Connect with us

Workers

Uber and Lyft’s Gig Work Law Could Expand Beyond California

Published

on

In November, gig companies including Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and Instacart helped pass California’s Proposition 22, effectively writing their own labor law. Now the companies plan to bring similar legislation elsewhere.

Last month, the companies launched a group called the App-Based Work Alliance to support their agenda. Industry-supported bills in the works in New York state and Illinois would, like the California ballot measure, deny gig workers status as employees, and the workers’ compensation, paid family leave, sick pay, unemployment insurance, and minimum wage guarantees that come with it.

But the bills could give gig workers the right to form something resembling a union, allowing workers to bargain with multiple employers to create wage floors and standards. US workers in trucking, auto manufacturing, and grocery stores have participated in types of industry-wide bargaining, though the arrangement is more common in Europe.

The scheme—first floated in California in 2019—has divided labor advocates. Some labor allies say that allowing gig workers to unionize would give them a much-needed seat at the table, in an industry where work and wages are dictated by algorithm and where access to the “bosses”—the companies that pay their wages—is hard to come by. Gaining the right to collectively bargain, these people say, is a vital first step in making the low-wage, high-turnover job more fair.

Others say that allowing gig companies to continue to treat their workers as independent contractors is a mistake. Legislation giving workers the right to a union without employment status would effectively be a government rubber stamp to gig companies’ business models, “in which the most low-income workers don’t have access to basic safety net benefits,” says Veena Dubal, a professor of labor law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law.

Some California drivers are warning others of the downsides of a compromise with gig companies. “We’re absolutely against anything that puts us in a second-class worker status,” says Nicole Moore, a ride-hail driver and organizer with California-based Rideshare Drivers United, a workers’ advocacy group. “That’s why we say employment rights are nonnegotiable.”

The California ballot measure, called Proposition 22, was written by gig companies, who then poured $205 million into supporting it, the most expensive campaign in the state’s history. It reverses a 2019 law known as AB 5, which clarified the status of independent contractors in the state. Now, gig companies don’t have to pay into state unemployment insurance for their workers, and don’t need to provide benefits like health care. Instead, for California workers who qualify by driving or delivering for a certain number of hours a week, the companies say they will provide a health care subsidy and guarantee a minimum wage for the hours spent driving to or picking up riders (but not for the hours spent waiting for a fare).

Proposition 22 is near-irreversible—the law needs a “supermajority” of seven-eighths of the state’s legislature to be changed.

At the same time, gig companies invested in bringing the Proposition 22 fight elsewhere. Lyft stood up a political action committee called Illinoisans for Independent Work that spent at least $660,000 on ad buys and political contributions in local elections. In August, Uber released a white paper laying out its plans for “Independent Contractor+,” a new employment category it hopes to promote across the country.

Now New York, a less-than-traditional gig market in many ways, is set to be among the first states where a post-Proposition 22 battle might play out. A constellation of gig companies and allies on Monday introduced the New York Coalition for Independent Work, which describes its mission as “protecting self-employed, app-based contractors’ independence and flexibility while also working to provide them with needed benefits.” But the state’s relatively labor-friendly climate means that gig companies will have to tread carefully—and that a pitched battle is likely ahead.

Source link

Workers

Egypt to register millions of gig workers for state insurance, aid | Business , Regional

Published

on

By

 

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Workers

Gig workers need fair deal in our ‘convenience’ economy

Published

on

By

COMMENT | In a simpler age, there was only one number to remember for food deliveries. Helpfully, there was a jingle that was repeated often on the few radio stations that operated back then. There were fewer digits in the telephone number itself which made it fit better in a melodic hook that was only a few seconds long (though I can’t recall hearing a Malay version of tujuh-lima-lima…).

You had the option of ordering various pizzas, garlic bread, or simple pasta dishes, which were a huge treat back then, what more the novelty of having it delivered directly to your front gate.

Of course, today food deliveries are common. Some are still operated by the restaurants, but usually, they are available through popular food delivery apps, which are the bedrock of the convenience economy.

Consumers are now able to get access to food, goods, and services whenever, wherever, and however they like, made possible by hundreds of thousands of people zigging and zagging their way across cities.

Like many things, the pandemic and multiple lockdowns have sped up the widespread adoption of delivery services by businesses and customers, but it was already a growing trend before that.

It made sense. Why spend time travelling, parking, and all that hassle waiting for food elsewhere, when you can just make a few taps and continue being in the comfort of your own home? There are also a huge number of promotions and deals giving you discounts on your orders, while earning you points for more deals in the future. It’s not a difficult choice to make, and this was pre-Covid-19.

Once the virus was in the picture, staying home was not only the…

Source link

Continue Reading

Workers

How to decide if a gig economy worker is an employee or self-employed? Guidance from UK Supreme Court’s decision in landmark Uber case

Published

on

By

Introduction

In recent years, the advance in technology and shifting economic conditions have contributed to the emergence and rise of “gig economy”. Gig economy refers to on-demand, peer or platform economy. It often involves a business model where individuals take up on-demand jobs or gig works through digital platforms such as a smartphone application or website. Popular examples of such applications in Hong Kong include Uber and Deliveroo.

While gig workers are often viewed as “self-employed persons” or “independent contractors” in many jurisdictions and are unable to enjoy protections under labour law, a recent UK Supreme Court decision classified Uber drivers as “workers” and ruled that they are entitled to minimum wage, paid leave and other legal protection. Although the services provided by Uber has been ruled illegal in Hong Kong, the case sheds light on the classifications of gig workers in general.

UK Supreme Court ruling

In Uber BV and Others (Appellants) v Aslam and others (Respondents) [2021] UKSC 5, the UK Supreme Court explored the employment status of private hire vehicle drivers who provide their services through the Uber application. The UK employment law distinguishes three categories of persons who enjoy varying degrees of labour protection, including: 

  1. those employed under a contract of employment (which is akin to the concept of “employees” under Hong Kong employment law); 
  2. those self-employed people who are in business on their own account and undertake work for their clients (which is similar to the concept of “independent contractors” under Hong Kong employment law); and 
  3. those “workers” in an intermediate class who are self-employed but provide their services as part of a profession or business undertaking carried on by someone else, who tend to have some characteristics of both of the above categories (but there is no such intermediate category of “workers” under Hong Kong employment law). 

The Supreme Court’s findings 

The Supreme Court considered the purpose of the relevant statutory provisions, which is to offer protection to those people who are in a subordinate and dependent position in relation to the employer and are vulnerable to exploitation.

In determining the status of Uber drivers, the Supreme Court took into account a number of facts found by the labour tribunal which point towards to the relative degree of control exercised by Uber over their drivers. These findings of facts include (1) Uber being able to fix the remuneration paid to drivers, (2) the contractual terms on which drivers perform their services are dictated by Uber, (3) once drivers logged onto the Uber application, their choice of accepting requests for rides is restricted by Uber, (4) Uber exerts significant control over how drivers deliver their services by various methods including vetting the types of cars, suggesting routes and using rating systems for managing performance and terminating relationship with drivers, as well as (5) restricting communication between passengers and drivers to prevent drivers from establishing any relationship beyond am individual ride. 

On the basis of the labour tribunal’s findings of facts, the Supreme Court ruled that Uber exerted tight control on the drivers and the services provided. The drivers were in a position of subordination and dependency in relation to Uber such that the drivers had little or no ability to improve their economic position through professional or entrepreneurial skill. In practice, the only way the drivers can increase their earnings was by working longer hours while constantly meeting Uber’s measures of performance. The Supreme Court found that the drivers were rightly found as “workers” under UK employment law.

Classification in Hong Kong

In Hong Kong, an individual may perform work as an “employee” or an “independent contractor”. As per the Court of Final Appeal’s decision in the leading case of Poon Chau Nam v Yim Siu Cheung [2007] 1 HKLRD 951, the modern approach to the question of whether one person was another’s employee is to examine all the features of their relationship against the background of the indicia developed in the case law with a view to deciding whether, as a matter of overall impression, the relationship was one of employment. The following indicia of employment, albeit not exhaustive, will be likely be considered by the court to decide whether there is an employer-employee between the parties:

  • the degree of control exercised by the employer; 
  • who provided the equipment for performing the services; 
  • whether the individual may hire additional helpers for performing the services;  
  • the degree of financial risk taken by the parties; 
  • the degree of responsibility for investment and management of the parties; and 
  • whether and how far the individual had an opportunity of profiting from sound management in the performance of his or her tasks. 

Although the classifications adopted by the English and Hong Kong Courts are not identical, and it seems that in Hong Kong there is a higher threshold for individuals to be entitled to protections under its employment law as “employees”, the case still sheds light on the possibility that the Hong Kong Court may reach an overall impression that gig workers such as Uber drivers are not independent contractors given the significant degree of control that the business has over the gig workers, which is an important factor that Hong Kong Courts would consider when determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists

At the same time, there have been calls on the Hong Kong Government to address the emergence and rise of gig economy and review the existing labour legislation to enhance protection of labour rights of gig workers. However, the Hong Kong Government has stated that it has no plan to expand the scope of the current employment legislation to cover selfemployed persons

Takeaways

For companies which adopt business models involving the provision of services by gig workers, it is imperative to consider the classification of such gig workers from an early stage and seek professional advice on the issue if needed. Whether an individual is classified as an “employee” or an “independent contractor” will have significant impact in terms of the statutory benefits enjoyed by the individual and the statutory duties and obligations imposed on employers, which may in turn affect the financial planning, risk management and business viability of the companies. 

 

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Gigger.news.