Companies such as Uber have also been sweetening their benefits as the pressure has increased. Uber has in recent years increased benefits for its drivers, including new coverage for things like sick leave and parental leave.
Some gig-economy companies have also started trying to strike deals with labor unions that give workers some benefits but stop short of making them employees.
Earlier this week, Uber published a white paper for European policy makers outlining its proposals for how to regulate gig work, something the European Union is set to consider this year. Among its proposals are pooled eligibility for benefits and mechanisms to ensure minimum earnings—while maintaining gig workers as independent contractors.
Uber says any precedent set by the U.K. ruling will be limited because it has changed how it handles its relationships with drivers since 2016, the beginning of the case that led to Friday’s decision. At that time, Uber had roughly 40,000 drivers in the U.K., the court said Friday.
For instance, Uber says that drivers currently get to see the destination and fare for rides before they accept them, and they face no penalties for repeatedly turning down fares. In 2016, drivers weren’t given such information, and would be temporarily locked out of the app as a penalty if they repeatedly declined fares.
On Friday, the Supreme Court cited that penalty as among the reasons it found that the former drivers were workers, though it was one of several criteria listed.
The U.K. court also said that the group of Uber drivers weren’t independent contractors because Uber decided how much they are paid, controlled how they work using a customer-rating system and imposed contractual terms upon them. The court said those factors entitled them to status as workers, a legal employment status in the U.K. that falls between a full employee and an independent contractor.
The court also found that the Uber drivers’ working time—when they are entitled to worker rights—extended to whenever they were connected to the app in the relevant territory, and were ready and willing to accept fares. The court said Uber had contended that their working time should be limited to when they were driving passengers to their destinations.
“Drivers are in a position of subordination and dependency in relation to Uber such that they have little or no ability to improve their economic position through professional or entrepreneurial skill,” said George Leggatt, a judge on the Supreme Court who read a summary of the decision Friday.
Uber has said that its drivers are their own bosses and choose the hours they work, citing surveys showing that the majority say that flexibility is the most important reason they work for Uber.
