article 2

Protecting Workers’ Rights in the Gig Economy: Digital Labor Platforms and the Case for a Dependent Contractor Classification 8 of employment status.” As Lobel notes, some US states have indeed broadened protections to all workers. For example, the Washington Law Against Discrimination establishes prohibitions against discrimination by expanding the definition of employee (a, 10). Given the difficulties that arise when trying to classify gig economy workers into one of the two traditional categories, new legal groupings have been proposed to accommodate the special nature of gig workers/platforms. Chief among them are the categories “independent workers” and “dependent contractors.” Seth Harris, Deputy and later Acting Secretary of Labor under President Obama, and Alan Krueger, Chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, have proposed a structure of benefits that couldmake the independent worker status neutral, by expanding protections and benefits that exist in employment. The category emerges as “a middle ground between traditional employees and independent contractors” (Harris & Krueger, 2–3). The main objective of this new category is to clarify protections and benefits that should be provided in relationships such as those in the gig economy (5). For this, the authors propose reforms like the inclusion of freedom to organize and collective bargaining, ability to pool, compensation insurance, tax withholding, wage and hour protection, unemployment insurance and affordable health insurance (15–21). In the case of a potential dependent contractor category, it is essential to consider whether Uber drivers ought to be categorized inside a “dependent self-employment” status (Williams&Lapeyre).TheInternationalLabourOrganization (ILO) defines this as a category in which “workers provide a service for a company with a contract that differs from a work contract but depend on its clients for their income or received detailed instructions regarding how the work is to be done” (ILO a, 15). The ILO highlights this definition as a way to clarify the “gray area” that exists between employees and self- employed workers due to a binary classification of work. This allows for the new third category that could be consistent with its definition: the category of “dependent contractors.” Under this definition, Uber drivers would no longer be considered as independent contractors, but rather asdependent contractors, which are defined by the ILO as “worker[s] employed for profit, usually by way of a commercial transaction, who are dependent on another entity that directly benefits from the work performed by them and exercises explicit or implicit control over their activities” (ILO b, 9). Exactly what the dependent contractor category would look like is still being debated, as there exists an extensive literature proposing different interpretations. From the previous case study analysis on the working conditions of Uber drivers, it can be inferred that the dependent contractor category needs to ensure collective rights for Uber drivers. Currently, they are discouraged from collective action and thus disempowered. For instance, Uber does not encourage drivers to gather at central dispatch locations, create social relationships among themselves, or organize themselves to respond collectively to changing platform policies. This is a result of workers being classified as independent contractors, a category that serves as an impediment to the exercise of collective rights, and where any such activity could be regarded as illegal actioning (Choudary). If collective action is extended to Uber drivers, they may be then enabled to deconstruct the platform’s information asymmetry, which occurs when the Uber platform has sole exclusive access to data on its workers and gain greater agency. Implementing this third, dependent contractor category ought to involve a series of progressive steps within Uber’s platform in order to avoid any problematic issues that might arise from sudden change in its business model design. To accomplish such change without undo disruption would re- quire a “safe harbor period” for Uber to be able to adapt to the new reality, especially when “experimenting with granting their workers some benefits and to financially prepare for the eventual addition of the dependent contractor” (Fendrick). This implementation process should enable all parties in- volved to regard this policy recommendation as both positive and enforceable. Conclusion and Recommendations Although the classification of gig economy workers may seem to present itself as a new problem, it is really an old issue that has received a digital paint job. As the modern economy has matured since the Industrial Revolution, so too has the need to evolve the regulatory systems that protect laborers. To that end, a widely acceptable version of the “Dependent Contractor” concept, as currently being discussed in labor circles, should be adopted as quickly as reasonably possible without undue disruption to existing firms, so as to assure such workers legitimate rights in the rapidly expanding gig economy.