The Uber verdict by the UK employment tribunal is a notable milestone for ‘gig economy’ startups. If you need a recap, this post by azeem is a great read.
Many in the tech ecosystem dismiss the ruling as technophobia and ignorance. But, the reverse may actually be true. The ruling is quite impressively erudite and nuanced.
Maybe, we are the ones being less nuanced. Why do we insist on applying the ‘gig economy’ label too liberally? Sometimes, it helps to acknowledge the distinction between a service provider and tech tool/platform.
Uber sets and controls rules of participation on its platform. Not just that, it also controls the entire context of interactions on it. This is normally done by Service Providers, and not Tech Platforms. Many other ‘gig economy’ products are genuine workflow tools and enjoy far less control.
Service providers do all these:
They hire/fire the suppliers (aka workers)
They decide quality standards
They manage performance, resolve grievances, run disciplinary procedures
They source & control provision of work (i.e. decides which jobs are seen by the worker)
They give tools for managing preferences to the worker, but these strictly follow the controls set by the service provider
They decide rates/fees.
Workflow Tools (Tech Platforms) do all or some of these:
They let a supplier register and manage profile and preferences
They give them tools and templates for work processes
They let supplies decide which gigs to take
They do not decide the rates charged for a transaction, though they may often give recommendations
Workflow tools may not decide quality standards. They may, instead, accept industry accreditations or let buyers judge based on feedback. They may also use third parties for grievances and disciplinary procedures.
The 13 primary reasons cited in the judgement against Uber make a convincing case to call Uber a Service Provider. Being a service provider is no bad thing. We just need to accept that it may come with more rules and regulations than being a Tech Platform.
