DPD courier who was fined for day off to see doctor dies from diabetes

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/05/courier-who-was-fined-for-day-off-to-see-doctor-dies-from-diabetes

by techterrier • 8 years ago

84 57 8 years ago

fian• 8 years ago

DPD is wholly owned by La Poste which is 73% owned by the French government.

Seems ironic that a company owned by a government with strong social welfare and laws preventing long work hours would act in such a hostile way towards staff in pursuit of profits.

SideburnsOfDoom2• 8 years ago

which is 73% owned by the French government.

As has been remarked, the long-term effect of privatisation in the UK has been that much of the economy is still government-owned. It's just not the UK government that owns it any more.

lozenge2• 8 years ago

DPD has always been a private company.

isolli• 8 years ago

True. RATP (the French, state-owned public transport operator) runs many bus lines in London. And EDF (the French, state-owned utility) owns EDF Energy in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_United_Busways

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDF_Energy

prepend3• 8 years ago

This is a tragic story for the delivery person.

Obviously, DPD could change to employees and offer sick leave.

But I think the bigger opportunity would be for DPD to add more requirements on their independent contractors to require that they offer sick leave or participate in health savings accounts that can cover these types of fines. The tragedy here is that the company that employed this driver wasn’t able to pay 150 pounds and instead worked the driver into a grave. I’m not sure if the company is just the driver himself as a one person company (pretty common in the US, not sure about UK).

A big risk in contracting is not setting enough aside to pay for benefits and taxes. In the programming space I’ve ran into people who were happy as well as stressed out based on how they structured their cash flow management and set asides for benefits. I had two peers with the same rate ($70/hour x 40/week). One worked out a salary, set aside IRA, healthcare, taxes, vacation. The other just paid out the gross amount and was very stressed about company holidays, vacation and even routine healthcare expenses. It was curious how they functioned like an employee and didn’t have an advisor to help them structure their company. We all sat in the same room and were all 30 year old single people.

lozenge2• 8 years ago

Yes, he's a one person company (known as self-employed status in the UK).

Yeah, DPD could raise their requirements (or the government could force them to) but they would have to raise their prices, and capitalism says they mustn't do that.

In the UK we've decided nobody should have to choose between seeing a doctor and paying their rent, hence Statutory Sick Pay. An employer can't fine you for sickness. Unfortunately DPD found a way around it with some legal fiction.

martinald• 8 years ago

SSP is £90/week. That won't cover most people's rent...

prepend3• 8 years ago

Capitalism doesn’t require not incurring costs for benefits. I’m not sure what your point is.

Capitalism infers markets with competitors trying to maximize efficiencies.

The US, UPS is the largest and most profitable delivery service. And they have high benefit payouts and a strong employee union. They have higher costs and are more profitable than their closest competitor that uses contract labor. I think it’s overly simple to say capitalism says this is the way it should be. But it’s certainly not pushing UPS to cut employee benefits, mainly because employee benefits from-improved by those benefits- are a competitive advantage.

Certhas• 8 years ago

Per the article, the individual couriers are the contractors. Hence Gig economy. I believe this would also be illegal in Germany at least.

Really, this is a solved problem. It's called employment and has a bunch of rules and regulations around it to mitigate the extreme power imbalance between the two parties involved (which is vastly lessened in the case of contracting programmers/in demand experts). Technology has given companies the ability to skirt these laws, the laws need to catch up. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/10/uber-lose...

avianlyric• 8 years ago

He would been contracting as himself, either under a one-man company or just a sole trader.

Either way, DPD contractor agreements sound more like employee agreement. They just know the right to substituting (getting someone else to do the work without having to inform employer) is one of HMRC key checks for the contractor/employee relationship.

CPLX• 8 years ago

participate in health savings accounts that can cover these types of fines

Do you really believe the solution is to create a complicated bureaucratic way of saving up money for lower income workers to pay punitive fines to corporations who wish to avoid following longtstanding employment law?

prepend3• 8 years ago

Certainly not, but it could be a requirement that all subcontractors set aside certain amounts for their employees to cover healthcare or sick leave or other benefits. This is fairly common with many organizations to have benefit requirements on their contractors.

I’m not sure what the income is for the subject of this story, so unsure if they are low income.

mschuster912• 8 years ago

I fear that there won't be regulation against the "gig economy" as politicians are way too bought out by the big companies profiting from it... and as there will always be someone desperate enough to take even the most rotten, most underpaid job, even collective action (aka strikes) won't help.

The only thing that will help for sure is, I am afraid, massive amounts of riots.

thinkingemote• 8 years ago

Riots generally don't help, but I can understand the sentiment if you have lost all hope in the political system. Beware though, you might be advocating for murder, property damage, more corruption and misery, in the hope of alleviating it.

Also be aware that most polical riots do not get organized as riots, rather they are political demonstrations which turn into riots. Also know that rioters in the state of rioting are not hoping for something better.

In the same way as a strike is the last resort and an indication that negotiations in business has failed, so a riot is a failure. Never want one.

dalbasal2• 8 years ago

They're not the most reliable or efficient method, but I wouldn't say riots can't affect any change.

Going back to the 19th-20th century labour movements, rioting sometimes had a leading role in the creation of labour laws, the ones being skirted here.

But I disagree with the OP. I think better standards will emerge. Some level of organised political action would probably do it, but I think Uber drivers and gig-couriers don't identify enough as a group to organise and make political demands.

What we actually need in most places is better categories for on-demand, casual and piecemeal work. Employers are often willing to pay a premium for low commitment employment terms, via 3rd party HR firms/contracts. Put that money towards regulated protections instead, pension and unemployment insurance.

Gig arrangements aren't inherently bad, they are just not regulated/legislated well.

majewsky• 8 years ago

you might be advocating for murder, property damage, more corruption and misery

Where are they advocating for it? I only see a prediction, not an endorsement.

The only thing that will help for sure is, I am afraid, massive amounts of riots.

jdmichal2• 8 years ago

You're right, but also wrong. Negotiations only work when both sides are capable and willing to walk away if their needs aren't met. This breaks down when one is already in a relationship that they can't walk away from. In such a political situation, constituents have to be willing to walk away from the order of law. Otherwise they will always be powerless against the rulers.

flukus• 8 years ago

Riots by themselves won't do much, but that depends on what's being destroyed:

There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it — that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!

Violence is still by far the most effective way of preventing the machine (whatever the machine in question happens to be) from working. Peaceful protesting has achieved absolutely nothing for the last 50 years, it's a lie told to keep the masses in line.

gaius5• 8 years ago

I fear that there won't be regulation against the "gig economy" as politicians are way too bought out by the big companies profiting from it...

Not just that, or even mainly that, I don’t think, it’s the impact on the employment figures.

rsynnott2• 8 years ago

A big part of the problem is that it's new, and regulators move slowly. Regulators in many places are now cracking down on the likes of Uber and AirBNB; these fake contractor companies are probably next.

thisisit• 8 years ago

The company’s system of charging drivers if they cannot cover their round has been described as appalling by the chairman of the House of Commons’ work and pensions committee, Frank Field.

This sounds stupid. Wasn't the whole point of gig economy to setting personal time, working and getting paid only when the work is done?

smt882• 8 years ago

Wasn't the whole point of gig economy to setting personal time, working and getting paid only when the work is done?

That's the gig companies' marketing, not their intention. The intention was to get cheap, disposable labor. In the US and other developed countries, an employee has a lot of rights and an employer has lots of responsibilities, so under-paying and firing employees is pretty difficult to do.

If a business model only works if you under-pay and mistreat workers, someone (e.g. Fedex, Uber, US govt, and even Microsoft) will fin a way around it by misclassifying employees as contractors.

jdmichal2• 8 years ago

Firing employees is relatively easy in many US states. At a minimum, all the "at will" states. Firing people and not having to play unemployment is difficult, because it requires a legally-relevant cause.

dunk010• 8 years ago

Isn't the whole point of this article to show that that is not how it works out in practice?

viraptor• 8 years ago

Wasn't the point of communism that there is no privileged class and the dictator power is given up post-revolution? Theory and promises meet the real world...

rsynnott2• 8 years ago

The point of the "gig economy" is to get around regulation by pretending that your employees are contractors. See also, AirBnB (for getting around planning/zoning regulations), Uber (for getting around employment, taxi, etc regulation), etc etc. There exists a whole business sector devoted to trying to bypass regulation.

gaius5• 8 years ago

deliver parcels to restricted time slots, must wear a uniform, hire a DPD liveried van and not work for any other courier company

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

rovek• 8 years ago

Right. This isn't gig economy, it's a huge company's intentionally abusive contracts

gaius5• 8 years ago

And the sad thing is, I only trust DPD as a company because my local DPD guy is really good, and since he had the van and the uniform I assumed he was an employee like he would be with say Fedex.

carlmr2• 8 years ago

MPs and unions have argued that these strict conditions mean they are bogusly self-employed and should be treated as employed workers.

This is why I'm happy Germany banned Uber from operating here. I'd love to have more competition in the taxi market (which is ridiculously expensive here). But not at the cost of millions of workers.

We need regulation against Bogus self-employment to be enforced. A person who can only work for one company is not self-employed. At the very least we need gig economy companies to compete for the labor force to ensure that market rates go up.

aianus6• 8 years ago

I drive for Uber part time and I don't feel the self-employed contractor classification to be 'bogus' at all.

I use my own equipment, set my own hours, perform tasks with autonomy (I can choose whatever route I or the rider wants) and have no supervision. I can also work for Lyft simultaneously if I want.

gaius5• 8 years ago

You may be willing to waive your own rights, hard-won on your behalf, but there is an externality. Just as a person who chooses not to vaccinate affects not only themselves but lowers “herd immunity” for everyone.

_m8fo5• 8 years ago

Can you set your own prices?

tscs372• 8 years ago

In Germany self-employment means you have more than one contractor. If you only ever work for and over Uber, you're simply not self-employed, end of story (the legal description is "Scheinselbstständigkeit").

DoreenMichele• 8 years ago

I think the dystopian future we have all been fearing has officially arrived.

Ugh.

dodge2• 8 years ago

Please look at guardian or Google holiday pay for contract workers. I'm and ej court all ruled holiday pay should be given to contract workers after test case involving double glazing salesman. It is covered by HEALTH in health and safety. All it needs is someone to take these profit driven companies to task..hiding behind so called self employment.

dodge2• 8 years ago

Building contractors are paid pro rata holiday pay for duration of a contract. Gig workers get nothing..its not the work with long hours...its the fact no one can work without holidays.

DPD courier who was fined for day off to see doctor dies from diabetes

Related Stories