A very important article. Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2016 11:09 AM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Most Benefits of the Gig Economy Are Completely
Imaginary
Smith writes: "We should seize this moment to reflect on what America owes
its workers - and how the new economy is failing them. Here are a few points
to consider."
Uber drivers protest. (photo: Seth Wenig/AP)
Most Benefits of the Gig Economy Are Completely Imaginary
By Rebecca Smith, Quartz
04 March 16
The on-demand economy is starting to show some cracks. In February, hundreds
of Uber drivers rallied outside the company's headquarters in Queens, New
York, protesting the fare cuts that have been imposed in 100 cities in the
United States and Canada. Meanwhile, The New York Times featured an article
about Uber drivers banding together in Dallas and protesting rate cuts in
San Francisco and Seattle. Back in New York, unions are coordinating a
strategy aimed at organizing Uber drivers at LaGuardia Airport.
The month before, Lyft agreed to pay $12 million to drivers in order to
settle a lawsuit that challenged the companies' treatment of its workers.
Lyft will also accept provisions intended to protect drivers from unfair
terminations. And in December, Seattle became the first city in the country
to pass an ordinance giving Uber, Lyft and taxi drivers a process for
collective bargaining.
Clearly, change is the air. We should seize this moment to reflect on what
America owes its workers-and how the new economy is failing them. Here are a
few points to consider:
1. The "new economy" looks a lot like the old economy.
Companies like Uber, Lyft, Handy, Postmates, and Wonolo dispatch drivers,
odd-job workers, cleaners, delivery people, shelf-stockers, and others for
short-term "gigs." Such convenience is great for many consumers. What's not
great is that these companies claim their business models are so innovative
that they don't need to treat the workers they rely upon as employees.
Unfortunately, this claim is nothing new. For decades, whole segments of
industries, including janitorial, trucking, home care, and delivery
services, have adopted a strategy of labeling their workers as self-employed
independent contractors. In this way, businesses are able to push many of
their costs onto the shoulders of the low-wage workers who do their bidding.
Companies in the same industries that want to treat their workers lawfully
have to struggle to compete with companies that save money by paying no
Social Security, Medicare, workers' compensation or unemployment insurance
taxes and abide by no labor laws. It's a great get-rich scheme for those at
the top, but a stay-poor scheme for the workers at the bottom.
2. You can do right by your workers and still do well as a company.
Uber has become the face of the on-demand economy. The driving service takes
apparent delight in ignoring workplace laws, transportation laws, disability
access laws and more. (It was sued 50 times in 2015, far more than its
closest competitors.)
But many other companies are moving away from labeling workers as
independent contractors. Honor, a startup that hires and places home-care
workers, nannies, and housekeepers via an online platform, recently
announced its switch to hiring workers as employees.
In June, the grocery delivery company Instacart switched over some of its
in-store workers, making them employees as well. In July, the package
delivery startup Shyp did the same for all of its workers. The valet service
Luxe did so in the same month. Some Amazon PrimeNow workers are also being
reclassified as employees, and senior care company HomeHero is reclassifying
its workers.
Other on-demand startups, including Alfred, Munchery, Managed by Q, Bridj,
and BlueCrew, treated their workers as employees from the get-go. Along with
paying payroll taxes and complying with minimum wage laws and the Affordable
Care Act, many of these startups offer paid vacation, stock options, and
transitions from part-time to full-time schedules. Why? Because they know
such a system is good for their workers. And that makes it good for their
business.
3. Many on-demand workers aren't in it for the flexibility.
Companies in the on-demand economy love to claim that workers enjoy the
flexibility that comes with the job, and that they will happily sacrifice
the benefits of employee status in order exchange for freedom to make their
own schedules.
It's certainly true that flexibility is a great thing. Too few American
workers are able to take a paid, or even unpaid, days off when they are
sick, have family obligations, or need some personal time. That's what
campaigns for fair scheduling, paid sick days and paid leave are about. We
should strive to give all workers these options.
But the logic that on-demand companies use to justify their treatment of
workers falls flat. For starters, there's nothing about employee status that
requires inflexibility. Companies get to decide how they structure jobs.
Moreover, the degree of flexibility that on-demand workers have is likely
overblown. One company-distributed survey of more than 1,000 on-demand
workers commissioned by the newsletter Request for Startups found that the
much-vaunted flexibility is "illusory." That's because workers have to work
during the hours when there is high demand.
Another survey of 4,600 workers, recently published by Intuit, found that
the average on-demand worker relies on three different income streams. Their
biggest worry is having enough work and a stable income. Finally, a JPMorgan
Chase Institute study of bank records from 260,000 platform workers found
that they use platforms to earn more money when their income dips or when
they are between jobs. Gig economy jobs are often a last resort, not a first
choice. That sounds a lot less like freedom and a lot more like part-time
workers struggling to patch together a living wage from jobs with
unpredictable schedules.
4. The on-demand economy has highlighted the need for a new social compact.
In the latter decades of the 20th century, the post-World War II paradigm of
longterm, stable employment with a single employer gave way to an economy in
which many individuals expected to move through several jobs over their
careers. In the 21th century, even those expectations have been upended.
Millions today have given up the hope of attaining career-long security and
support from steady jobs. Instead, they must deal with the reality of
reality of one-off gigs, part-time work, and temporary employment, all while
companies shirk accountability for wage standards and workplace benefits.
On-demand companies have rightly pointed out that simply being called an
employee doesn't ensure security or stability. Politically-motivated attacks
on safety net programs have already diluted the reach and efficiency of
employment-based programs such as workers' compensation and unemployment
insurance. A third of American families nearing retirement have no savings
at all. And despite the successes of the Affordable Care Act, many face high
health-insurance costs, and 10% of Americans (33 million) still don't have
health care at all, according to 2014 US Census data.
We need to rebuild and rethink the social compact of the 20th century. That
means extending protections to those who have historically been without
them, and ensuring that benefits follow workers from job to job.
The on-demand economy has given us an opportunity to talk about the gaps in
the social compact for one segment of workers. But we should aim higher. We
should ensure that all people-full-time, part-time, and freelance,
regardless of the label businesses choose to place on them-can make a living
from work and benefit from an expansive social safety net. And together with
their co-workers, all workers should be able to bargain collectively with
the company that calls the shots.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Uber drivers protest. (photo: Seth Wenig/AP)
http://qz.com/631435/most-benefits-of-the-gig-economy-are-completely-imagina
ry/http://qz.com/631435/most-benefits-of-the-gig-economy-are-completely-imag
inary/
Most Benefits of the Gig Economy Are Completely Imaginary
By Rebecca Smith, Quartz
04 March 16
he on-demand economy is starting to show some cracks. In February, hundreds
of Uber drivers rallied outside the company's headquarters in Queens, New
York, protesting the fare cuts that have been imposed in 100 cities in the
United States and Canada. Meanwhile, The New York Times featured an article
about Uber drivers banding together in Dallas and protesting rate cuts in
San Francisco and Seattle. Back in New York, unions are coordinating a
strategy aimed at organizing Uber drivers at LaGuardia Airport.
The month before, Lyft agreed to pay $12 million to drivers in order to
settle a lawsuit that challenged the companies' treatment of its workers.
Lyft will also accept provisions intended to protect drivers from unfair
terminations. And in December, Seattle became the first city in the country
to pass an ordinance giving Uber, Lyft and taxi drivers a process for
collective bargaining.
Clearly, change is the air. We should seize this moment to reflect on what
America owes its workers-and how the new economy is failing them. Here are a
few points to consider:
1. The "new economy" looks a lot like the old economy.
Companies like Uber, Lyft, Handy, Postmates, and Wonolo dispatch drivers,
odd-job workers, cleaners, delivery people, shelf-stockers, and others for
short-term "gigs." Such convenience is great for many consumers. What's not
great is that these companies claim their business models are so innovative
that they don't need to treat the workers they rely upon as employees.
Unfortunately, this claim is nothing new. For decades, whole segments of
industries, including janitorial, trucking, home care, and delivery
services, have adopted a strategy of labeling their workers as self-employed
independent contractors. In this way, businesses are able to push many of
their costs onto the shoulders of the low-wage workers who do their bidding.
Companies in the same industries that want to treat their workers lawfully
have to struggle to compete with companies that save money by paying no
Social Security, Medicare, workers' compensation or unemployment insurance
taxes and abide by no labor laws. It's a great get-rich scheme for those at
the top, but a stay-poor scheme for the workers at the bottom.
2. You can do right by your workers and still do well as a company.
Uber has become the face of the on-demand economy. The driving service takes
apparent delight in ignoring workplace laws, transportation laws, disability
access laws and more. (It was sued 50 times in 2015, far more than its
closest competitors.)
But many other companies are moving away from labeling workers as
independent contractors. Honor, a startup that hires and places home-care
workers, nannies, and housekeepers via an online platform, recently
announced its switch to hiring workers as employees.
In June, the grocery delivery company Instacart switched over some of its
in-store workers, making them employees as well. In July, the package
delivery startup Shyp did the same for all of its workers. The valet service
Luxe did so in the same month. Some Amazon PrimeNow workers are also being
reclassified as employees, and senior care company HomeHero is reclassifying
its workers.
Other on-demand startups, including Alfred, Munchery, Managed by Q, Bridj,
and BlueCrew, treated their workers as employees from the get-go. Along with
paying payroll taxes and complying with minimum wage laws and the Affordable
Care Act, many of these startups offer paid vacation, stock options, and
transitions from part-time to full-time schedules. Why? Because they know
such a system is good for their workers. And that makes it good for their
business.
3. Many on-demand workers aren't in it for the flexibility.
Companies in the on-demand economy love to claim that workers enjoy the
flexibility that comes with the job, and that they will happily sacrifice
the benefits of employee status in order exchange for freedom to make their
own schedules.
It's certainly true that flexibility is a great thing. Too few American
workers are able to take a paid, or even unpaid, days off when they are
sick, have family obligations, or need some personal time. That's what
campaigns for fair scheduling, paid sick days and paid leave are about. We
should strive to give all workers these options.
But the logic that on-demand companies use to justify their treatment of
workers falls flat. For starters, there's nothing about employee status that
requires inflexibility. Companies get to decide how they structure jobs.
Moreover, the degree of flexibility that on-demand workers have is likely
overblown. One company-distributed survey of more than 1,000 on-demand
workers commissioned by the newsletter Request for Startups found that the
much-vaunted flexibility is "illusory." That's because workers have to work
during the hours when there is high demand.
Another survey of 4,600 workers, recently published by Intuit, found that
the average on-demand worker relies on three different income streams. Their
biggest worry is having enough work and a stable income. Finally, a JPMorgan
Chase Institute study of bank records from 260,000 platform workers found
that they use platforms to earn more money when their income dips or when
they are between jobs. Gig economy jobs are often a last resort, not a first
choice. That sounds a lot less like freedom and a lot more like part-time
workers struggling to patch together a living wage from jobs with
unpredictable schedules.
4. The on-demand economy has highlighted the need for a new social compact.
In the latter decades of the 20th century, the post-World War II paradigm of
longterm, stable employment with a single employer gave way to an economy in
which many individuals expected to move through several jobs over their
careers. In the 21th century, even those expectations have been upended.
Millions today have given up the hope of attaining career-long security and
support from steady jobs. Instead, they must deal with the reality of
reality of one-off gigs, part-time work, and temporary employment, all while
companies shirk accountability for wage standards and workplace benefits.
On-demand companies have rightly pointed out that simply being called an
employee doesn't ensure security or stability. Politically-motivated attacks
on safety net programs have already diluted the reach and efficiency of
employment-based programs such as workers' compensation and unemployment
insurance. A third of American families nearing retirement have no savings
at all. And despite the successes of the Affordable Care Act, many face high
health-insurance costs, and 10% of Americans (33 million) still don't have
health care at all, according to 2014 US Census data.
We need to rebuild and rethink the social compact of the 20th century. That
means extending protections to those who have historically been without
them, and ensuring that benefits follow workers from job to job.
The on-demand economy has given us an opportunity to talk about the gaps in
the social compact for one segment of workers. But we should aim higher. We
should ensure that all people-full-time, part-time, and freelance,
regardless of the label businesses choose to place on them-can make a living
from work and benefit from an expansive social safety net. And together with
their co-workers, all workers should be able to bargain collectively with
the company that calls the shots.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
