Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2020
  • Online publication date: October 2020

9 - Rewriting the Rules

Summary

In the last decade, companies have emerged that straddle the high-wage technology and low-wage service sectors. These so-called “gig” companies use technology platforms to manage on-demand piecework in a growing number of sectors, including taxi, delivery, domestic work, nursing, and education. Technology-facilitated work is only the latest iteration of the rise of “nonstandard” or “contingent” work that is subcontracted, temporary, freelance, or on-demand. Gig companies are using new methods of labor mediation to control work remotely without accepting responsibility for its quality, to extract rents from workers, and to shift risks and costs of service provision onto workers, consumers, and the general public. Their practices leave workers vulnerable to economic insecurity, discrimination and harassment.

This chapter describes the ways in which gig companies are shaping regulation that favors their business model and preempts challenges to their employment practices, including the strategies and tactics that companies are using to maintain an independent contractor workforce in the face of contestations from workers, consumers, and regulators. We suggest that the expanding set of business interests joining ranks with gig companies to rewrite employment standards threatens a recalibration of what workers in the US expect in exchange for their labor.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
Borkholder, Joy, Montgomery, Mariah, Chen, Miya Saika, and Smith, Rebecca, “Uber State Interference: How Transportation Network Companies Buy, Bully, and Bamboozle Their Way to Deregulation.” New York: National Employment Law Project and Partnership for Working Families, 2018, 13. www.nelp.org/publication/uber-state-interference/.
Donovan, Sarah A., Bradley, David H., and Shimabukuro, Jon O.. “What Does the Gig Economy Mean for Workers?” Washington DC: Congressional Research Service Report R44365, February 5, 2016, 2. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44365.pdf.
Garden, C. “Disrupting Work Law: Arbitration in the Gig Economy.” U. Chi. Legal F., 2017, 205, https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1794&context=faculty.
Garden, C. (2018). “The Seattle Solution: Collective Bargaining by For-Hire Drivers and Prospects for Pro-Labor Federalism.” Harv. Law & Pol’y Review, 2018. https://harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2018/01/Garden-SeattleSolution.pdf.
Parrott, James and Reich, Michael. “An Earnings Standard for New York City’s App-based Drivers.” New York: The New School Center for New York City Affairs; Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics, University of California, Berkeley, 2018. www.centernyc.org/an-earnings-standard/.
Pinto, Maya, Smith, Rebecca and Tung, Irene. “Rights at Risk: Gig Companies’ Campaign to Upend Employment as we Know It.” New York: National Employment Law Project, 2019. https://s27147.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/Rights-at-Risk-4–2-19.pdf.
Rosenblat, Alex, Levy, Karen, Barocas, Solon and Hwang, Tim. “Discriminating Tastes, Customer Ratings as Vehicles for Bias.” New York: Data and Society, October 2016. https://datasociety.net/output/discriminating-tastes-customer-ratings-as-vehicles-for-bias/.
Tusk, Bradley. The Fixer: Saving Startups from Death by Politics. New York: Penguin/Portfolio, 2018.
Weil, David. The Fissured Workplace: Why Work Became So Bad for So Many and What Can Be Done to Improve It. Boston: Harvard College, 2014.
Working Washington. “Delivering Inequality, What Instacart Really Pays, and How the Company Shifts Costs to Workers.” Seattle, WA: April 2019. https://payup.wtf/instacart/delivering-inequality.