Uber – concern for associates?

16 November 2016
Volume 31 · Issue 6

An employment tribunal has ruled in a test case brought by two Uber workers, backed by the GMB union, that they are not self employed as Uber previously claimed. Not surprisingly, this has caused mutterings of concern in dental chat rooms.

Dental business coach, Dr Alun Rees senses change in the air:

“This ruling could potentially have a bearing on the employment position of associates in dental practice. Would that be a bad thing? It is easy to argue that Uber drivers are closer to the definition of self employed than many dental associates, especially those working in predominantly NHS practices. I know that some specialist dental accountants believe that the current situation is untenable and significant change is inevitable.”

Post 2006, there are problems justifying that an associate working to fulfil a contract of a set number of UDAs and being paid a set amount per UDA, and who does not own the building, employ staff, own their own equipment or take any risks, is self employed.

Alun continues: “General dental practice is a special case I’m told. Why is it different from any other profession or other branches of dentistry? Lawyers, doctors and accountants are all salaried; the argument for dentists to be different, certainly in their early years, is hard to justify.

“Something will have to give; at present the insidious erosion of NHS associate pay is one affect whilst the economic reality of private practice means that associates are paid far less than they were a couple of decades ago.”

The future may bring fewer owners with different models of practice. Perhaps a change of status could be a good thing, producing a more stable workforce who know what they are expected to do, what reward they will receive and their exact terms of employment. Tie that to a defined, long term training structure and it may benefit everyone, especially patients.