The Illusion of Lunchtime: the Gordian knots of the gig economy
Written by Yu Ching Tan and Mridhula Raghavan
When Ford in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy muttered that “time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so”, it was unlikely that he envisioned how true the statement might ring in today’s world.
While the idea of working a ‘gig’ is not a new concept — freelancers and the self-employed have been around for some time, the growth of the gig economy is statistically irrefutable — more and more people are giving up full time jobs to become freelancers, while platforms such as Uber and Upwork have grown in scale. The “Freelancing in America: 2017” study found that 36% of the US workforce, and 50% of millennials, are already freelancing.
A draw of the gig economy is the promise of freedom, underlain by flexibility and free time. To many millennials, the 9-to-5 is overrated and is about to become tradition. The pipe dream is no longer the straight road to Vice President with an office overlooking the river, they’d rather be waking up to the Mediterranean sun off the Italian Riviera and sipping cocktails before, or even while, working on their next big project. For millennials, the gig economy is not merely attractive, but downright seductive.
Not only has the gig economy changed the provision of services, it has expanded to deliver services in previously unchartered waters. This growth in the gig economy can also be attributed to the proliferation in mobile penetration, the developments in telecommunications, and the advent of applications and platforms that allows for work to be done remotely. Furthermore, value is shifting to the knowledge economy, which increasingly marshals the workforce into specialised skillsets. This, of course, creates the pipe dream that those who partake in the gig economy can have lunch whenever they like.
Has the gig economy oversold the pipe dream?
However, what the gig economy means to you depends on the type of the worker you are. First, there are the highly skilled workers. Difficult to replace, they benefit the most from the gig economy due to their high bargaining power — partaking in the gig economy allows them to trade their specialised skill sets for a fair wage, and delivers to them the promised free time.
However, problems emerge if you are not one of them. The Uber drivers, the Fiverr freelancers, and the Grubhub delivery agents present in the on-demand economy are often classified as independent contractors, risking exploitation. Not only do employers take advantage of regulatory loopholes and undercut workers, they neglect the provision of insurance coverage and other employment benefits. Furthermore, the customer is king, and consumers are given the opportunity to tyrannise workers through rating systems which are held sacred at the shrine of the on-demand economy.
Regulation in the labour market, regrettably, has fallen behind. The hesitation in governmental response is hardly surprising; it is a nefariously complex terrain that has to be navigated. Not only does it consist of ambiguous definitions of various levels of workers, the nature of emerging companies is such that it throws the applicable regulation into question — is Uber a technology or transport company? A non-binding opinion given by Advocate General in relation to an ECJ case on the matter opined that Uber is, in fact, a transport company.
Some governments have circumvented the real issue with protectionist policies like an outright ban. Other governments such as the United Kingdom, having tried to tackle the issue and redraw the lines delineating workers’ status, have found themselves prodding a hornet’s nest — no matter where they touch, negative reactions are generated. One only needs to look to the delicate situation and lines being drawn in the fight between traditional taxi companies and Uber; Uber has fought bans in Italy, Germany, and recently, in London. Such bans have gone ahead despite European Commission’s advice to do so only as a last option. Several states in India, oddly enough, launched a cab-hailing service of their own to compete with Uber and Ola.
So, how might we cut the Gordian knot?
Three ideas dominate the conversation as the way forward.
First, universal basic income. A hotly debated policy idea, supported by Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, it is said to be the solution to unsteady work and unemployment. However, this quickly devolves when one thinks about where the handouts will come from. It just feels like passing the buck for the State to handle and it is fairly obvious why the idea has gained such favour amongst tech enterprises.
Second, in connection with the bidding platforms, cooperatives are gaining ground. Building small companies that are co-owned and managed by its workers is just an extension of the stock options that Silicon Valley heaps on its engineers and data scientists, only fairer to everyone. ‘We’re a cooperative, meaning the better one of our owners does, the better all of us do’, the website of Loconomics Cooperative reads.
Third, the state of New York is dabbling with passing legislation that would let tech companies continue to treat their workers as contractors, provided they contribute a portion of the their revenue towards ‘portable benefits’ for the workers. Unsurprisingly, the NYC-based home services startup Handy took the lead and campaigned for legislative change. Reaching a middle ground quickly would benefit companies such as Uber, Grubhub, and Handy, which have channelled resources to fight a slew of lawsuits from workers demanding that they be recognized as employees. A clear law is better placed to achieve this as opposed to litigation.
With the nature of employment changing rapidly, workers’ rights need to be clearly defined, equitable, and flexible enough to encompass everyone. Companies stepping up to the plate and pushing for change can play out as a good PR move. With enacted legislation that provides adequate protection and fair remuneration for workers, everyone can have lunch whenever they like.
