Thousands of unionised drivers working for ride-hailing apps are striking to demand better pay and workplace safety protections, in line with court decisions that have said drivers should start being paid as soon as they log in.
First announced by Addison Lee drivers who staged a similar strike action in September 2024, drivers with Uber and Bolt organised under the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB) are also planning to collectively log off from the apps en masse to protest their low pay and insecure work conditions on Valentine’s Day 2025.
They said the algorithmically induced precarity they face as app workers means many drivers are being pushed into 70-hour or 80-hour work weeks to make ends meet, all while the companies continue to take significant commissions and refuse to pay them for their full working time.
This is in spite of three separate court rulings that said drivers for Uber, Bolt and Addison Lee are legally classed as workers and should therefore be paid for the entire time they are logged into the apps, not just when they are assigned to trips.
Nader Awaad, chair of the IWGB’s Private Hire Drivers branch, said that drivers represent an essential part of the UK’s transport system and therefore deserve to be well paid for their work, especially in the context of soaring profits for their employers (particularly Uber and Bolt).
Speaking with Computer Weekly, Awaad outlined how the algorithms deployed by the app operators are pushing work conditions down for everyone by pitting drivers against one another.
Highlighting how this works with Uber specifically, Awaad said its systems will send out the same job to a number of drivers, while showing each of them different fares: “The driver who takes the cheapest fare will get the job. The market is flooded with new drivers every week, so now they’re having to fight each other for the same job … because Uber will rely on new drivers who don’t have experience to take the job when others realise it has no value.”
He added that this is exacerbated by a lack of transparency about how the algorithms work: “We are fighting against sophisticated computer systems, which manages all of these operations for them. This doesn’t leave us with any option other than to organise a protest.”
Computer Weekly was previously told by drivers organised under the App Drivers and Couriers Union (ADCU) that, in the case of Uber, its “dynamic pricing” algorithm in combination with its “upfront pricing” policy means the data inputs used by the algorithm to make decisions about their pay and trips are completely hidden from drivers, who are only shown a fixed fare for a trip, along with riders.
“Drivers don’t see fares that customers accept, which allows Uber to take more of the commission,” said ADCU London vice-chairman, Zamir Dreni.
A separate protest being organised by the ADCU for 11 February 2025 will see their drivers making similar demands for higher fares, lower commissions and improved rights for drivers.
While Uber initially charged a 20% to 25% commission for every trip in the UK, drivers are saying the firm is now taking around half of every fare as commission. Bolt’s current commission rate stands at around 15% to 20% depending on the city it’s operating in, although drivers have reported higher to their unions. IWGB drivers said that Addison Lee can take up to 70% of their fares as commission, and called for it to be capped at 30% during their last log off strike in September 2024.
IWGB told Computer Weekly that while it would be safe to assume that all three operators are regularly taking over 50% commission based on what unionised drivers are reporting, the lack of algorithmic transparency means they do not have access to concrete data that would enable drivers to more effectively challenge the companies over pay issues.
According to Awaad, while roughly 20% of any commission represents government VAT, the companies have chosen to push these costs onto the drivers rather than consumers, which is why nearly half of every fare is lost to the drivers: “They have an interest in keeping their customer base high. If they apply VAT on the customer, they will lose some of them.”
Driver health and safety
Awaad further outlined how unionised drivers are also calling for the introduction of safety measures such as ID verification for riders (not just drivers as it is now); complaint-tracking systems to ensure issues with customers are dealt with in a timely and fair manner (as Awaad and other drivers say their employers tend to reflexively side with customers, leading to unfair account deactivations); and more support for drivers who are victims of assault.
As part of the strike action – which includes a planned demonstration and motorcade outside London City Hall – IWGB drivers will also hold a candlelit vigil for Gabriel Bringye, a driver and fellow union member killed by a passenger in Tottenham in February 2021 while working for Bolt. The union said that, since then, Bolt has still not met its demands for meaningful safety improvements, nor compensated the family for their loss.
Awaad added that while drivers have previously made demands to operators for password protections and customer verification on the apps (as Gabriel Bringye’s killer used a stolen phone), these have been ignored by the companies.
IWGB member Saifullah Hussainkhel, an Uber driver for 12 years, said the strain of working for ride-hailing apps is severe: “I have to work 30 hours a week just to cover my driving costs, before I can even start earning money to take home and support my family.
“My GP has just put me on antidepressants because the longer and longer hours on the road are affecting my mental health. What kind of lives are we leading if we don’t have the time to see our families, to exercise, to rest, or take a single holiday? We can’t afford to stay silent any longer.”
A driver for Addison Lee, who wished to remain anonymous due to fear of repercussions, added that health problems, depression and debt are pervasive among the ride-hailing app workforce.
“The bosses have no humanity – just last month they were found lying in court to try to deny us workers’ rights,” they said, referring to a January 2025 employment tribunal finding that the company had falsified an email that formed a key part of the firm’s evidence.
“We know they will not choose to make our lives easier until we force them to. It’s incredible to see that a log-off campaign which began with Addison Lee drivers back in September last year, has now inspired drivers working across all apps in cities all over the UK to stand up, join the movement and claim back what we deserve.”
The same employment tribunal ruled that Addisson Lee drivers are workers rather than self-employed contractors, and therefore entitled to rights such as holiday pay, the national minimum wage, rest breaks and protection from unlawful discrimination or whistleblowing. It also ruled that all drivers are working for the company during the times they are logged onto its app or mobile device.
As Valentine’s Day is one of the busiest nights for private hire services, drivers said the strike could have an impact on availability and pricing for passengers, which they hope will prompt the companies into addressing their concerns.
Company responses
Computer Weekly contacted all three app operators about the planned log-off strike, as well as their employees concerns and demands.
“We recognise the vital role drivers play in keeping cities moving, and remain committed to ensuring our prices balance the earning needs of drivers with affordability for passengers. We are the only operator that enables drivers to set their own minimum pricing and take advantage of dynamic pricing, where fares are based on market conditions,” said a Bolt spokesperson.
“All drivers receive holiday pay and monetary supplements to ensure they earn at least the national living wage, alongside a pension. Feedback is important to us, and we continue to engage with drivers directly through surveys, community events and in-person forums.”
The spokesperson added that Bolt has committed €100m over three years globally to support the critical work of its Safety Team, and are constantly assessing and improving the protections available to drivers, and introducing features as a direct result of feedback.
According to the spokesperson, this includes the ability for drivers to share their real-time location with friends and family; an in-app “emergency assist” button that connects directly to the emergency services and notifies Bolt’s safety team; and trip vehicle monitoring that allows Bolt to detect any unexpected or excessively long stops during rides.
Neither Uber nor Addison Lee responded to Computer Weekly.
Court rulings not respected
Although the Addison Lee ruling from January 2025 is in line with older court decisions regarding Uber and Bolt, the firms are yet to follow through with paying their workers for the entire time logged on.
In November 2024, for example, the Employment Tribunal rejected Bolt’s claim that drivers are self-employed contractors running their own businesses, finding instead that the terms and conditions the firm applies to its relationship with drivers, as well as the level of algorithmic control it has over their day-to-day work, means they are in fact workers.
“Overwhelmingly, the power lies with Bolt,” said the ruling. “There is nothing in the relationship which demands, or even suggests, agency. The agency notion is posited simply to defeat the obvious interpretation which the facts invite – that Bolt employs the drivers to provide their labour in furtherance of its transportation business.
“The supposed contract between the Bolt driver and the passenger is a fiction designed by Bolt – and in particular its lawyers – to defeat the argument that it has an employer/worker relationship with the driver.”
While Bolt still currently only pays its drivers for time spent on trips, the Employment Tribunal also ruled they should be paid for time spent logged into the Bolt app, providing they are not also logged into apps for other private hire operators such as Uber or Deliveroo – a practice those operators refer to as “multi-apping”.
A spokesperson for Bolt said at the time that the firm is reviewing its options, including grounds to appeal the decision: “Drivers are at the heart of what we do, and we have always supported the overwhelming majority’s choice to remain self-employed, independent contractors, protecting their flexibility, personal control and earning potential.”
Responding to questions about the tribunal ruling and why drivers are not being paid from when they log on, a Bolt spokesperson told Computer Weekly that the tribunal’s findings are confined to drivers that are not multi-apping, and said that around 9 in 10 drivers are online across multiple platforms to maximise earnings.
The Employment Tribunal decision followed the UK Supreme Court determining in February 2021 that Uber drivers should also be classified as workers rather than self-employed. That specific legal challenge was brought by private hire driver Yaseen Aslam and the ADCU.
However, although Uber agreed in March 2021 to pay its UK drivers the minimum wage, it said this would only apply for the time they are assigned to trips, rather than, as the Supreme Court explicitly ruled, from the time they log in to the app.
The Deliveroo exemption
In June 2021, the UK Court of Appeal ruled in a case – originally brought by the IWGB in 2017 – that Deliveroo riders are self-employed, further finding they do not have the right to organise via a trade union.
Despite this, one judge conceded that the ruling could be seen as “counterintuitive” because “it is easy to see that riders might benefit from organising collectively to represent their interests, as against Deliveroo”.
Another judge agreed that the decision “may seem counterintuitive”, adding: “I quite accept that there may be other cases where, on different facts and with a broader range of available arguments, a different result may eventuate.”
Lord Justice Underhill added that the Uber case, which largely revolved around UK-specific employment law, had no bearing on this Deliveroo case because it did not engage Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which protects the right to form and join trade unions), adding that, unlike Deliveroo, “Uber did not rely on any substitution clause” that meant others are allowed to complete the work.
In September 2022, the IWGB once again appealed the ruling, arguing that riders have been denied collective bargaining rights and are yet again seeking to establish their worker status. However, this was dismissed by the Supreme Court in November 2023, which noted the way riders work with Deliveroo is inconsistent with an employment relationship.
#Unionised #drivers #stage #ridehailing #app #strike