4 ms·

In the UK at least, the "sharing" economy is basically a way of paying employees less. There are two types of employment, contracted employees (that is employe

In the UK at least, the "sharing" economy is basically a way of paying employees less. There are two types of employment, contracted employees (that is employees that are directly employed by a company) and "self employed" (where the employee creates a single person company, which the employer then contracts) the reason why "self employed" is popular amongst the gig employers is not because its "flexible" its because its cheap. There is a side effect that employees have less rights(no holiday pay, maternity cover, sick pay) However the simple fact is that employers pay less national insurance (social care and health tax, effectively) The lack of holiday means 10% less wage, no sick pay means 100% efficiency, which important for cycle courier companies like uber eats, deliveroo. Basically the sharing economy in the UK (with the exception of airBnB) is a way of undermining works rights to save money.

jahaja 9y ago
This is surely the main feature of what's euphemistically called "the sharing economy". It's so frustratingly cynical.
- candiodari 9y ago
  This isn't the first time this happens either. Doing everything freelance was a big thing end of 80s beginning of 90s as well. It had the exact same problems and was legislated and taxed out of existence. For the people earning, let's face facts here, "the gig economy" is a big tax dodging scheme (also regulation dodging). Not even just tax dodging: How many Uber drivers switch their healthcare to the freelancer healthcare, as is required by those contracts (and it's more expensive) ? As soon as the tax office gets permission from the government to say what they definitely want to say : "taxes need to be withheld by the sharing economy companies before paying out", the gig economy is over and done for. In the end the "gig economy" is the result of endemic unemployment. It is a normal feature of the employment landscape in 2nd/3rd world countries and it is a huge impediment to progress.
Ntrails 9y ago
> Basically the sharing economy in the UK (with the exception of airBnB) is a way of undermining works rights to save money. AirBnB definitely still counts here, if the charge is dodging tax/regulatory costs. A high proportion of offerings are either intentionally or unknowingly avoiding the various restrictions and/or costs associated with running a short term let business. It's not just workers rights, it's the societal contributions of paying employee tax.
- KaiserPro 9y ago
  Point taken, In my argument I wanted to seperate individuals avoiding tax, and buisnesses deliberatly undermining rights. Also, people who do AirBnB, have an asset, unlike gig workers, so at least they have something to negotiate with.
rtx 9y ago
Workers shouldn't have more rights than humans.
- 4c2383f5c88e911 9y ago
  Humans shouldn't have less rights than workers.
  - rtx 9y ago
    So let's fight for that and not for discrimination between workers and humans.
    - 4c2383f5c88e911 9y ago
      You seem to imply that some people are fighting for discrimination between workers and non-workers. This is a weird point of view because most people fighting for worker rights are also sharing the fight for non-workers rights. But it happens to be very hard politically as the current political trend is to destroy social infrastructure and dismantle any kind of safety net and capital redistribution.
      - rtx 9y ago
        No people are asking for more rights for workers. Workers aren't any more disadvantaged than a farmer, homemaker or the unemployed. If you think people deserve paternity leave ask that from the government not the companies. So that everyone gets it not just the people with jobs.
bko 9y ago
Employers can't be forced to hire workers, so I don't think "worker's rights" is the right term. What restrictions to employment such as holidays, sick pay and maternity care actually mean is that workers are unable to negotiate on those grounds. For instance, if a single female in her early 30s is interviewing for a position, she is unable to tell waive her right to maternity care by telling her employer that she does not intend to have children. If she were to have children, her employer would not be able to legally deny her maternity benefits, making her promise unenforceable. Employers can get around paying some benefits by preferring to hire men, who are statistically less likely to take the full extent of their mandated paternity benefits. So I think in some sense "worker's rights" is more a restriction on worker's right to negotiate. It's fine if people think that a regulatory body has a role in restricting the types of things that can be negotiated, but let's not talk about it as "worker's rights"
- sattoshi 9y ago
  Okay what should we call fundemental and federally enforced privileges granted to individuals by the state that cannot be disregarded by anybody? Ah.. rights.. that's basically what they are. Nobody is forced to listen to you, yet you cannot waive you rights to free press or whatever.
- KaiserPro 9y ago
  Ok, in the UK workers rights, are well rights. At no point was I suggesting that employers are forced to hire workers. I'm talking about the right to a safe, equal workplace. You are assuming in a wonderfully cute and naive way, that the power balance between employer and employee is equal. It is not and has never been. In the UK literally thousands of people have died for workers rights. I suggest you try quitting your current job, loosing all your money and becoming a taxi driver, living paycheck to paycheck. then we can have a talk about negotiating. Also, your hypothetical basically negotiates away a fundamental human right in the UK/EU, to suggest that its a tool for negotiating is pretty abhorrent.
michaelt 9y ago
not because its "flexible" its because its cheap. "Flexible" means the same things as "cheap" for any company where the workload is hard to predict. Maybe I work for a food delivery company, and order levels will depend on how a local sports team does, or something like that. Let's say there's a 33% chance I'll need 4 workers, a 33% chance I'll need 5 workers, and a 33% chance I'll need 6 workers. If I have hourly-paid employees, I gotta have 6 of them on shift just in case - and if we only have 4 employees worth of orders, it'll be me, the owner, who goes home empty-handed. But if I can pay the employees by the order? I can ask 6 of them to turn up, and if demand is low they all go home having made 33% less than they usually do (or two of them go home empty handed). I, the owner, make the same as if I'd predicted demand perfectly and only had 4 guys come in. In other words, by having 'flexible' employees I can transfer risk from myself to my employees, thereby saving myself money.
- KaiserPro 9y ago
  Zero hours contracts are not the same as self employed. It is perfectly possible to have non self-employed employees on zero hours contracts, with holiday pay, sick pay, pension and maternity. However, its more expensive, because you have to pay more NI and pro-rata holiday pay.

jahaja 9y ago

This is surely the main feature of what's euphemistically called "the sharing economy". It's so frustratingly cynical.

candiodari 9y ago
This isn't the first time this happens either. Doing everything freelance was a big thing end of 80s beginning of 90s as well. It had the exact same problems and was legislated and taxed out of existence. For the people earning, let's face facts here, "the gig economy" is a big tax dodging scheme (also regulation dodging). Not even just tax dodging: How many Uber drivers switch their healthcare to the freelancer healthcare, as is required by those contracts (and it's more expensive) ? As soon as the tax office gets permission from the government to say what they definitely want to say : "taxes need to be withheld by the sharing economy companies before paying out", the gig economy is over and done for. In the end the "gig economy" is the result of endemic unemployment. It is a normal feature of the employment landscape in 2nd/3rd world countries and it is a huge impediment to progress.

Ntrails 9y ago

> Basically the sharing economy in the UK (with the exception of airBnB) is a way of undermining works rights to save money. AirBnB definitely still counts here, if the charge is dodging tax/regulatory costs. A high proportion of offerings are either intentionally or unknowingly avoiding the various restrictions and/or costs associated with running a short term let business. It's not just workers rights, it's the societal contributions of paying employee tax.

KaiserPro 9y ago
Point taken, In my argument I wanted to seperate individuals avoiding tax, and buisnesses deliberatly undermining rights. Also, people who do AirBnB, have an asset, unlike gig workers, so at least they have something to negotiate with.

rtx 9y ago

Workers shouldn't have more rights than humans.

4c2383f5c88e911 9y ago
Humans shouldn't have less rights than workers.
- rtx 9y ago
  So let's fight for that and not for discrimination between workers and humans.
  - 4c2383f5c88e911 9y ago
    You seem to imply that some people are fighting for discrimination between workers and non-workers. This is a weird point of view because most people fighting for worker rights are also sharing the fight for non-workers rights. But it happens to be very hard politically as the current political trend is to destroy social infrastructure and dismantle any kind of safety net and capital redistribution.
    - rtx 9y ago
      No people are asking for more rights for workers. Workers aren't any more disadvantaged than a farmer, homemaker or the unemployed. If you think people deserve paternity leave ask that from the government not the companies. So that everyone gets it not just the people with jobs.

bko 9y ago

Employers can't be forced to hire workers, so I don't think "worker's rights" is the right term. What restrictions to employment such as holidays, sick pay and maternity care actually mean is that workers are unable to negotiate on those grounds. For instance, if a single female in her early 30s is interviewing for a position, she is unable to tell waive her right to maternity care by telling her employer that she does not intend to have children. If she were to have children, her employer would not be able to legally deny her maternity benefits, making her promise unenforceable. Employers can get around paying some benefits by preferring to hire men, who are statistically less likely to take the full extent of their mandated paternity benefits. So I think in some sense "worker's rights" is more a restriction on worker's right to negotiate. It's fine if people think that a regulatory body has a role in restricting the types of things that can be negotiated, but let's not talk about it as "worker's rights"

sattoshi 9y ago
Okay what should we call fundemental and federally enforced privileges granted to individuals by the state that cannot be disregarded by anybody? Ah.. rights.. that's basically what they are. Nobody is forced to listen to you, yet you cannot waive you rights to free press or whatever.
KaiserPro 9y ago
Ok, in the UK workers rights, are well rights. At no point was I suggesting that employers are forced to hire workers. I'm talking about the right to a safe, equal workplace. You are assuming in a wonderfully cute and naive way, that the power balance between employer and employee is equal. It is not and has never been. In the UK literally thousands of people have died for workers rights. I suggest you try quitting your current job, loosing all your money and becoming a taxi driver, living paycheck to paycheck. then we can have a talk about negotiating. Also, your hypothetical basically negotiates away a fundamental human right in the UK/EU, to suggest that its a tool for negotiating is pretty abhorrent.

michaelt 9y ago

not because its "flexible" its because its cheap. "Flexible" means the same things as "cheap" for any company where the workload is hard to predict. Maybe I work for a food delivery company, and order levels will depend on how a local sports team does, or something like that. Let's say there's a 33% chance I'll need 4 workers, a 33% chance I'll need 5 workers, and a 33% chance I'll need 6 workers. If I have hourly-paid employees, I gotta have 6 of them on shift just in case - and if we only have 4 employees worth of orders, it'll be me, the owner, who goes home empty-handed. But if I can pay the employees by the order? I can ask 6 of them to turn up, and if demand is low they all go home having made 33% less than they usually do (or two of them go home empty handed). I, the owner, make the same as if I'd predicted demand perfectly and only had 4 guys come in. In other words, by having 'flexible' employees I can transfer risk from myself to my employees, thereby saving myself money.

KaiserPro 9y ago
Zero hours contracts are not the same as self employed. It is perfectly possible to have non self-employed employees on zero hours contracts, with holiday pay, sick pay, pension and maternity. However, its more expensive, because you have to pay more NI and pro-rata holiday pay.