- A study led by the University of Bristol reveals that 52% of gig workers in the UK earn below the minimum wage.
- The average hourly earnings of gig workers were £8.97, approximately 15% lower than the current UK minimum wage.
- Work-related insecurity and anxiety were experienced by 76% of gig workers surveyed.
- Many gig workers (28%) felt their health and safety were at risk, and 25% experienced pain on the job.
- Gig workers expressed the need for basic rights such as minimum wage rates, holiday and sick pay, and protection against unfair dismissal, as well as the formation of unions and platform councils to represent their interests and influence working conditions.
True, they should have included that. I have the impression though that e.g. delivery jobs used to be considered student jobs instead of a full-time job to make a living from. While most gig workers seem rather young I'd think the age range has shifted upwards.
The study was an internet survey with no verification and they mixed the data between a wide variety of types of remote gigs, including upwork and fiverr and the further mixed the idea of “waiting for work” which falsely decreased the average wage.
I can’t tell how to interpret this. Doing gig work doesn’t pay well, but respondents are doing an average of 28 hours of work per week.
Something is missing from the picture. If the takeaway is that gig workers are struggling to pay living expenses, I would expect that to be reflected by working 50-60+ hours per week.
I wonder if this hours figure is calculated the same way the gig companies calculate minimum wage.
I.e. that 28 hours represents only time spent in performing the delivery task. Any waiting around beforehand when not assigned a task is not counted as working hours for the purposes of min wage calculation. If this is true (and that needs verifying) then this 28 might be a 40 hours where the person was unable to get on with their other life duties even if they weren’t technically working.
According to the study it includes hours spent logged on waiting for jobs, which I think is a correct and meaningful way to measure it. I guess this is mostly people trying to top up their primary income.
I agree on the spirit of your take but then you should count the commuting hours for the rest of workers as well. If you need 1 hour to get to work and 1 to get back, you are already working (or giving your time to your work place) 50 hours a week
They’d obviously do it by total hours worked vs the amount Uber/etc pays out each paycheque, not going through thousands of Uber receipts, calculating the percentages paid out + time spent doing the delivery, and totalling them up. That’d be pretty hard/impossible at scale.
The missing number is how many of them are working another job.
I haven't taken Uber in last couple of years, but prior to Covid I took it ~weekly in Ottawa & Toronto. Not a single driver in years of travel for work, had it as their sole employment.
They're usually in a hurry, but delivery drivers I had a chance to chat with last few years also primarily use it to supplement their income.
So people may be doing 60 hours a week, just not solely via gig work.
Edit: I've Re-read the article, the 28 hours a week you quote is immediately followed by a clarifying "comprising 60% of their total earnings" -- so it looks like indeed they are working many more hours a week total.
I found that a high fraction of my mid-day trips (commuting to/from our downtown office or taking it to/from the airport morning, afternoon, or very early evening) were from essentially full-time drivers. Friday/Saturday night trips to/from restaurants were mostly from part-time drivers, which is probably not that surprising a result.
Other folks have already commented that most folks in this line of work will have 2nd and 3rd jobs. But, I want to explain a different perspective. One that explains how gig work affects one's living (and ultimately leads to people needing to take on multiple jobs to survive).
Gig workers cannot control how many hours of work they receive a week. It's similar to shift work. When your manager is making the schedule and ensures that no one works 40 hours or more a week so they don't have to pay you benefits.
A major problem of low-wage, non-salaried work and gig work is that is an unreliable source of income. This breeds anxiety and stress, not to mention a host of other problems.
Not only that, but the 28 hours they work are probably some of the worst.
Ex you’re driving uber. You’re going to be “incentivized” (read: forced due to logistics) to work rush hour and bar hours. So you’re maybe working 5-7 and 10-12 on weekends and a couple weekdays. The reason being is that everyone wants to cruise around in the afternoon so the ratio of drivers to passengers gets so bad you’ll never get a ride.
And ofc if you’re sitting in your car with the app on waiting… you’re not being paid. That doesn’t count as work. So if you don’t get a ride for 2 hours bc not enough passengers - tough shit you’ve just made $4 for your 2 hours minus the cost of running your car and losing hours of your life.
But America is corrupted. Politicians let’s corps simply say “no we’re not breaking the law” and they believe them.
Anyone who’s debating that this is harmful and should be illegal is uneducated or a simp for those corps.
We spesifically deaigned legislation to make sure workers get paid for all their time, a chef waiting for orders and not cooking is still working. A fire marshall on duty still gwts paid if there is no fire, etc.
its amazing how all the progress was undone by pretending workhours don't count when an app says so.
I am very disillusioned by our industry, it seems half the revenue was generating by techno-cheating laws.
In my experience, this is business. I'm working on a product right now that would not pass the scrutiny of AGs or the CFPB. We will release and run for years making tons of money until the regulators catch up and realize what we are doing. Then we will ask forgiveness and compromise a bit. This is how self-policing works in banking and other regulated industries.
Companies like Uber skate along until new legislation is created that regulates them. Good luck with that.
But if the restaurant still controls the chef's work during that time, that isn't gig work. If the "employer" is required to pay by time not work, then it is now the employer's time, not the workers flexible time:
- ability to assign tasks, not leaving the worker the option to say I don't want that task
- ability to control how many workers can log in at a time, forcing Uber to pay a 1000 drivers who all logged in from 2:00 AM to 5:00AM when there aren't enough rides to be taken, isn't right
If I sign onto the app to say that I'm available for delivery, does that count as "working hours", and the company is required to make sure that I make minimum wage, regardless of how many orders are paid out?
What if I sign onto the app, but then don't accept any of the deliveries I get offered? Then they'd be required to make sure I get minimum wage, without ever doing any actual work.
I do think there's a problem as things stand, but I don't think the solution is a simple one.
I would expect that to be reflected by working 50-60+ hours per week.
That does not follow. Suppose the gig workers are doing food deliveries. Each day, the market places X food orders at a total of $Y including fees and tips. If the market clears (no one who places a food order has it left unfulfilled), a reasonable assumption, then the food delivery gig is a zero-sum game. If all the drivers work more hours that just means they’ll be waiting longer, on average, for orders to come in. No amount of extra hours worked will create additional food orders.
The UK has an hourly legal minimum wage rate. The number of hours worked does not affect the fact that, according to the study, most gig workers are earning less than that per hour.
Respondents doing an average of 28 hours gig work per week will in some cases be using that to top up insufficient hours in a low wage conventional job.
- statutory hourly pay = some constant set by gov't.
Therefore:
- given revenue less than some X, we'll name it `living expenses`
- it's possible that true hourly pay < statutory hourly pay
Reading your comment, you may have also meant that you're trying to pick between that interpretation, and another one, that looks like:
Given:
- revenue = true hourly pay * hours.
- statutory hourly pay = some constant set by gov't.
- true hourly pay < statutory hourly pay
Proposition:
- Given hours worked < Y, where Y is some range, and revenue = Z, and workers continue being alive, then perhaps the statutory hourly pay is too high?
From there, to help me choose an interpretation, I'd look for more evidence of that. I'd want something damning, enough to overrule the statute / legal social contract of the population.
Wanting more work isn't going to make a lunch rush happen again. These folks make no money at all waiting around, and can only make a nearly worthwhile sum when there is demand.
Most of the people I know who do gig work do it because it is so flexible. They often have other things like childcare or schooling that take a large part of their time.
Wages, i.e. payment per hour worked, is independent of the number of hours worked. One of the takeaways is that they aren't being paid the legal minimum wage.
The overarching takeaway is that gig work doesn't offer the protections that is extended to other workers. More to your point, understand that one of the issues that Starbucks unions are fighting for is more control over scheduling.
How lmuch big does an Uber driver “work” for Uber? How long does a “dasher” work? If folks aren’t paid for the 15 minute gap between orders, or the 10 minute commute to pickup location - then a 60 hour work week can easily turn into 30 hours of paid time.
Why would you spend 60 hours a week in something that gives so little returns? It’s not like you can meaningfully get ahead doing this if these are the numbers. Better to spend the other hours looking for other options or just enjoying yourself.
Because they have to, to make ends meet. When you are struggling to feed yourself and maybe a family it leaves little room for learning or enjoying yourself.
> Doing gig work doesn’t pay well, but respondents are doing an average of 28 hours of work per week.
Curious use of “but”. Has it occurred to you that perhaps below-minimum-wage pay isn’t the best use of one’s time? Besides, an hour is an hour. If I’m not paid for that hour, it doesn’t matter if I worked 1 hour or 100 hours, but you can bet that gig companies do everything they can to avoid “full time” employment of workers in markets that require benefits for such employees, so that may also factor in to the number of hours worked.
Plus they say minimum wage rose just this month. I'd expect to see at least a little lag between wages that are legislated directly and those only influenced by that legislation through market pressures.
What is this atittude to law, ehy do you think it's as optional guidelines when it comes to companies?
If something was outlawed yesterday, and you committed thay crime today, do yoy think you would get away by claiming you need time to adjust? Why is law not optional for 'little people'?
If you are only making around £7 an hour it's not going to matter if you work 28 hours or 84 hours. The takeaway is that people doing jobs that wouldn't otherwise exist.
I suspect most gig workers do it as a side hobby or side project before having the necessary experience to start scaling a business of their own. Or to supplement other income.
My god man, use your logic: 'pay workers illegally under wage, then can just work 60 hours a week to make up for it!' at least before we make it an issue.
If there was no minimum wage, wages in some sectors wages would drop to where they are in the undeveloped world aka $2/hour. Little communities with favela-like structures with limited heating/electricity would pop up, and if you think the 'dollar store' is cheap, then wait for the '25 cent store' where they sell stuff as they do parts of India and Brazil.
It's funny how people don't think this could happen in the 'modern world', I suggest they don't know what makes the modern world modern. For a hint, go to where the illegal workers in Cali or Texas live and exist. Those communities resemble pretty much the standard of living of Central American countries, aka 'down the economic ladder'. Because they are.
Moreover, having secondary low-wage markets will put downward wage pressure on other jobs. Extra surpluses will mostly be yielded by financial asset holders.
The solution here is simple, require people pay minimum wage. If you look at corporate profits in the US for example, there are plenty of surpluses available to pay people.
Some jobs will go away, that's fine.
I can't believe what I'm reading on this thread, the only other time I've been suspicious of 'ideological paid bots' is when I see a ton of people defending the CCP.
To whom is that fine? To the people going from $2/hour to zero it certainly isn't.
I honestly cannot grasp how some people can _forcibly_ remove other people's _options_ then pat themselves on the back as some sort of armchair savior.
Yes, for some people a bad option could still be their best option. What sort of moral superpower is that that enables you to forbid a contract between two consenting adults A and B such that A wants to work for X and B that's willing to pay X, but you as a C that just won't let it happen and is willing to use force to stop it from happening
Also this question seems a bit ridiculous: "I can decide the time I start and be reasonably confident of having work to undertake"
If you're driving a cab, you work when people need cabs. If you're delivering food, you work during times of the day people are ordering food. This is the nature of these jobs. Does an icecream truck owner get to decide to work during colder or rainy weather because that's what he prefers? Of course not; he has to work at times and places where people are likely to purchase ice cream.
It hardly seems reasonable to blame deliveroo for the fact that people tend to cluster food ordering during one or two periods of the day.
Self-employed gig workers aren't protected against illness or unemployment. No paid time off, no sick days, no pension, no maternity leave. And on top of that the majority earn below minimum wage.
Gig work is understandable for students or people who want extra income but it shouldn't be someones main source of income.
> I like how we carve out acceptable targets for exploitation, and it's always young people.
Working is a two-way agreement, not exploitation. The job market "discriminates against" people with little or no experience. Gaining experience is valuable, that's why young people choose to take jobs with low monetary pay.
Interesting, because as companies continue to find ways to pay less for their labor by moving folks from W-2 to 1099s, gig work will become a larger portion of the only kind of work available for people's main source of income.
If you feel like our economy should not force folks to have gig work be their main source of income, have you ever thought about how to shape society to ensure that people have jobs with stable sources of income?
I have to admit that I lack political knowledge for a good solution.
In my opinion, if your main source of income is from one company, you should be employed and have paid sick days, paid time off, disability, unemployment and all other employee protections.
It is easy. Tax the wealthy more, make sure workers and the state own stock and receive dividends from publicly traded companies, establish a generous social welfare program, and create a job guarantee from the state at the minimum wage.
As long as we're shaping society, we might as well go all the way: Shape it so people don't have to perform this work ritual and earn their right to merely exist and survive.
These aren't real contractors, with complex tasks, negotiations for 3-5x salary of a normal employee. Ive done that. No benefits , but paid EXTRAORDINARILY well, like on the range of $300/hr
But "gig work companies" are about bypassing and subverting normal employment by calling it "contract work", and having NONE of the meeting of the minds of a proper contractor.
And it's blatantly obvious why - it lowers cost and transfers liability to people who don't have a clue what those externalized liabilities really are.
It's a study of the extent to which people are being screwed over, not sure why you're acting like the fact that, depressingly, it's not surprising is a gotcha.
That it is happening means we need the government (or courts, or whatever) to take action to fix it, the fact that this hasn't yet happened means that studies like this are extremely useful.
The "gotcha" isn't aimed at the people doing the study or advocating for change, it's aimed at the apologists who were running around with "everyone is winning" rhetoric. There were plenty of them around here. They were very wrong about something that should have been obvious.
This is all going to play out again with AI, but moreso, so it's important to keep score.
The government can only make this work disappear, illegal, and you know it. They cannot fix it.
Fact of the matter is that even with labor conditions like this Uber and Food Delivery and other gig economy marketplaces are delivering services that are too expensive. More expensive than the threshold where average people would say "I'll just (go there/use public transport/get my food/fix it) myself".
A lot of companies like Uber are effectively transferring wealth from investors to poor people ... If the government touches this, whoever does that it will be skinned alive, because governments have failed since the 80s to provide an economy where jobs are plentiful and easy enough.
This whole topic seems to be unnecessary and stupid.
Gig workers should all be sole Proprietors of their own businesses. The only reason they aren't is because governments make it difficult to run your own business.
This would solve basically all of the legal and moral problems.
Gig workers would be responsible for all of their own benefits, but be able to deduct all of their business costs. They would be responsible for if their own business turns a profit or loss and if they want to continue it.
It's a practice of basically praying on the vulnerable social groups, and that should make it a problem of the whole society - and even if one doesn't care of ethical issues of such exploitation of fellow human beings, and lacks any empathy for them at all, at least they should care about the burden that its side-effects put on the budget. Our tax money then has to be used to fix problems created by such evil business practices instead of using it on something else, so these companies are really ripping us all off in the process.
The hallmark of contract employees is not a massive increase in hourly pay, it is the ability to choose when you work and what jobs you take. Minimum wage makes sense for traditional employment because it's all or nothing, it doesn't matter how much you don't want to come into work today, either you work or you're fired. With gig economy work, you can say "eh this isn't worth it for me" when the compensation would be low or if you had something better to do, but still get paid when it would be more advantageous for you.
If people aren't being compensated enough to justify the time spent, they can just stop with no penalties. That for many people a menial gig that pays less than minimum wage is better than any alternative they have access to is the real issue. People should have access to rewarding work and hobbies that they'd prefer to gig work, but you don't fix that by making gig work pay more.
From the small interactions i've had with deliveroo/uber, most of the workers there LOVE the flexibility. It's the main reason they do it and they sacrafice some financial rewards for that flexibility.
So I believe workers should get paid the minimum, but im sure that gig work fills a niche that no other work does. They don't want to negotiate, they want simplicity and flexibility or else they could work as temp staffing or short term work such as call center or gigs, that are paid well but often bad work.
Generally people put on an appearance of cheerfulness while working, especially if they are incentivized to make you happy (good review, tips). So I’d take this sort of measurement with a grain of salt.
One of my most memorable Uber rides was with a younger mother that had a tough child custody schedule that prevented her from working a regular job.
In a perfect world this wouldn't even be a concern, but as she explained it to me, Uber was one of the very few options that let her work when she could.
They probably understand the idea of externalized liabilities. Or, at least, we have no reason to suspect they have any less understand of the idea than us. Probably they have more understanding of it, given that they are living the experience of having liabilities externalized onto them. (Although maybe some of us here work for these gig app platform companies and have a heightened understanding of the phenomenon their company is abusing).
I think it is more likely that these folks just don’t have better employment opportunities. The race to the bottom on quality of life is a big collective action problem, right? We know the solution, minimum wage laws, it is just that we prefer cheap services to making sure everybody gets a humane living standard.
That's a false dichotomy. I have been a contractor for most software engineering jobs I have done for many years and all of them were very complex. None of them were for a particularly high rate like $300/hour.
The rate actually has generally been fairly unrelated to the complexity. Possibly the biggest determining factor in my rate has been how much savings I had (usually close to zero) when I needed to find another contract. That determined how selective I could be and how long I could spend looking. If your option is to take the next contract or miss rent, you take what you can get, often for a discounted rate.
I find this sanctimonious _I know better than you_ attitude shocking and inappropriately condescending.
Just because these people are earning less than minimum wage, what makes you think you know better than them what's good for them, and that they "don't have a clue"? Why is this "blatantly obvious"? Why are they not rational actors but you are?
Given that so many people are making this choice for themselves, it feels like it's possible that there's demand for below-minimum-wage labor (otherwise, why wouldn't they go and get minimum-wage jobs?).
I think you might be mistaking making a choice with having a choice. These people don't have another choice.
Many gig workers do gig work around other work and pressures (eg childcare). The work they do isn't what they would choose all other things being equal but the soaring cost of living, the lack of affordable and convenient childcare means people have to do sums that end in them doing a few hours a day in a shitty extra job.
I think many would rather choose a better paid job compatible with modern life. They just don't exist.
There have been multiple times where I've forgotten to change the dollar amount on a Doordash tip (I try to tip generously) for something purchased locally... usually it ends up being a $25 order with a $3-4 tip. I don't know if drivers get any part of any of the fees, but I know that I've always gotten the thing I ordered. It's crazy, but people still do it.
I doubt that guests in restaurants will start flipping their own burgers, or folks will stop ordering home deliveries, so I don't think the demand is a problem here. Real problem is on the other side, the vast supply of that segment of the workforce. These are easily replacable employees, so employer has unfair "if you don't like it, leave it" leverage over them - plus most of them can't really afford to be picky about jobs as they need that money badly. And employers exploit it.
And it's blatantly obvious why - it lowers cost and transfers liability to people who don't have a clue what those externalized liabilities really are.
That’s one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that it’s serving the previously untapped market for below-minimum-wage work. If this gig work did not exist, some of the workers would find regular minimum wage jobs but many would be left unemployed.
Many of the Uber drivers I’ve met are educated immigrants to my country (Canada). They are underemployed because of various barriers put in place to protect the jobs of locals. Usually, the issue is that their credentials aren’t recognized because they were earned in another country.
So the question is: what are the gig work companies supposed to do about this? They didn’t make the laws/regulations preventing these workers from getting better jobs. If they went away, these workers might have no other opportunities.
If anyone is to blame, it should be the citizens who simultaneously support an increase in immigration and at the same time erect regulatory/professional credential roadblocks preventing those skilled immigrants from working in their field of expertise.
Of course, another portion of gig workers are people like my father: semi-retired, not professionally credentialed, and doing gig work part time to make ends meet (his pension is not even close to livable). Taking gig work away from him would put him on the street.
Edit: one more thing I’d like to add. Based on reports from my dad, the number of food delivery drivers in our city is increasing so the availability of orders (and hence productive hours of work) is decreasing. At the same time, restaurants all over the city have posted signs advertising the availability of kitchen jobs. If gig work is so undesirable (because it ostensibly pays less than minimum wage), why are there so many vacancies at restaurants (which do pay minimum wage) but none in gig work?
> So the question is: what are the gig work companies supposed to do about this?
The article isn't asking this question, it's posing answers to another question: "What should society do about gig work companies?" The solutions proposed in this article are:
"Respondents strongly felt the creation of co-determination mechanisms would allow workers, and their representatives, to influence platform provider decisions which could instantly improve their working lives.
"These policies include elected bodies of worker representatives approving all major platform changes that impact jobs and working conditions. Our findings emphasise the potential for trade union growth in this sector, with majorities being willing to join and even organise such bodies."
> If gig work is so undesirable (because it ostensibly pays less than minimum wage), why are there so many vacancies at restaurants (which do pay minimum wage) but none in gig work?
How much time is spent going to and from work when you have a normal job, maybe 10%? (actually, more, the average is 59 minutes: https://uk.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/commute-to...). That cuts the gap to almost nothing right there. They cite that logging on and looking for work as factors in the calculation, this seems like a one-sided manipulation to make the numbers look bad to me if you don't include commute time on the other side. The study (shockingly!) seems to have an agenda based on the conclusions it came to:
"The self-employed who are dependent on platforms to make a living are urgently in need of labour protections to shield them against the huge power asymmetries that exist in the sector. This clearly warrants the expansion of the current ‘worker’ status to protect them."
I do not think they need shields. There are plenty of reasons on both sides. We can educate them on the plusses and minuses, but let them make a choice.
More than just side hustles to earn extra cash, respondents spent on average 28 hours a week undertaking gig work, comprising 60% of their total earnings.
This makes me wonder what the other 40 percent of their earnings is from, how much time it takes and how well it pays.
My friend is an Uber driver, he’s an immigrant from Africa and has been running a small accounting business for years. He doesn’t always have a lot of work and it can be seasonal so he uses Uber to fill the gap (allowing him to completely stop doing Uber for a month or two and come back to it).
He also has small kids at home so helps with them during the day and does Uber at nights.
Gig work is very flexible that way, unlike almost any other side job accessible to most people.
I've done gig work under circumstances where a normal job was simply not possible. I often earned well under minimum wage because I was sick and struggling to get anything done.
I was thrilled to have the ability to earn anything and I have long voiced criticisms of this assumption that earning less than minimum wage is inherently some kind of employer abuse that must be aggressively stamped out.
It's not like people are throwing money at me out of pity for my incurable condition and sad sack life story. Denying me the opportunity to choose to work part-time for sometimes less than minimum wage winds up being just a means to cut my income, not improve my life any.
And If they’re earning so little that taxes do not apply, chances are OUR tax money is instead funding things to help them get by so that gig companies can skirt labor laws.
One thing I didn't take away from this is the extent to which gig workers they surveyed would prefer full-time employment but aren't able to find it.
If someone has the opportunity to work full-time but is choosing the flexibility of gig work, then I see this as less of an issue.
On the other hand, if someone is doing gig work because that is what is available to them, and they aren't able to make enough to get by despite their best effort, then something needs to change.
Readit News
- A study led by the University of Bristol reveals that 52% of gig workers in the UK earn below the minimum wage.
- The average hourly earnings of gig workers were £8.97, approximately 15% lower than the current UK minimum wage.
- Work-related insecurity and anxiety were experienced by 76% of gig workers surveyed.
- Many gig workers (28%) felt their health and safety were at risk, and 25% experienced pain on the job.
- Gig workers expressed the need for basic rights such as minimum wage rates, holiday and sick pay, and protection against unfair dismissal, as well as the formation of unions and platform councils to represent their interests and influence working conditions.
UK "real" minimum wage at the time was £9.5, so it's 5.6% lower, but this only applies to people aged 23+!
You could also say that they earned 31.3% more than the minimum wage of £6.83 that applied to 18 to 20 year olds at the time.
Or 2.3% less than the minimumn wage of £9.18 that applied to 21 to 22 year olds at the time.
I'm very surprised that a study done in the UK didn't go deeper on age, especially when they're going to write such lines compared to minimum wage.
The age based rates should be removed altogether, they're mainly there so that the owners of small businesses can creep on young girls.
Something is missing from the picture. If the takeaway is that gig workers are struggling to pay living expenses, I would expect that to be reflected by working 50-60+ hours per week.
I wonder if this hours figure is calculated the same way the gig companies calculate minimum wage.
I.e. that 28 hours represents only time spent in performing the delivery task. Any waiting around beforehand when not assigned a task is not counted as working hours for the purposes of min wage calculation. If this is true (and that needs verifying) then this 28 might be a 40 hours where the person was unable to get on with their other life duties even if they weren’t technically working.
https://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/business-schoo...
Retailers should only pay sales clerks when they are directly talking to customers!
Bus drivers should only be paid when the bus is moving!
I'm only going to pay my developers when they are writing lines of code!
All of the 'in between' time 'doesn't count as work'.
I haven't taken Uber in last couple of years, but prior to Covid I took it ~weekly in Ottawa & Toronto. Not a single driver in years of travel for work, had it as their sole employment.
They're usually in a hurry, but delivery drivers I had a chance to chat with last few years also primarily use it to supplement their income.
So people may be doing 60 hours a week, just not solely via gig work.
Edit: I've Re-read the article, the 28 hours a week you quote is immediately followed by a clarifying "comprising 60% of their total earnings" -- so it looks like indeed they are working many more hours a week total.
Gig workers cannot control how many hours of work they receive a week. It's similar to shift work. When your manager is making the schedule and ensures that no one works 40 hours or more a week so they don't have to pay you benefits.
A major problem of low-wage, non-salaried work and gig work is that is an unreliable source of income. This breeds anxiety and stress, not to mention a host of other problems.
Ex you’re driving uber. You’re going to be “incentivized” (read: forced due to logistics) to work rush hour and bar hours. So you’re maybe working 5-7 and 10-12 on weekends and a couple weekdays. The reason being is that everyone wants to cruise around in the afternoon so the ratio of drivers to passengers gets so bad you’ll never get a ride.
And ofc if you’re sitting in your car with the app on waiting… you’re not being paid. That doesn’t count as work. So if you don’t get a ride for 2 hours bc not enough passengers - tough shit you’ve just made $4 for your 2 hours minus the cost of running your car and losing hours of your life.
But America is corrupted. Politicians let’s corps simply say “no we’re not breaking the law” and they believe them.
Anyone who’s debating that this is harmful and should be illegal is uneducated or a simp for those corps.
its amazing how all the progress was undone by pretending workhours don't count when an app says so.
I am very disillusioned by our industry, it seems half the revenue was generating by techno-cheating laws.
Companies like Uber skate along until new legislation is created that regulates them. Good luck with that.
- ability to assign tasks, not leaving the worker the option to say I don't want that task
- ability to control how many workers can log in at a time, forcing Uber to pay a 1000 drivers who all logged in from 2:00 AM to 5:00AM when there aren't enough rides to be taken, isn't right
If I sign onto the app to say that I'm available for delivery, does that count as "working hours", and the company is required to make sure that I make minimum wage, regardless of how many orders are paid out?
What if I sign onto the app, but then don't accept any of the deliveries I get offered? Then they'd be required to make sure I get minimum wage, without ever doing any actual work.
I do think there's a problem as things stand, but I don't think the solution is a simple one.
Well, most 'disruption' is actually tech exploiting a regulatory loophole.
That does not follow. Suppose the gig workers are doing food deliveries. Each day, the market places X food orders at a total of $Y including fees and tips. If the market clears (no one who places a food order has it left unfulfilled), a reasonable assumption, then the food delivery gig is a zero-sum game. If all the drivers work more hours that just means they’ll be waiting longer, on average, for orders to come in. No amount of extra hours worked will create additional food orders.
Even amongst software engineers, if you asked your boss "can I work a few extra saturdays and get paid a few extra $k", the typical answer is no.
The labour market is far less dynamic than say the market for carrots, where you can of course give a few $ extra and get extra carrots from walmart.
If tried to work more you'd find yourself just waiting for jobs a lot of the time and your average hourly rate would drop even lower.
Respondents doing an average of 28 hours gig work per week will in some cases be using that to top up insufficient hours in a low wage conventional job.
- revenue = true hourly pay * hours.
- statutory hourly pay = some constant set by gov't.
Therefore:
- given revenue less than some X, we'll name it `living expenses`
- it's possible that true hourly pay < statutory hourly pay
Reading your comment, you may have also meant that you're trying to pick between that interpretation, and another one, that looks like:
Given:
- revenue = true hourly pay * hours.
- statutory hourly pay = some constant set by gov't.
- true hourly pay < statutory hourly pay
Proposition:
- Given hours worked < Y, where Y is some range, and revenue = Z, and workers continue being alive, then perhaps the statutory hourly pay is too high?
From there, to help me choose an interpretation, I'd look for more evidence of that. I'd want something damning, enough to overrule the statute / legal social contract of the population.
The overarching takeaway is that gig work doesn't offer the protections that is extended to other workers. More to your point, understand that one of the issues that Starbucks unions are fighting for is more control over scheduling.
Curious use of “but”. Has it occurred to you that perhaps below-minimum-wage pay isn’t the best use of one’s time? Besides, an hour is an hour. If I’m not paid for that hour, it doesn’t matter if I worked 1 hour or 100 hours, but you can bet that gig companies do everything they can to avoid “full time” employment of workers in markets that require benefits for such employees, so that may also factor in to the number of hours worked.
If something was outlawed yesterday, and you committed thay crime today, do yoy think you would get away by claiming you need time to adjust? Why is law not optional for 'little people'?
> on average 28 hours a week undertaking gig work, comprising 60% of their total earnings.
And since it's bellow the minimum hourly wage does it matter that it's 1 hour or 60 hours ?
Deleted Comment
If there was no minimum wage, wages in some sectors wages would drop to where they are in the undeveloped world aka $2/hour. Little communities with favela-like structures with limited heating/electricity would pop up, and if you think the 'dollar store' is cheap, then wait for the '25 cent store' where they sell stuff as they do parts of India and Brazil.
It's funny how people don't think this could happen in the 'modern world', I suggest they don't know what makes the modern world modern. For a hint, go to where the illegal workers in Cali or Texas live and exist. Those communities resemble pretty much the standard of living of Central American countries, aka 'down the economic ladder'. Because they are.
Moreover, having secondary low-wage markets will put downward wage pressure on other jobs. Extra surpluses will mostly be yielded by financial asset holders.
The solution here is simple, require people pay minimum wage. If you look at corporate profits in the US for example, there are plenty of surpluses available to pay people.
Some jobs will go away, that's fine.
I can't believe what I'm reading on this thread, the only other time I've been suspicious of 'ideological paid bots' is when I see a ton of people defending the CCP.
To whom is that fine? To the people going from $2/hour to zero it certainly isn't.
I honestly cannot grasp how some people can _forcibly_ remove other people's _options_ then pat themselves on the back as some sort of armchair savior.
Yes, for some people a bad option could still be their best option. What sort of moral superpower is that that enables you to forbid a contract between two consenting adults A and B such that A wants to work for X and B that's willing to pay X, but you as a C that just won't let it happen and is willing to use force to stop it from happening
If you're driving a cab, you work when people need cabs. If you're delivering food, you work during times of the day people are ordering food. This is the nature of these jobs. Does an icecream truck owner get to decide to work during colder or rainy weather because that's what he prefers? Of course not; he has to work at times and places where people are likely to purchase ice cream.
It hardly seems reasonable to blame deliveroo for the fact that people tend to cluster food ordering during one or two periods of the day.
Gig work is understandable for students or people who want extra income but it shouldn't be someones main source of income.
Ive seen non-western societies discriminate against old and young.
Western society discriminates against young people but protects the older generation.
Combined with growing bon-working population, this is resulting in political disaster.
Majority of working age population voted against Brexit, against current conservative government in Britain, against Trump presidency.
Working is a two-way agreement, not exploitation. The job market "discriminates against" people with little or no experience. Gaining experience is valuable, that's why young people choose to take jobs with low monetary pay.
Interesting, because as companies continue to find ways to pay less for their labor by moving folks from W-2 to 1099s, gig work will become a larger portion of the only kind of work available for people's main source of income.
If you feel like our economy should not force folks to have gig work be their main source of income, have you ever thought about how to shape society to ensure that people have jobs with stable sources of income?
In my opinion, if your main source of income is from one company, you should be employed and have paid sick days, paid time off, disability, unemployment and all other employee protections.
These aren't real contractors, with complex tasks, negotiations for 3-5x salary of a normal employee. Ive done that. No benefits , but paid EXTRAORDINARILY well, like on the range of $300/hr
But "gig work companies" are about bypassing and subverting normal employment by calling it "contract work", and having NONE of the meeting of the minds of a proper contractor.
And it's blatantly obvious why - it lowers cost and transfers liability to people who don't have a clue what those externalized liabilities really are.
That it is happening means we need the government (or courts, or whatever) to take action to fix it, the fact that this hasn't yet happened means that studies like this are extremely useful.
This is all going to play out again with AI, but moreso, so it's important to keep score.
Fact of the matter is that even with labor conditions like this Uber and Food Delivery and other gig economy marketplaces are delivering services that are too expensive. More expensive than the threshold where average people would say "I'll just (go there/use public transport/get my food/fix it) myself".
A lot of companies like Uber are effectively transferring wealth from investors to poor people ... If the government touches this, whoever does that it will be skinned alive, because governments have failed since the 80s to provide an economy where jobs are plentiful and easy enough.
Gig workers should all be sole Proprietors of their own businesses. The only reason they aren't is because governments make it difficult to run your own business.
This would solve basically all of the legal and moral problems.
Gig workers would be responsible for all of their own benefits, but be able to deduct all of their business costs. They would be responsible for if their own business turns a profit or loss and if they want to continue it.
If people aren't being compensated enough to justify the time spent, they can just stop with no penalties. That for many people a menial gig that pays less than minimum wage is better than any alternative they have access to is the real issue. People should have access to rewarding work and hobbies that they'd prefer to gig work, but you don't fix that by making gig work pay more.
So I believe workers should get paid the minimum, but im sure that gig work fills a niche that no other work does. They don't want to negotiate, they want simplicity and flexibility or else they could work as temp staffing or short term work such as call center or gigs, that are paid well but often bad work.
In a perfect world this wouldn't even be a concern, but as she explained it to me, Uber was one of the very few options that let her work when she could.
I think it is more likely that these folks just don’t have better employment opportunities. The race to the bottom on quality of life is a big collective action problem, right? We know the solution, minimum wage laws, it is just that we prefer cheap services to making sure everybody gets a humane living standard.
The rate actually has generally been fairly unrelated to the complexity. Possibly the biggest determining factor in my rate has been how much savings I had (usually close to zero) when I needed to find another contract. That determined how selective I could be and how long I could spend looking. If your option is to take the next contract or miss rent, you take what you can get, often for a discounted rate.
Just because these people are earning less than minimum wage, what makes you think you know better than them what's good for them, and that they "don't have a clue"? Why is this "blatantly obvious"? Why are they not rational actors but you are?
Given that so many people are making this choice for themselves, it feels like it's possible that there's demand for below-minimum-wage labor (otherwise, why wouldn't they go and get minimum-wage jobs?).
Many gig workers do gig work around other work and pressures (eg childcare). The work they do isn't what they would choose all other things being equal but the soaring cost of living, the lack of affordable and convenient childcare means people have to do sums that end in them doing a few hours a day in a shitty extra job.
I think many would rather choose a better paid job compatible with modern life. They just don't exist.
That’s one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that it’s serving the previously untapped market for below-minimum-wage work. If this gig work did not exist, some of the workers would find regular minimum wage jobs but many would be left unemployed.
Many of the Uber drivers I’ve met are educated immigrants to my country (Canada). They are underemployed because of various barriers put in place to protect the jobs of locals. Usually, the issue is that their credentials aren’t recognized because they were earned in another country.
So the question is: what are the gig work companies supposed to do about this? They didn’t make the laws/regulations preventing these workers from getting better jobs. If they went away, these workers might have no other opportunities.
If anyone is to blame, it should be the citizens who simultaneously support an increase in immigration and at the same time erect regulatory/professional credential roadblocks preventing those skilled immigrants from working in their field of expertise.
Of course, another portion of gig workers are people like my father: semi-retired, not professionally credentialed, and doing gig work part time to make ends meet (his pension is not even close to livable). Taking gig work away from him would put him on the street.
Edit: one more thing I’d like to add. Based on reports from my dad, the number of food delivery drivers in our city is increasing so the availability of orders (and hence productive hours of work) is decreasing. At the same time, restaurants all over the city have posted signs advertising the availability of kitchen jobs. If gig work is so undesirable (because it ostensibly pays less than minimum wage), why are there so many vacancies at restaurants (which do pay minimum wage) but none in gig work?
The article isn't asking this question, it's posing answers to another question: "What should society do about gig work companies?" The solutions proposed in this article are:
"Respondents strongly felt the creation of co-determination mechanisms would allow workers, and their representatives, to influence platform provider decisions which could instantly improve their working lives.
"These policies include elected bodies of worker representatives approving all major platform changes that impact jobs and working conditions. Our findings emphasise the potential for trade union growth in this sector, with majorities being willing to join and even organise such bodies."
> If gig work is so undesirable (because it ostensibly pays less than minimum wage), why are there so many vacancies at restaurants (which do pay minimum wage) but none in gig work?
Good question.
"The self-employed who are dependent on platforms to make a living are urgently in need of labour protections to shield them against the huge power asymmetries that exist in the sector. This clearly warrants the expansion of the current ‘worker’ status to protect them."
I do not think they need shields. There are plenty of reasons on both sides. We can educate them on the plusses and minuses, but let them make a choice.
This makes me wonder what the other 40 percent of their earnings is from, how much time it takes and how well it pays.
He also has small kids at home so helps with them during the day and does Uber at nights.
Gig work is very flexible that way, unlike almost any other side job accessible to most people.
I was thrilled to have the ability to earn anything and I have long voiced criticisms of this assumption that earning less than minimum wage is inherently some kind of employer abuse that must be aggressively stamped out.
It's not like people are throwing money at me out of pity for my incurable condition and sad sack life story. Denying me the opportunity to choose to work part-time for sometimes less than minimum wage winds up being just a means to cut my income, not improve my life any.
And If they’re earning so little that taxes do not apply, chances are OUR tax money is instead funding things to help them get by so that gig companies can skirt labor laws.
That's curious! Do you know why you get tipped well?
If someone has the opportunity to work full-time but is choosing the flexibility of gig work, then I see this as less of an issue.
On the other hand, if someone is doing gig work because that is what is available to them, and they aren't able to make enough to get by despite their best effort, then something needs to change.