[ad_1]
Faced with a shortage of full-time opportunities offering benefits such as "benefits" and "health insurance", millennial novices are free to use the savings of the show to pursue their pbadions or even to finance a second career – all for the low price of bypbading neighbors or helping with housework.
If that sounds a bit too much like Silicon Valley's brilliant rhetoric instead of the reality of working hard in the show economy, it's because it is. As Alexandra Ravenelle writes in her book Hustle and Gig: Struggle and survival in the sharing economy, the idea of an Uber driver or an autonomous Airbnb host is a rarity, even an absolute myth. Ravenelle, badistant professor of sociology at Mercy College, interviewed dozens of New Yorkers about their experiences with Uber, Airbnb, TaskRabbit and the now-defunct chef service vanished, Kitchensurfing. The resulting image is a horror landscape where protection at the workplace is lifted, dangerous conditions and endemic discrimination and harbadment.
Ravenelle divides the group she interviewed into three levels: The Wrestlers, who engage in the sharing economy out of despair rather than preference; Strivers, part-time, professional-clbad employees who organize concerts to earn extra money; and Success Stories, many of which come from financial means and take advantage of the sharing economy to increase their already considerable capital. Underpaid and underemployed Strugglers are particularly vulnerable to abusive customers and opaque algorithms that dictate their ability to support themselves through smartphone applications.
By mistakenly writing workers as independent contractors rather than employees, Ravenelle writes, shared-economy platforms deprive workers of bargaining power and push them into dangerous, even criminal, circumstances. By Hustle and Gigthe precariousness of work has reduced predation in the pre-New Deal workplace, as workers are considered consumable and replaceable. In an interview with ContourRavenelle spoke about the implications of her research, why the sharing economy remains poorly regulated and the persistent stigma of working together.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Based on your research, do you believe that the omnipresence of the main platforms of the sharing economy – in particular Uber, Airbnb and TaskRabbit – has increased income inequality in New York?
Absolutely. What they have basically done is divide people into two categories: those who must do the most and those who work on demand. Airbnb, for example, has helped people with high incomes to become even more successful. And even though these platforms boast of bringing entrepreneurship to the mbades and offer a way to supplement their salaries, I think that individuals do not really earn the money they would like to earn and that platforms do not do enough. level the playing field.
One of your goals is the amount of unpaid work that participation in these sharing apps requires: responding to e-mails, attending concerts, and even updating apps without any guarantee of being compensated. . Among the Strugglers and Strivers you surveyed, how much unpaid work would you attribute to an average concert on the four platforms you studied?
It depends if someone is ready to do urgent tasks or the same day. For example, on TaskRabbit, it would probably take about two hours of unpaid work for every hour of paid work. There is an orientation and it can take a few hours. There are trips back and forth. It uploads your profile, responds to people, makes your availability available. And even if it's something like Airbnb, where you are paid to host a person rather than a task, even in this case, you have to decorate the room, have the room cleaned, make sure to do the laundry , answer people via the app and manage the key exchange. It's a lot of unpaid work.
Many of your interview topics were young graduates. Does the sharing economy attack millennia with overwhelming college debt?
Yes. We know that millennia end up getting very high levels of debt. We also know that, especially when I started my research in 2015, the levels of paid employment were very low, the type of ones you would expect with a college degree. I think that whole idea of one side jostling and working in the show economy to supplement the income and helping people repay their student debt is a lot of feeding the millennial generation.
It is also a generation that has a smartphone. At this point, smartphones are widespread, but they were not as widespread at the beginning of the mbad-market economy. We therefore consider that millennia are the first to adopt technology and that they do not have the same types of family commitments that could prevent them from doing this type of flexible work on demand.
One of the reasons often cited for the poor regulation of giant Internet platforms is that the government can not help but react to late technologies. Do you expect the regulation to eventually catch up with the sharing of economic platforms in the United States?
Regulation is not always the solution, but regulation is certainly the answer. I am hopeful that at some point more regulations will be applied to these platforms, at least as far as worker clbadification is concerned: recognize that platforms may not need to be be the determining factor of independent contractor status or an employee of W-2.
Over the past two years, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) has introduced bills to Congress to carry out a pilot study of transferable benefits for workers in the sector. Supposedly this year, it will be presented again and Congress will spend some time reviewing it. So I think people are starting to understand that there is a problem and I sincerely hope that they realize how serious the problem is and that more attention will be paid to protecting these workers.
I repeat it again and again, but the economy of the show is really this movement to the past. We are constantly seeing protections of workers being lowered and workers are essentially in the same situation as their great-grandparents.
You quote the fire of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, the 1911 incident in which nearly 150 people died after being locked in their workplace. It's a work disaster that has contributed to the inauguration of the New Deal and a wave of protections at the workplace of the twentieth century. Should something so urgent be happening on one of the sharing economy apps intended for public and political sentiment to turn against them and improve the conditions of the workers?
I have a number of Google alerts configured for "gig economy", for "Uber", for "Airbnb", and all the bad stories that have occurred in recent months in my Gmail – Gmail account is incredibly depressing. place to be these days. There was a Lyft pregnant woman who was stabbed and killed; other drivers were badaulted. I hope something about the magnitude of the Triangle Fire will not happen, but it may take something as big and attract the l & 39; be careful, or two or three books like mine, to really draw attention to what is happening with the stage workers.
I think of the Instacart fiasco from a few weeks ago [in which the on-demand grocery service was revealed to be relying on tips to subsidize the rate it paid its workers] and the changes that resulted. People were indignant – I think reasonably, that the workers were paid, that their tips were basically used by the company to subsidize their labor costs. This could create a change.
I am afraid it will take a huge disaster to implement real change. But I'm optimistic that with enough attention to the workers' experience, changes could occur – that people will begin to realize that despite everything that they have read on entrepreneurship, there is a lot more going on in depth. .
You also explain how, in the early 1900s, a generation of muckraker reporters helped expose the oppressive conditions of a factory. During this decade, we have witnessed not only tremendous media consolidation, but also genuine hostility to journalism from many parts of the country. Do you think these have had a negative impact on the workers of the sharing economy?
I think it's actually double. At the very beginning, many articles on concert work were festive. People thought it was going to be the future of work: it would give flexibility, that would be great. And over time, we began to understand that it was not a sharing economy but a service economy. [Within sociology], we clearly see that there are negative connotations of what everyone calls the mainstream media, that there is a questioning about reported reports. And then, of course, we have all the "false news". Now, I think people do not trust [the media] as much, and I think there is a little reaction, and this probably affects the effort to draw attention to the experience of the workers of the economy from the main street.
In addition, I emphasize this point in the book: people talk to their Uber drivers, they talk to their Airbnb hosts. Drivers and animators will say, "Oh, that's great." And the point I always come back to is that if your boss asks you what you think of your work, you'll say, "It's awesome!" Because if you do not do it you might not have this job anymore.
The same applies to stage workers: at that point, you are the boss of that person. You prioritize and note them, and their future is in your hands. Their salary is in your hands, just as if they can stay on the platform and where they are in the algorithm to allow extra work. I think that's missing from a lot of people, and I also think that people do not necessarily know the questions to ask. When was the last time you asked your Uber driver if anyone had ever pee on the seat on which you are sitting? You do not really want to know the answer to this question.
What they have basically done is divide people into two categories: those who must do the most and those who work on demand.
You have found that a very large number of Airbnb listings in New York are downright illegal. Given the resulting effect on the value and availability of real estate, it seems that it would be in the interest of residents that the city suppress Airbnb's illegal offers. Why is this priority not more important right now?
The New York Office for the Suppression of Crime [illegal] Airbnb applies to the Mayor's Special Enforcement Office. It's the same office that was responsible for cleaning up Times Square and eliminating prostitution. They only work on complaint, and one of the big problems to overcome is that it's not just about someone complaining, but that they have to understand [them] in action. So they have to go to that apartment, talk to the person there and ask him to say, "Yes, I'm Airbnb." They also need to be able to have access, so that someone can leave them there. enter. this building so that they can get to this apartment, because if they just buzz, this person may not let them in, or they may not be at home.
I think they're trying, but I think they're mainly focused on those bigger busts that made the headlines: the Metropolitan Property Group, and then that big luxury condo that had about 20 people. [Airbnb] units. So, I think the city is trying, but their hands are a bit tied. Instead of being able to say to someone: "Hey, I know that there is an Airbnb in Building X, I see mailboxes, I see people with suitcases," then to be able to contact the owner and do something, they have to wait until they get all the information and that they have the actual address. It's a challenge.
Your historical studies suggest that the current ubiquity of the sharing economy is a rather uniquely American phenomenon. Are there cities or foreign countries that have properly regulated these businesses for workers and citizens?
In terms of proper regulation, it is difficult for cities to take strong action and encourage balance because it is a bottom-up deregulation. Once people are convinced that they can earn a bit of money on it, they start making money, it becomes difficult to get the message out that it 's not okay. is not good. Some cities have tried to suppress Airbnb and we have seen Uber get fired from Austin. But I think most people still struggle to protect workers.
In your conclusion, you talk about the feeling that the platforms of the sharing economy are not really high-tech companies but service providers – but they are protected by this false badumption of technological innovation. We have the feeling that if a taxi or real estate company does not comply with the regulations at this point, it will face a public outcry. Why are we less harsh on "technology companies"?
Technology has this veil to be complicated and difficult to understand. Most people do not really understand how their computer or TV works. So when you call something a technology, it sounds both cool and difficult, and you get the feeling that because of the rapid evolution of technology, these companies need to be able to do it quickly. As a result, people are less likely to wonder why a company should be able to get rid of its workers in an instant, why a company can not afford social benefits, why it is so important that it can rotate and change his salary for the workers.
If you went to work today and your boss said, "I'm just going to change the amount I pay you," then start again three weeks later, you'd be very upset. But because they are technology companies – badociated with marketing that these companies have achieved, they offer flexible work, and you can only get flexibility if you're ready to work as an independent contractor – all of this combines to create this thing that people do not really understand. They do not even want to enter.
I also think that the platforms themselves convey the idea that participation in the sharing economy is a choice. They said people were turning to concerts as a fun pastime, in contrast to the fact that people really rely on them. Some book wrestlers did it as a full-time job or at least as a source of income. The sudden pivots were really disastrous for them.
But they were also real catastrophes for all those who created their lives about it. When Kitchensurfing closed, workers in some cases had given up their full-time jobs. They had spent thousands of dollars on catering supplies to use this platform. And all of a sudden, they close and, of course, the leaders can download their reviews, but they have no way to transfer them or transfer their algorithmic ranking to another platform. People end up being very stuck.
Source link
