Fixing the Gig Eco

Question 1

Major policy concerns easy to diagnose, difficult to cure

Answer 1

Michiavellli

Question 2

What is choice and voice, why are they important? (boggs, bales, Novitz)

Answer 2

‘Voice’ - feedback to employer
‘choice’ - choice of employer/terms

Employment: T and C non negotiable

Why: nature of employment contracts (see: Freud)

Question 3

(boggs, bales, Novitz) - why taylor review sucks

Answer 3

Donovan Report: had more sources and diverse panel, had independent research, and comparative elements.

• No substantive change in suggestions
  - Why? So May can use it as leverage for Tory pro-worker mantle.
  - For those that could impact: not enough details.
  - employment status problem in the so-called “gig economy” is not caused by confusion and as such will not be solved by clarity.
• Employers’ lawyers will still draft in the most advantageous way
• Tory Government would be to mitigate the impact of any court or tribunal decisions on business (eg: when they capped at two years the amount of unpaid holidays workers could claim )

Question 4

Taylor reviews treatment of voice

Answer 4

Treatment of voice:

1. no reference to fundamental HR international law binding the UK
2. brief reference to trade unions
3. fails to elaborate on theoretical parameters
4. doesn’t engage w implementing voice material.

Question 5

Taylor review’s treatment of choice

Answer 5

Contrary to “if an individual knowingly chooses to work through a platform at times of low demand, then he or she should take some responsibility for this decision”, -> companies’ models depend on workers working at times of low demand.

Didn’t consider the effect on workers with the suggestions = would actually reduce choice

Result: “gig economy” workers who would be made poorer by your proposal, even the Tories thought it went too far.

+ Giving the “choice” for rolled up holiday pay sucks.

Question 6

IWGB: Less personal service (criticism)

Answer 6

• wouldn’t have made much difference to any of the recent gig economy tribunal and court cases which have been won by workers: to the extent that the employer claimed a right of substitution existed, the workers demonstrated such a right was bogus.

Question 7

IWGB: Subordination?

Answer 7

But in my view they are not solved by adding some mystery ingredient of “subordination” to the concept of employee and worker. (lists instances where could be interpreted as both)”

[Bates - Lady Hale]

Question 8

IWGB: more reporting requirements

Answer 8

Delusional to think ∆ in reporting requirements = ∆ in behaviour for bad employers. Should increase gov enforcement

Question 9

IWGB: Onus on employers

Answer 9

Shifting onus not effective - Employment status cases rarely turn on the burden of proof.

Question 10

IWGB Re: “platform”

Answer 10

is highly misleading. Deliveroo is not a “platform”, it is a food delivery business which uses an app to give information to the people working for it. Uber is not a “platform”, it is a transportation services company which uses an app to communicate with people working for it and to communicate with customers. E-Bay is a platform.

Question 11

IWGB: rolled up holiday pay

Answer 11

Allowing “rolled-up holiday pay” is a terrible idea.

The point of holiday entitlement is to give workers a break. introduced under EU law on health and safety grounds.

To respond by saying that the worker would be allowed to choose whether they want their holidays “rolled up” is nothing to the point.

The inequality of bargaining power tends to render “choices” such as these relatively meaningless.

Question 12

IWGB: Naming and shaming

Answer 12

“Naming and shaming alone will not solve the problem.

the University of London, an institution which by the standards of the average employer is highly susceptible to reputation-based pressure, has for years used contractors which hire 0 hours employees on a regular basis.

We have publicized this information over and over to no effect. The actual contractors care even less.

Question 13

IWGB main suggestions

Answer 13

If the Review wants to focus on giving workers more voice, it should have a think about how to make it easier for unions to gain access to workers and enter into collective bargaining agreements, and how to make it harder for companies to game the system. (SAME AS BOGGS AND SUPOIT IN MATRIX ARTICLE)

• There needs to be an incentive for companies to obey the law before they are taken to court.
• proper government enforcement with punitive fines to deter bad behaviour, elimination of employment tribunal fees, and increasing rights for the worker category

Question 14

Stefano’s suggestion to create new category of worker

Answer 14

Would creating new category of worker work?

• Grey zone (assumes that creating new category = clarity)
• difficulty assessing income
• Italy’s para-subordinate r/s -> used as alt to avoid protections.

Question 15

Is it possible to regulate work?

Answer 15

4. Rebalance Scales
   - minimum working hour guarantees
   - Autrailia ‘casual loading’ system (^ hr pay) -> surge price for gig work..
   - must get it right and not buyng off rights.
   - casual workers unlikely progress with training or development
5. Possible ratings (EU law)
   - GDPR: data portability -> portable ratings for employer and crowdworkers -> not locked down when change
6. Collective actions (IWGB)
7. Rights v Flexibility
   - Myth: gig eco workers dont want rights bc want flex. (Uber’s arguement)
   - Chartered Institute of Personnel and Dev (CIPD)
   - 50% agreed gig eco firms exploiting lack of reg
   - 2/3 gov should regulate
   - 50% agree sacrific rights for flex
   - NOT TRUE EMPLOYMENT LAW = RIGID WORK

(possible interaction w Hustle mindset = making these effects worse)”

Question 16

Select committee response

Answer 16

“Select committee response to taylor review
• Clearer statutory definitions of the terms ‘employee’, ‘dependent contractor’ and ‘self- employed’ based on existing case law.

• Making the dependent contractor status the default position
• Requiring employers to pay zero hours workers higher (like the Australia surge price for gig work)
• Introducing a system of punitive fines for employers found to be using bogus self- employment. (what about Sash Window case - it’s already here)
• Authorising a government inspectorate to undertake pro-active investigations “

Question 17

Good work plan summary

Answer 17

Good work plan
• Giving all workers the right to receive written particulars from day 1

• Increasing the length of a break in service for CE from 2->4 weeks
• Introducing a new right for all workers ‘to request a more predictable contract’ after 26 weeks’ service
• Simplifying the process for enforcing tribunal awards when they are not paid
• Formal ‘naming and shaming’ of employers who fail to pay tribunal awards
• Repealing the so-called ‘Swedish derogation’ which allows employers to pay agency workers less than permanently employed colleagues if their agency employs them on permanent contracts and pays them between assignments.

Question 18

“Supiot Taylorism vs Programmed worker

Answer 18

Taylorism - , workers ‘were reduced to the status of cogs
Programmed worker -‘system of self-adjusting interacting units automatically responding to signal inputs and feedback, as programmed by computer algorithm”

Question 19

Fissured workplace + Supiots feudalism

Answer 19

fissuring is a political process

Question 20

Matrix Critics on taylor review:

Answer 20

startling faith in tech to deliver clarity on employment status = makes it a technical excercise = obscures politics behind it

‘control’ = subordinated vs programmed worker

suggests a reductive approach to legal reform, ignores rich case law and ideas

Data: ‘evaluation mertics are destrictive to quality of work’ -> if want justice, need to empower workers