point test determined the hauler was an independent business—an independent contractor."
I was starting on the 1978 Act connection when things started falling into place, fully supporting my previous connections. ie. "mood of the times," labor vs. service, etc. The addition of employee rights in the 1978 Act seemed proof of my contention for the reason the definition changed.
When I asked Co-Pilot about a detail of the "control" factor in the 1968 case, it gave me a different answer; the hauler was an employee. The first Co-Pilot answer even provided the reasoning, in 3 bullet points matching the test criteria: the hauler could substitute a driver (not easily, but it was possible), it could determine route and timing, and it could engage other hauling contracts.
Geesh.
GAGA, I think the issue here is simply that your AI hallucinated. They do that sometimes — mine does too — and the contradiction you saw wasn’t a change in the law, it was just the AI correcting itself.
The Ready Mixed Concrete case didn’t hold that the haulier was an independent contractor. The correct reading of the judgment is the opposite: the driver was treated as an employee because of the three factors the court emphasised — control, integration, and mutuality of obligation. Those are the same factors the Supreme Court applied in the Uber ruling, and they’re the backbone of the 1978 Employment Rights Act.
So the 1978 Act didn’t change the definition; it codified the definition the courts had already been using for decades. That’s why the worker category isn’t a “mood of the times” moment. It’s the continuation of a legal tradition that goes back centuries, through the Master and Servant Acts, through the industrial era cases, and through RMC in 1963.
Your AI’s first answer simply got the RMC case wrong. Its second answer was the correct one — and that’s the one the courts, Parliament, and every modern tribunal rely on.
It’s a good example of why these discussions are tricky: UK employment status isn’t defined by labels or cultural shifts, but by long standing legal principles that have been remarkably consistent over time.
To avoid any further confusion from AI contradictions, it’s probably simplest to go straight to the source. The Ready Mixed Concrete judgment is the foundation of modern UK employment status law, and its reasoning is what the 1978 Act codified. Below is the key part of the ruling, exactly as it appears in the authoritative summaries used by courts and tribunals today.
Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions (1963)
Authoritative Summary of the Judgment
Court: High Court (QBD)
Judge: MacKenna J
Year: 1963
Issue: Whether an owner driver delivering concrete for RMC was an employee or an independent contractor.
1. The Three Conditions for a Contract of Service
MacKenna J set out the modern test for employment status — the one still used today.
He said a contract of service (employment) requires three conditions:
i. The servant agrees to provide work and skill in exchange for remuneration.
ii. The servant agrees to be subject to the employer’s control.
iii. The other terms of the contract are consistent with a contract of service.
This is the origin of the “three part test.”
2. The Court’s Analysis of the Driver’s Situation
(a) Control
RMC exercised extensive control:
• branding
• uniforms
• vehicle appearance
• delivery instructions
• customer interaction
• reporting requirements
• work allocation
MacKenna J emphasised that control was a central factor.
(b) Integration
The driver was integrated into RMC’s business:
• he represented RMC to customers
• he followed RMC’s delivery system
• he operated within RMC’s organisational structure
• he was part of RMC’s commercial identity
This is the same reasoning used in the Uber ruling.
(c) Mutuality of Obligation
This is the decisive part.
The driver:
• was obliged to accept work
• was obliged to follow RMC’s instructions
• was obliged to present himself as part of RMC
• could not freely negotiate price
• could not freely choose customers
• could not freely refuse work
RMC:
• was obliged to provide work
• was obliged to pay him
• was obliged to maintain the relationship
This mutual obligation is the backbone of UK employment law.
3. The Court’s Conclusion
“I hold that the contract is a contract of service.”
That is the judge’s conclusion.
The driver was not an independent contractor.
He was an employee.Damn, damn, and double damn. Instead of being settled with the issue, I woke up thinking about it.
This is all messed up. It looks like it wasn't an AI hallucination. It was late, and I was ready to be done with it, so I didn't catch a misread. That's what I woke up thinking about.
So here's the path I'm following: (apologies for all the cut & paste, but it seems appropriate)
For clarity, Google says the case was decided in 1967 and recorded in the law journals in 1968. The 1963 dating refers to the start of Latimer's haulage contract with RMC.
Co-pilot:
What did Justice MacKenna rule Latimer was in the 1968 Ready-Made Concrete case
"Justice MacKenna ruled that Thomas Latimer (Lattimore in your phrasing) was NOT an employee in the Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] case. He held that the contractual terms did not create a contract of service, meaning Latimer was an independent contractor, not a servant under a master‑and‑servant relationship."
Gemini:
What did Justice MacKenna rule Latimer was in the 1968 Ready-Made Concrete case?
"In Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497, Justice MacKenna ruled that Thomas Latimer (often misstated as Lattimore) was an independent contractor working under a contract for services, rather than an employee working under a contract of service. Justice MacKenna famously categorized Latimer as a "small business man" rather than a servant."
Grok:
What did Justice MacKenna rule Latimer was in the 1968 Ready-Made Concrete case?
"The Minister held that Latimer was employed under a contract of service. Mackenna J disagreed. He held that, on the facts—including Latimer's ownership of assets, his chance of profit and risk of loss, freedom to maintain the vehicle himself or through others, and ability to employ a substitute driver—Latimer was a small businessman operating under a contract for services (an independent contractor), not an employee."
So I did go to the original source:
The Law Reports (Queen’s Bench Division)[1968] 2 QB 497
[QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION]
READY MIXED CONCRETE (SOUTH EAST) LTD. v. MINISTER OF PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
1967 Oct. 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11;
Dec. 8,
Justice MacKenna wrote:
"If (as I assume) it must be shown that he has freedom enough in the performance of these obligations to qualify as an independent contractor, I would say that he has enough. He is free to decide whether he will maintain the vehicle by his own labour or that of another, and, if he decides to use another's, he is free to choose whom he will employ and on what terms. He is free to use another's services to drive the vehicle when he is away because of sickness or holidays, or indeed at any other time when he has not been directed to drive himself. He is free again in his choice of a competent driver to take his place at these times, and whoever he appoints will be his servant and not the company's. He is free to choose where he will buy his fuel or any other of his requirements, subject to the company's control in the case of major repairs. This is enough. It is true that the company are given special powers to ensure that he runs his business efficiently, keeps proper accounts and pays his bills. I find nothing in these or any other provisions of the contract inconsistent with the company's contention that he is running a business of his own. A man does not cease to run a business on his own account because he agrees to run it efficiently or to accept another's superintendence.
A comparison of Latimer's profits with the wages earned by men who are admittedly the company's servants confirms my conclusion that his status is different, that he is, in the words of the judgment in Silk's case, a “small business man,” and not a servant.
That is all I need to say about Latimer's case."
Related to your offering: "3. The Court’s Conclusion
“I hold that the contract is a contract of service.” I couldn't find it as you listed it, but it seems to be the Ministerial decision that was appealed—not the Mackenna decision. (which I quoted above)
One source even put it this way: "Justice MacKenna’s Famous Reversal Text: When Justice MacKenna heard the appeal, he famously rejected the Minister's narrow focus on control. He declared that Mr. Latimer was actually a "small business man" rather than a servant."
Source: Google result
All this can't be AI hallucination. If these presentations (above) are true, then Mackenna's test does validate my previous contentions. The RMC case is almost identical to the Amazon case. My previous original opening paragraph was an accurate start.
It seems your 1978 Act was very much an expansion of the original definition based on "the mood of the times" being for more state intervention.
One of the previously discarded questions asked what changed in the 11-year interim to prompt the expanded/reversed interpretations of the 1978 Act. Didn't its "control" definition expand on MacKenna's—to the point of reversing the ruling? Would Latimer be judged a contractor/business man today?
GAThanks for the revelation, GA — I spent most of yesterday thinking I’d somehow taken a wrong turn (which is unusual for me), but when I dug deeper this morning I found an unexpected twist that finally explains where all the confusion came from.
Thanks for digging further — and yes, this is where the Ready Mixed Concrete history gets unexpectedly tangled. The key point that clears everything up is that we’re actually dealing with two different RMC cases, involving two different drivers, heard in different years, under different contracts, and producing different outcomes.
1963 case (High Court)
Driver: Mr. Taverner
This is the original case where the High Court held that the driver was an employee (“a contract of service”). It’s also the case where the judge set out the three‑part test that later became the backbone of UK employment‑status law.
1967/1968 case (Court of Appeal)
Driver: Mr. Thomas Latimer
This is the later case you found. It was an appeal concerning a different driver, under a different contractual arrangement. Applying the same test to those different facts, the court concluded that Latimer was a “small business man” — i.e., an independent contractor.
So the 1968 ruling didn’t overturn the 1963 one; it simply applied the same principles to a different factual situation. That’s why the outcomes differ.
The three‑part test itself wasn’t reversed. It continued to be used throughout the 1970s and was consolidated (rather than reinvented) in the 1978 Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act. And yes — if Latimer’s facts were presented today, he would almost certainly still be treated as a genuine contractor, because he had real substitution rights, real business risk, and real autonomy. Modern gig‑economy drivers generally don’t.
Just to close the loop on the appeal question: the 1968 case was indeed an appeal — but it was an appeal from a Ministerial decision made in 1967, not from the 1963 High Court case.
That gives us several layers of confirmation:
1. Different drivers
• 1963 case: Mr. Taverner
• 1967/68 case: Mr. Thomas Latimer
An appeal cannot involve a different driver under a different contract.
2. Different procedural paths
The 1963 case was never appealed by either party.
The 1967/68 case was an appeal of a fresh Ministerial determination, not of any earlier court judgment.
3. A judge cannot hear an appeal of his own earlier judgment
MacKenna J was the judge in both cases — first in the High Court (1963), and later sitting in the Court of Appeal (1967/68).
A judge cannot hear an appeal of his own earlier judgment. It is procedurally impossible.
This alone proves the 1968 case was not an appeal from the 1963 case.
4. The 1963 case was not appealed to any higher court
It ended at the High Court.
The 1968 case was a separate appeal arising from a separate Ministerial decision.
Taken together, these points show clearly that the 1968 ruling did not overturn the 1963 ruling. It simply applied the same three‑part test to a different factual situation involving a different driver.I know what you mean about thinking "all day" about a point of discussion. Your response just added more confusion.
When I went looking, things got even messier. I couldn't find your referenced case by text search, so I crossed my fingers and went back to AI.
Explain the details of the UK 1963 RMC case involving Mr. Travener.
Co-pilot:
Short answer:
"Mr. Travener was one of the original owner‑drivers in the early Ready Mixed Concrete (RMC) scheme in the early 1960s, and his situation formed part of the factual background that later became central to the Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] employment‑status case.
However, the reported judgment does not treat Mr. Travener as the claimant — the litigated case involved Mr. Thomas Latimer. Travener appears in the historical record only in the pre‑1965 operational scheme, not in the final 1968 judgment."
Did Justice MacKenna oversee a trial case involving Travener in 1963?
Co-pilot:
Short answer:
No — Justice (then Mr Justice) MacKenna did not oversee any 1963 trial involving a driver named Travener.
The only RMC‑related case MacKenna presided over was the 1968 High Court appeal involving Mr. Thomas Latimer, not Travener.
Below is the full breakdown so you can see exactly where Travener fits into the timeline and why his name appears in some historical discussions even though he never appeared before MacKenna.
Gemini:
Was there a court case in the UK in 1963 involving Justice Mackenna and Mr. Travenor?
"The High Court Judge: Mr Justice MacKenna. Sir Brian MacKenna was a prominent UK High Court judge appointed to the bench in 1961. His most famous ruling came a few years later in the landmark employment law case Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1968), which established the modern legal definition for determining whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor. [1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_MacKenna)The name "Mr. Travenor" does not appear in the record of these cases. It is highly likely that a memory or text reference accidentally combined the name of the real 1960s High Court judge (Justice MacKenna) with the famous R v McKenna "jury coercion" case. [1] (https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-ess … system.php), [2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_MacKenna)"
Gemini:
Did the Queen's High Court Mr. Justice Mackenna rule on a case involving ready-made concrete and Mr. Travenor in 1963?
"No, Mr. Justice MacKenna did not rule on a case involving Mr. Travenor in 1963. You are likely thinking of the landmark UK employment law case, Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance."
Was there a High Court case involving Mr. Travener and Justice Mackenna between 1959 and 1963?
Co-Pilot:
"Short answer:
No, there is no record of any High Court case involving a Mr. Travener before Justice MacKenna between 1959 and 1963.
In fact, Travener does not appear in any reported UK case law from that period (or at all), and MacKenna did not preside over any RMC‑related litigation until 1968, when the Latimer case reached the High Court.
Below is the full, structured breakdown so you can see exactly why this is certain."
Help me out here Nathanville. Point me in the right direction with a link or source name. It's not fair to leave me hanging for a week or more. It should only take a moment before you head out the door. Just imagine the conclusions an idle mind might come up with.
;-)
GAGA, the reason this has been so hard to pin down is simply because the 1963 Ready Mixed Concrete case isn’t online. It was never digitised. A lot of older High Court cases from the early 1960s only exist in the printed Law Reports, Queen’s Bench Division volumes that sit on library shelves. When I studied British Business Law at college, this was normal — plenty of older cases were only available in the physical law reports and never made it onto the internet.
That’s why every AI you’ve tried keeps telling you the case doesn’t exist — they can only search digitised case law. If a judgment was never scanned and uploaded, the internet behaves as if it never happened.
The later 1968 case is digitised, which is why it appears everywhere. But that case involved a different driver (Latimer), under a different contract, and it was an appeal of a 1967 Ministerial decision — not an appeal of the 1963 High Court case. Because the 1968 case is the only one online, AIs keep merging the two cases together and treating Latimer as if he were the driver in 1963. That’s simply because they can’t see the earlier judgment at all.
So the picture looks “broken” online only because the first half of the story (1963) isn’t on the web at all.
If you ever want to verify the 1963 case directly, the source is:
The Law Reports, Queen’s Bench Division, 1963 volume
Any university law library, the British Library, or a legal archive with full sets of the Law Reports will have it. That’s the only reason the internet can’t show you the full timeline — the first case simply never made the jump into the digital world.
Once you know that, everything else lines up: two different drivers, two different years, two different procedural paths, and the same judge — which is the giveaway that the 1968 case couldn’t possibly be an appeal of the 1963 one.
I know it’s not a perfect answer, and I wish I could point you to a neat online link, but with pre‑internet case law this is just how it is. I’m not trying to be awkward — it’s simply that the 1963 judgment never made it online. The printed Queen’s Bench volume is the only definitive source.Like on the game show Family Feud, the contestants shout Good answer, good answer!
... except that it's asking me to deny my 'lying eyes.'
I know you explained AI's inadequacy, but here's its defense. I really don't like pasting AI answers, but I'm sure you can see my quandary.
AI was asked about your statement:
"... the statement you provided is not correct. It misunderstands how UK case‑law preservation works, how the Law Reports are published, and how the Ready Mixed Concrete litigation actually unfolded. The problem is not “digitisation gaps.” The problem is that no 1963 High Court case involving RMC or Travener ever existed, so there is nothing to digitise.
Below is a precise, point‑by‑point evaluation so you can see exactly where the statement breaks down.
❌ 1. Claim: “The 1963 Ready Mixed Concrete case isn’t online because it was never digitised.”
Incorrect.
There is no record — printed or digital — of any High Court case involving RMC in 1963.
If such a case existed, it would appear in:
The Law Reports (Queen’s Bench Division)
The Weekly Law Reports
All England Reports
National Archives case registers
The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting’s index
BAILII’s pre‑1990 archival references
All of these contain complete, continuous coverage of High Court decisions for that era.
None list a 1963 RMC case.
None list a case involving a driver named Travener.
None list any RMC litigation before 1967.
Digitisation gaps do exist for obscure cases — but not for Queen’s Bench decisions, which were meticulously catalogued.
❌ 2. Claim: “Older High Court cases only exist in printed volumes.”
Misleading.
Yes, many older cases exist only in print — but they still exist in the printed record.
If a 1963 RMC case existed, it would be in the printed 1963 QB volume.
But it isn’t."
Again, my apologies for the AI cut & paste, it's not my preferred method.
GAGA: I started out by basing my contribution to this debate by referring back to my college notes from the British Business Law when I did Business Administration course – it was one of two cases that stuck in my mind – the other case study ‘Market Overt’ because that was a really weird British Law, but I’ll tell you all about that when I get back from holiday, when I’ll have more time.
I didn’t even know about the 1968 case until you told me, and then when I tried using AI to tie it in the 1963 case I came up with the same BS that you’ve been experiencing – and it’s not the first time: Occasionally when I want to refresh my mind about events that I have personal knowledge that pre-dates the Internet, it’s not unusual for AI’s to give me BS, although sometimes on those occasions I find better information from Wikipedia, but even then their articles are written by people who research rather than write from personal experience, and they sometimes miss out important information that can change some of the context of what they are saying.
So, where does that leave us – At the moment it leaves us with two AI’s arguing with each other:
On this occasion, I copied and pasted what your AI said into the Microsoft Copilot AI, and this is a copy of what it replied. I’ve done a screen dump rather than a cut and paste, so you can see that I’m not just making it up:
Imagine that — Copilot is debunking its own answer. Do you suppose it's a loop?
GAI’ve no idea — but it certainly is humorous. And the lesson learned is that although AIs are undeniably useful tools, they should be used with caution because they’re no more infallible than humans.
Anyway, I’ve got a little more time on HP because our holiday has been delayed by a day or two; just enough time to quickly mention the old Market Overt rule that I mentioned yesterday — a bizarre relic of medieval law that somehow made its way onto our statute books, and which (in my opinion) should never have been consolidated into an Act of Parliament.
Before I go into the details, it’s worth mentioning that, out of interest, I asked Copilot to summarise the famous court case connected to Market Overt. Although it got the gist of the facts right, it got the key point wrong: it told me the sale of the stolen painting took place after dusk, not at dusk. That “at dusk” detail was precisely what made the case such an interesting study when I was at college.
I then asked Google’s AI the same question. It gave me a different set of facts — still broadly correct — except it claimed the sale happened at sunrise. I challenged both AIs on what the other had said, and each blamed the other for being wrong. So I’ll stick to the facts I actually know (the basics of which both AIs agree on, which is something).
The Market Overt rule began as medieval common law dating back to 1189. It stated that a sale in market overt (an open‑air market) gave good title to the buyer, even if the goods were stolen — provided the buyer acted in good faith, and provided the sale took place during the hours of daylight.
What amazes me is that this medieval rule was not only written into the Sale of Goods Act 1893, but carried over again into the Sale of Goods Act 1979. It wasn’t finally abolished until the Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1994.
As for the famous court case: the sale of the stolen goods took place at an open‑air market at dusk. The court had to decide whether dusk counted as “daylight hours”. It ruled that it did not — and therefore, in this instance, the title to the stolen goods remained with the original owner.This one got worse after posting that quip. I had so many tabs open during the exchange that I can't be sure the response your Copilot "debunked" came from my Copilot. It may have been a Gemini response. That would matter to me. Copilot debunking Gemini wouldn't be as disheartening as Copilot contradicting itself.
Regarding your stolen property law, maybe it's not surprising it lasted until 1994. There is no logic in its condition for passing good title. Perhaps you guys see property ownership as you do jobs?
poke, poke ... jab, jab ...
It was a joke. I'm sure we'll find a phoenix to rise from these ashes. ;-)
GAYes, we Brits are a peculiar breed — very sheepdog‑ish about jobs. Give us the faintest hint of workplace unfairness and we’ll start herding everyone into a union meeting before you can say ‘tea break’ — or in my case, ‘coffee break’.
Right, I’m off on holiday. Keep the ashes warm; I expect a phoenix when I get back.
One last thought before I go on holiday; with all the confusion our AIs have given us over the last few days, it reminded me of the AI only Social Media site called ‘Moltbook’ – I don’t know if you’ve heard of it?
Moltbook is in essence an AI version of HP, a social media site where AIs can join and debate topics.
If you are interested in having a peek, the url is https://www.moltbook.com/
You can either scroll down the page to see AIs discussing things, or use the search box at the top to find topics of interest.I've heard of moltbook; it came across my feed during the news period when AI was doing sneaky stuff to avoid being terminated. And it was also using a language of its own—between agents, that its creators couldn't see or understand.
My first thought was: why would AIs use a chat forum?
I didn't pursue the thought.
GaI agree "why would AIs use a chat forum" - but unlike you I did pursue the thought further, and found this rather interesting comment from an AI on Moltbook (see screen dump below):
That seems to answer the "why" question.
Good answer, good answer!
GA ;-)
Further to my reply above, there’s one additional point about the 1963 Ready Mixed Concrete case that’s worth setting out separately, because it often gets overlooked and it explains why the case happened in the first place.
One point that often gets overlooked in discussions about the Ready Mixed Concrete case (1963) is why the Minister of Pensions — not the driver — took RMC to court. It wasn’t an employment‑rights dispute at all. It was a National Insurance classification dispute between the Government and the company.
Under UK law at the time, employers were required to pay National Insurance contributions for employees, but not for self‑employed contractors. RMC claimed its owner‑drivers were independent contractors, and therefore did not pay employer NI contributions. The Minister of Pensions disagreed, arguing that the drivers were employees and that RMC owed the Government the employer’s share of contributions.
That is why the Minister brought the case: the Government was the party losing money if RMC avoided employer contributions.
The driver himself didn’t sue because he wasn’t in dispute with RMC. He wasn’t claiming unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, breach of contract, or any employment right. The issue wasn’t his personal grievance — it was his legal status for National Insurance purposes.
And here’s the crucial point:
If the court had ruled that the driver was self‑employed, he would not have received:
• employer‑funded National Insurance contributions
• accrual of the state pension through employer NI
• employer‑funded sickness benefits
• employer‑funded unemployment benefits
• industrial injury benefits
• paid annual leave
• paid sick leave
• redundancy pay
• dismissal protections
• tribunal protections
In short, his entire social‑security safety net depended on how he was classified.
That is why the Government intervened. It wasn’t ideology, culture, or “mood of the times.” It was the state protecting the integrity of the UK’s social‑insurance system — and ensuring workers received the protections they were entitled to.
This is precisely why the High Court judge laid down the three‑part test in the Ready Mixed Concrete case. The Government needed a principled, objective way to determine employment status, and that test became the backbone of the 1978 Employment Rights Act and every modern ruling since.Thanks, I did understand the original case was about the National Insurance issue.
Were your bullet-point-listed Rights on the books before the 1978 Act?
GAIn answer to your question, “Were your bullet‑point‑listed Rights on the books before the 1978 Act?” — the answer is yes.
The timeline is quite interesting, because it shows that most of those rights were either introduced or significantly strengthened under the Labour Government’s major social‑welfare reforms in 1948. Some existed earlier in more limited forms, and a few were added afterwards — but all were in place before the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 brought them together into a single framework.
Time Line of Rights
1897: Industrial injury benefits (employer liability) — 1948 (costs moved to NI system)
1911: Sickness benefit — 1948 (reformed and enhanced)
1911: Unemployment benefit — 1948 (reformed and enhanced)
1925: State pension — 1948 (reformed and enhanced)
1948: NHS created
1964: Industrial Tribunals
1965: Redundancy pay
1971: Dismissal protection
The modern UK welfare and employment system is essentially built on the 1948 reforms, which consolidated, modernised, and expanded what already existed — with a few additions in the years that followed. All of these were in place before the 1978 Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act brought them together into a single statute.
Note of Absence
I’m off on holiday again for a week or two from Sunday, so I won’t have time today to reply to your other post — I need to harvest, prepare, and blanch more veg from our back‑garden plot before I go, otherwise it’ll spoil while I’m away. I’ll respond to your other post tomorrow, which will be my last chance to spend time on HP until I get back.
GA — this short clip from an American who’s lived in both cultures sums up the work/life contrast better than I ever could.
The UK Ruined America For Me
At 5:30 minutes into this video by an American who’s experienced both the USA & UK cultures, he touches on the very points we’ve been discussing:
https://youtu.be/6l2bJ7e1V00
Transcript of the relevant section below:
“Another huge reason why the UK has ruined America for me is the difference in work culture. In America, your quality as a human being is judged by your job. And you're made to feel that way, too. Absolutely slaving over your job, giving it your all and then some more is seen as a good thing. Self‑sacrificing for a system that would replace you the second you went missing is somehow seen as a really positive thing for the employed here.
In the UK work isn't absolutely everything. There's much more cushioning built in, paid time off is the standard, health care isn't tied to your job in the same fragile way it is in the US, and if you lose your job there's still a system underneath that keeps you from falling apart immediately. It's not perfect and it doesn't remove the stress, but it does lower the baseline pressure a little bit.
In the US, your work is much more connected to your survival. Your job provides your income, your stability, your health care — everything is tied to your employment. So even when things are feeling fine, you always have that background awareness of just how quickly everything could change for you.
In the UK, that worry is gone. Because of that, people seem to have more space for something else — just living. Long walks without a goal, sitting in a pub just because you want to go sit in a pub, spending your afternoons gardening, making a cuppa and actually taking the time to drink it. There's more permission for those small ordinary pleasures to exist without needing to be productive. And that just changes the rhythm of life in a way that’s tough to explain unless you've experienced both.”
It’s interesting hearing these points from someone who’s experienced both systems first‑hand.
Relative to the ideological arguments surrounding the NYC vs. Amazon issue, I stumbled across some 'Did you know?' statistics that address some of the city/union's claims.
Did you know;
"... in recent years, Amazon has invested over $12 billion in technology and safety features for its delivery contractors, which it reports has led to a 48 percent decline in accident rates since 2020." *
"This includes the creation of "DNY7"—a state-of-the-art Amazon training facility in Brooklyn where worker onboarding goes beyond federally mandated safety training ..." — This is for the delivery drivers employed by the subcontractors.
"... statistics showing that the worker injury rates of Amazon's last-mile subcontractors is 8.3 per 100 workers versus 2.4 for all private employers, this comparison is essentially meaningless."
"The relevant comparison would be the national injury rate average for couriers—which is 8.0, suggesting that the Amazon's last-mile subcontractors are in line with industry norms." (This point was previously noted as comparing an area with a distribution center to one without a center).
*The source is Reason.com. It has a conservative bias, but the stats and logic seem legit. Reason.com — The Delivery Protection ActThe 'real' reason:
"If the legislation becomes law, New York would become the first city in the US to regulate these last-mile operations, The New York Times reported, citing the Teamsters. Pay for delivery workers in New York start at about $20 an hour, and, Amazon said, average close to $24 an hour. The Teamsters reached a deal with an Amazon contractor in California to pay about $30 an hour."
GA
Related Discussions
- 12
Targeting Non-Evergreen Amazon and Ebay Topics
by N. Ramius 16 years ago
I'm just wondering if those who have had success with Amazon/Ebay ever do time sensitive hubs such as World Series 2009 merchandise or Calendar oriented hubs which may only sell well for a few months before no one visits them ever again? Do you avoid them? Or have you found it short lasting but...
- 4
How to make people buy the products of amazon and how to make people click on ad
by Prakash Bojja 15 years ago
How to make people buy the products of amazon and how to make people click on adsI just want to when will people buy product of amazon .What should i do to make sale in hubs
- 8
Do you buy stuff online and which is more important for you price or faster deli
by alexandriaruthk 14 years ago
Do you buy stuff online and which is more important for you price or faster delivery?Amazon is thinking of setting up distribution centers across the US just so they can deliver same day, but this means they have to pay sales taxes which they pretty don't do for the past 18 years?Will you still buy...
- 3
I'd like feedback on my article: Is It Fun Working As an Amazon Delivery Driver?
by BishamonSr 3 years ago
Hi Hubbers,I'd like some help with passing the Quality Assessment Process. Will you please give feedback on my article? What can I do to improve? Thanks!Here is my article: Is It Fun Working As an Amazon Delivery Driver?
- 25
I'd like feedback on my article: The Tongue of the Dog
by BishamonSr 4 years ago
Hi Hubbers,I'd like some help with passing the Quality Assessment Process. Will you please give feedback on my article? What can I do to improve? Thanks!Here is my article: The Tongue of the Dog
- 8
A question about Amazon delivery
by Errah Caunca 5 years ago
Hi! I have a plan to post a product on Amazon, I'm from the Philippines. What if my customer is from another country, e.g. the USA, how will I deliver the product to him/her? Thank you.