« | Home | »

Sub-Contractual

Tags: | |

Though classified as self-employed sub-contractors for tax purposes, most bike couriers have in practice a rather more restrictive relationship with the firms that hire them. You may not get a guaranteed income or any benefits, but if you don’t work a full week you’ll generally be out of work pretty quickly. You’re often obliged to wear some sort of uniform or carry a branded bag. The better companies take a deposit for radios and xdas (the palmtop computers on which you receive job details and record signatures) which you get back when you leave, as long as nothing’s been damaged.

Last month one of London’s largest courier companies, CitySprint, informed its riders that they would have to fork out £3 a week to rent some new bags they’d ordered. A disgruntled courier leaked the memo:

citysprint

click to enlarge

The new bags are good, but at £3 a week if you’re going to work for any longer than a year or so you’d be better off buying your own. At CitySprint you’re not allowed to.

The company have form for treating their riders badly. In 2007 they sacked a long-serving courier who wanted to take Christmas Eve off. The GMB got involved, but CitySprint’s solicitors, Carter-Ruck, provided a robust defence.

Already squeezed by the recession, couriers are now being asked to pay extra for equipment they are obliged to use. Despite the several thousand pounds a year (and the free advertising) this will generate, CitySprint couriers will still not be considered full employees and will be denied all the benefits this would entail.

According to the DirectGov website, one of the ‘basic questions’ you can ask yourself to ascertain your employment status is if as a worker ‘you provide the main items of equipment to do your work’. Whether a bag and uniform constitute the ‘main items’ necessary for couriers to do their work is debatable. But since you have to provide your own bicycle I suppose CitySprint must be in the clear, as Carter-Ruck would no doubt be pleased to confirm.

Comments on “Sub-Contractual”

  1. A.J.P. Crown says:

    Carter-Ruck are acting for Rachel Polonsky, author of Molotov’s Magic Lantern, in the Amazon review fight with Orlando Figes & his wife Stephanie “Historian” Palmer.

  2. Jon Day says:

    Yes I noticed that, they seem to get everywhere.

  3. A.J.P. Crown says:

    The late Peter Carter-Ruck seems to have been a total swine, almost like a character from fiction. This is from Wikipedia:

    In 1980, the Daily Express editor Derek Jameson had been advised by Carter-Ruck that if he sued the BBC over their portrayal of him in a Weekending sketch, he would win at least £25,000 in damages. The barrister in the case, David Eady QC, however advised Carter-Ruck to accept the BBC’s offer to settle for £10 (sic) plus costs. Carter Ruck did not disclose this advice to his client. The jury found the broadcast defamatory, but also fair comment and Jameson had to pay costs, receiving a bill for £41,342.50 from Carter-Ruck. Jameson learned by chance of the QC’s advice and Carter-Ruck’s former partner David Hooper claimed that “Carter-Ruck told him a string of lies”. Carter-Ruck later claimed that he did not want to undermine Jameson’s morale in court.

  4. Jon Day says:

    Interesting life – at least he gave us Lolita I suppose…

  5. rrohan189 says:

    I really like the depth of the articles on bicycle couriers. (I’ve read about 3-4 of them on your list now)

    I was hoping for a clue as to the reason for your passion/focus on the topic. But haven’t found one as yet.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement