Unreliable hours, no right to unionize, no vacation pay, lack of labour regulations – these are just some of the characteristics of the workplace for non-traditional workers in the gig economy. Jim Stanford’s article titled, bring your own equipment and wait for work: working for Uber is a lot like being a dock worker a century ago, shines a noteworthy light on the history and complexities of Canada’s gig economy. I believe that the “voices” of Canadian Uber drivers are not being heard because the interests of Uber and Uber drivers differ too much, to reduce the negative affects of this Uber should open a better human resources department for its employees.
Stanford describes how the amount of people who depend on gig jobs in Canada is rapidly increasing. Predominantly, amongst Uber and Lyft drivers, with 100,000 in Toronto alone and many of which being minorities. The gig economy is considered more unique than the traditional economy because it is more innovative and has more flexible conventions. Stanford disputes how different these two industries genuinely are, as the title suggests he juxtaposes gig employment with employment positions of the past, such as dock workers, theorizing that they do not have many differences.
The biggest problem that I see between Canada’s gig economy and its traditional economy is the differentiated needs and wants of employee’s verse employers. Concerns that employees have that employers do not seem to want to negotiate, include, hourly wages, sick or vacation days, what is described as “normal” rights in the traditional economy. Stanford gives the example of Foodora employees fighting the Ontario Labour Relations Board for the right to unionize to display this. Employers have refrained from deploying such rights because it would take away their competitive edge, they are the “disruptors” who are facilitating the gig economy and do not want to assimilate into the traditional economy. From a third-party perspective both sides are completely understandable.
I argue that there is leeway for both sides to give, if only a little. I would propose having Uber develop some form of Canadian human resources department for its drivers. Stanford suggest that drivers’ complaints are currently filtered through the Netherlands, it is logical to assume this is not the most effective arbitration system. Having a more local department would give drivers a more adequate outlet when needed (as mentioned many drivers belong to various racialized groups, giving them this option would provide drivers with a platform to report any discrimination that they experience while on the job) and would extend them more normal rights, but would not compromise Ubers competitive place in the industry. This would obviously not resolve the tension completely but would create an equilibrium between some of the conflicting needs.
In the studies of employment relations, we learn about three main goals concerning change in the workplace, they are – efficiency, equity, and voice. Employees having a “voice” regards them having input on how work completed and workplace conditions. When it comes to Uber drivers in the gig economy, it is evident that their voices are being silenced, in order to uphold the values of the entire gig industry. Approaching the tensions between employees and employers is a difficult task because the pleas of both sides are incredibly polarized which makes brokering any resolution a challenge. However, compromise is possible! It is evident that both Uber and Uber drivers have a vested interest in the company as a whole being successful, can you think of any other ways in which the broken bridge between these two parties can be mended? Or do you think that the strategy that I proposed is practical or do you not see it producing much benefit?
Thank you so much for reading!
This article can be found at this link – https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2019/11/17/bring-your-own-equipment-and-wait-for-work-working-for-uber-is-a-lot-like-being-a-dock-worker-a-century-ago.html
Sydney Wade 
Hi Sydney,
I enjoyed reading your post greatly as I also chose the same article and it was interesting to see your perspective on Canada’s gig economy. While we identified the same overarching issue regarding the lack of alignment between gig employers and employees wants and needs, we differed with respect to the optimal solution. I believe that your solution regarding implementing a stronger human resources department is a great suggestion as it provides a buffer between the two parties in conflict. I believe this would produce much benefit and leave both parties satisfied. Overall great post!
Best,
Mary
LikeLike
Hi Mary,
Thank you so much for your reply! I appreciate your thoughts and look forward to engaging with you in further class discussions.
All the best,
Sydney
LikeLike
Hi Sydney,
The article I wrote about also highlighted challenges in the gig economy and referred to Uber on various occasions so I thought it would be appropriate to compare our opinions!
I really like how you highlighted the challenges in the economy and pointed out the different preferences between the employers and their workers. I find it surprising that these companies are trying to frame their lack of providing employee rights as a form of competitive edge. It seems like it would be more efficient to empower the workers, as this would likely lead to increased productivity and quality within their services.
One of the points of your blog that I disagree with is that Uber workers are actually employees. Uber is currently in a legal battle which will determine employment relationships and deem whether these workers are independent contractors, dependant contractors or employees (Mojtehedzadeh, 2019). The fact that these workers have not yet been determined to be employees is a causal factor of their lack of common employee rights. To answer the question you posed, I believe this broken bridge between workers and employers can be repaired by a favorable ruling for employees within the court’s decision. This will force the employers to recognize employee rights and will drive the need for improved employment relationships.
When it comes to your idea about creating a better human resources department for its workers, I’m in total agreement, as long as these workers do indeed become entitled to employee rights through a court decision. It makes a lot of sense to create a better human resource department as human resource management is a key supporting activity in the value chain and is linked to the service-profit chain (Lengnick-Hall, 2017).
I really enjoyed reading your blog and carrying out the conversation around the gig economy further.
Lengnick-Hall, M. L., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Rigsbee, C. M. (2017, August 18). Strategic human resource management and supply chain orientation. Retrieved February 15, 2020, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053482212000605
Mojtehedzadeh, S. (2019, November 6). Heavyweights Uber, Foodora in separate battles that could impact gig economy. Retrieved February 7, 2020, from https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2019/11/06/heavyweights-uber-foodora-in-separate-battles-that-could-impact-gig-economy.html
LikeLike
Hi there Nolan,
Thank you for your insightful comment on my blog, I appreciate your response! The legal battle that you bring up sounds interesting and I am curious to know how it will end.
All the best,
Sydney
LikeLike
Hi Sydney,
I really enjoyed reading your article, I’m sure like many other university students we’ve all used Uber and Lyft for its convince and relative inexpensive. I also think that typically when we hear about Uber in the news it has to do with disgruntle Taxi drivers who are upset with this new player in their once non-competitive industry. I like yourself, agree that both the employer and employee could benefit from a stronger, local voice that would be able to represent the drivers to the Uber management team. I also think the federal government has a role to play in regulating the gig economy. The federal government has set many regulations and employee standards that all employees must meet for full and part time workers, and it’s time that we do the same to protect contract workers. Contractors are often scapegoated and are given worse benefits than full time employees, and I believe this is because there is less regulation surrounding their benefits and compensation under the federal statutes which gives employers the right to provide these contractors with worse working conditions. That being said, it will be interesting to see whether the court decides whether Uber drivers should be considered employees or independent contractors, as the outcome will greatly affect the outcome of not only their relationship but for similar industries. Personally, I think these drivers meet the qualifications to be considered Uber employees, the operate under the Uber name, they reserve the right to terminate a driver, they set the prices, handles all aspects of the business and receives a sale for each ride.
To answer the second part of your question, I think creating a stronger human resources department is a great idea and something that will benefit employees in the long run. However, I think that it takes time to change a corporate culture of a large organization and even longer to build trust between the management and individual contributors. So I definitely agree that Uber should invest in an employee relations and human resources team but I think we should be calling on our local representatives to introduce federal legislation to protect contract worker rights.
LikeLike
Hi there Brett,
Thank you for your response to my blog post! I enjoyed your point about the federal government playing a role in the situation, this is an aspect that I have not considered myself but seems relevant for sure.
All the best,
Sydney
LikeLike