Search for: All records

Abstract This article uses data from a natural experiment to address one of the most contentious issues in the on-demand platform economy—whether gig work is compatible with standard employment. We analyze a US-based package delivery platform that shifted a subset of its workers from independent contractors to employees, thereby creating a natural experiment that allowed us to exploit variation over time and across locations. We examine the impact of employment status on work scheduling practices, hours of work and the firm’s ability to match workers’ scheduled hours with the amount of time they were actively engaged in parcel delivery. We find that after the transition to employment, flexibility with respect to how work schedules were determined was maintained, and drivers’ total hours of work increased. We also find that the switch to employee status increased the firm’s ability to match scheduled and actual working time, indicating greater operational efficiency. We conclude, contrary to claims commonly made by platform firms, that employment status can coexist with the platform model. 

Expansion of the platform economy has given rise to a paradox in the literature on gig work: Given capital’s imposition of algorithmic controls, why do so many platform workers express support and appreciation for gig work, viewing it as enhancing their autonomy? Approaches toward this question have advanced numerous explanations, such as gamification, neoliberal norms, and entrepreneurial culture. We find these efforts only partially successful, as they fail to explain why ideological incorporation so readily succeeds. We argue that responses to gig work are a function of the class positions that gig workers hold in the wider society, which lead to distinct orientations that they bring to gig work. For workers with a foothold in the middle class, gig work provides access to job rewards that may no longer be available via the conventional economy alone. They consequently experience gig work as a labour of affirmation – a stark contrast with the experience of those gig workers who hold subordinate positions in the class structure. Interview data with 70 respondents in the ride-hail, grocery-shopping and food-delivery sectors supports this approach. Consent to gig work is strongest among our better-off respondents, who hold more secure positions in the conventional economy and use gig work as a culturally-sanctioned mechanism of class reproduction. The implication is that class-based divisions among the platform workforce warrant greater attention than labour process theory has allowed. 

How do gig workers respond to the various financial, physical, and legal risks their work entails? Answers to this question have remained unclear, largely because previous studies have overlooked structurally induced variations in the experience of platform work. In this article, we develop a theory of differential embeddedness to explain why workers’ orientations toward the risks of gig work vary. We argue further that because platforms define themselves merely as mediators of exchanges between workers and customers, they systematically expose workers to various forms of customer malfeasance, ranging from fraud and tip baiting to harassment and assault. We develop this perspective using interviews with 70 workers in the ride-hail, grocery shopping, and food delivery sectors. The structure of labor platforms indirectly invites workers to exhibit distinct normative orientations toward the risks that gig work entails while also multiplying the sources of these risks.