Tau qhov twg los: Inequality.org
Workers have just lost a bruising fight over so-called “gig” work in California. In the lead-up to the election, Lyft even hem tias yuav ncua tag nrho cov haujlwm hauv lub xeev. Vim li cas lub tuam txhab txawm xav tias rub tawm ntawm lub lag luam muaj txiaj ntsig zoo li no? Qhov kev tawm tsam tshwj xeeb no yog hais txog leej twg txhais txoj haujlwm, thiab nws muaj kev cuam tshuam thoob ntiaj teb rau yav tom ntej ntawm kev ua haujlwm.
The fight started in 2018, when California’s highest court had the audacity to suggest that Lyft, Uber, and other platform companies ua raws li lub teb chaws txoj cai kev ua haujlwm. The companies refused to comply. So in 2019 California’s legislature passed a new law, Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) to reinforce the point. The companies continued to misclassify their workers, so California Tus Kws Lij Choj General tau foob lawv hauv lub Tsib Hlis. Yuav luag ib xyoos tom qab, Lyft cov lus teb rau lub tsev hais plaub kom ua raws li txoj cai yog hem kom kaw.
While fighting California’s Attorney General and courts, the companies also aggressively pushed a ballot initiative to repeal AB5. The initiative, Proposition 22, tso siab rau qhov chaw cuav los ua rooj plaub that it would be good for drivers, as UC Berkeley’s Labor Center has helpfully noted. When the California Attorney General created an accurate description of what was in the measure, tuam txhab uas muag foob kom hloov cov lus kom haum lawv PR spin.
The Attorney General’s language remained on the ballot, but the spin continued. Supporters stooped rau tweeting qhov chaw nyob hauv tsev thiab lwm yam ntaub ntawv ntiag tug ntawm Veena Dubal, tus kws tshaj lij txoj cai lij choj kev ua haujlwm ntawm University of California Hastings College of the Law thiab lub suab thuam ntawm Uber thiab Lyft.
Nyob rau hnub kawg uas coj mus rau kev xaiv tsa, kev sib ntaus sib tua ntawm Prop 22 tau ua qhov txawv txav ntxiv. Cov tuam txhab lag luam tau txais kev ywj pheej nrog qhov tseeb thaum lawv thawb cov lus hauv app rau cov neeg caij tsheb thov "koj tus neeg tsav tsheb txhawb nqa Prop 22," yuam DoorDash xa neeg mus tso tawm Prop 22 propaganda nrog rau lawv cov khoom xa tuaj, thiab them nyiaj rau kev xa ntawv xa tuaj ntau yam uas qhia tias yog los ntawm cov koom haum vam meej nrog cov npe xws li "Txaus siab rau Bern. "
Nyob rau lub sijhawm no, blitz ntawm cov ntaub ntawv tsis tseeb tau ua tiav. Txog 58 feem pua Cov neeg pov npav hauv California tau koom nrog Uber thiab Lyft kom pom zoo rau kev ntsuas kev pov npav.
Nyob rau hauv tag nrho, platform tuam txhab uas muag siv ntau dua $ 200 lab los txhawb kom cov neeg California lees txais cov haujlwm ua haujlwm uas muaj ntau dua rau cov tebchaws tsim. Ib qho ntawm lawv tactics yog qhov chaw gig neeg ua haujlwm nqe lus hauv kev tshaj xov xwm thiab kev tshaj tawm xov xwm tshaj tawm hais tias lawv tau txais txiaj ntsig los ntawm lawv qhov xav tau "kev hloov pauv" thiab "kev ywj pheej."
Kuv xav kom Proposition 22 cov neeg txhawb nqa tuaj yeem ntsib ib co ntawm cov neeg ua haujlwm platform kuv tau ntsib thiab xam phaj in other countries. In many countries, workers have always had “flexibility” and “independence.” They call it informal work. And now that the apps have entered their economies, they are actually losing their autonomy in frightening ways. Here are two stories of how apps changed platform workers’ lives, but not in the ways they had imagined.
Hauv tebchaws Cambodia, ib lub tebchaws uas qhov nyiaj tsawg kawg nkaus tsuas yog ob peb las ib hnub, maus taus rickshaws (tuk tuks) tau tshwm sim ntau xyoo. Yav dhau los, cov neeg tsav tsheb yuav sib tham ncaj qha nrog cov neeg caij tsheb. Nyob rau hnub zoo, tus neeg tsav tsheb hauv lub nroog lub nroog yuav tau them $ 10 lossis ntau dua. Lawv muaj "kev ywj pheej" thiab "kev ywj pheej."
Lawv kuj muaj ob peb lwm yam kev xaiv rau kev ua haujlwm zoo dua, ruaj khov dua, tau nyiaj ntau dua. Nws tsis yog lub neej zoo - tab sis hnub no, nws tseem phem dua. Cov neeg tsav tsheb uas kuv tau ntsib xyoo tas los tau hais rau kuv tias koj tsis tuaj yeem tau txais tus neeg caij tsheb yam tsis muaj app. Cov neeg tsav tsheb tsis muaj kev ywj pheej los cuam tshuam cov nqi tsheb lossis txawm paub tias yuav them nqi nqi dab tsi ua ntej lawv txais kev caij tsheb. Coj "Vuthy," uas hais rau kuv tias nws tsis tuaj yeem tsis kam caij tsheb txawm tias tus nqi tsis tau txais txiaj ntsig. Yog tias nws tsis lees txais kev caij tsheb ntawm tus nqi twg los ntawm lub platform, nws muaj kev pheej hmoo raug "tshem tawm" lossis tshem tawm ntawm lub platform. Thiab qhov no tuaj yeem txhais tau tias poob nws txoj sia.
Lwm zaj dab neeg los ntawm Is Nrias teb. Jude tau ua tus ua lag luam zoo ua ntej cov apps nkag mus rau hauv kev ua lag luam. Nws muaj ib nrab kaum lub tsheb, ua haujlwm ob peb tus neeg tsav tsheb thiab muab kev pabcuam tsheb ntiav ntiav rau cov neeg siv khoom hauv Chennai, lub nroog loj Indian. Thaum Uber nkag mus rau hauv kev ua lag luam, nws tau cog lus tias nws tab tom nrhiav "kev koom tes" nrog cov neeg ua haujlwm ywj pheej zoo li nws. Yudas xav tias qhov no zoo li kev cia siab. Tom qab tag nrho, nws txoj kev lag luam tau ntsib qhov kev sib txhuam ib txwm tau txais cov lus tawm rau cov neeg siv khoom, thiab cov apps zoo li txoj hauv kev yooj yim los txhim kho nws cov neeg siv khoom.
Little did he know that the apps would actually take away his longstanding client base. Uber took client data not only from Jude but from other private hire companies, as well, and far from providing freedom or flexibility, wrecked the market for small companies by monopolizing the client data. Jude and his drivers lost the ability to negotiate fares and other terms of service. And he found he couldn’t leave the platform without losing his entire client base.
Nov yog tus qauv uas cov tuam txhab tiv thaiv hauv California. Cov ntawv pov thawj rau qhov chaw sib tw Prop 22 tau nthuav tawm. Cov neeg hais lus tau lees paub tias lawv tau siv gig ua haujlwm ntxiv rau cov nyiaj tau los tsis tu ncua. Lawv tham txog qhov yuav tsum tau "hustle."
Here’s a typical recent response from @ChopstixKisser on Twitter: “The whole gig economy/on demand model is what made it successful. It’s one of my two hustles, the other being managing six apartments, which is enough work where it would very difficult/impossible for me to also manage a W-2 Style job.” Another sponsored post, from “Clarence,” glorified the fact that the poster doesn’t earn enough at his “day job” and needs the supplemental income. It all sounds very much like India or Cambodia.
Nyob rau hauv lub Prop 22 phiaj xwm, the companies cheerfully claimed that “80 percent of drivers work less than 20 hours a week.” And this misleading statistic belies a critical feature of their business model: the platforms rely almost entirely on 20 percent of the workforce to do almost all the work. They couldn’t survive without that 20 percent of the driver base that works full time and handles 80 percent of the actual gigs. Mary L. Gray and Siddarth Suri describe this lopsided distribution of gig work in detail in their excellent book Dab Ua Haujlwm.
So why do the companies need the 80 percent, who only provide a fraction of the labor? One way to see it: the 80 percent are being used as a huge on-demand scab labor force. So those who are extolling the virtues of their “flexible” gigs should keep firmly in mind that this “flexibility” exists vim hais tias of the full-time workers who keep the company solvent.
By debasing California’s labor classification laws, it’s possible the companies are creating a slippery slope to undermine even our most basic labor protections. Might we descend into a return to child labor and modern-day slavery? While this may seem farfetched, the U.S. economy is no longer “developed.” It’s converging nrog lwm yam kev lag luam tsis raws cai thoob ntiaj teb.
So it’s important to consider the situation of a Cambodian tuk tuk driver in debt for his vehicle and unable to make payments because platforms are causing decreasing fares. Or in India, where a union has reported that drivers are committing suicide because their vehicles are being repossessed by the banks. In both these countries, debt bondage can lead whole families into slavery. Tech is transforming these economies but workers aren’t better off, so we have to imagine these ways in which the United States might be transformed.
Los ntawm Cambodia mus rau California yog luv luv tshaj li peb xav. Prop 22 tsuas yog ua kom nrawm nrawm ntawm kev siv.
Tab sis raws li peb pom kev hloov pauv hloov pauv hauv peb lub teb chaws kev nom kev tswv, cia peb tig peb lub qhov muag mus rau nthwv dej ntawm kev teeb tsa, tsis yog hauv California nkaus xwb tab sis thoob ntiaj teb, uas tau yuam cov tuam txhab mus rau cov kev ntsuas huab cua no los tiv thaiv lawv txoj haujlwm. Kom paub meej, txoj cai ntawm Prop 22 muaj qhov cuam tshuam loj heev yog tias tso cai sawv ntsug, raws li qhov kev pib xaiv tsa tau tso cai rau cov koom haum los teeb tsa qhov tsis txaus ntseeg ua ntej. Cov tuam txhab tau sau Proposition 22 kom ua rau muaj kev tiv thaiv kev ua haujlwm. Tab sis ntawm no yog lwm yam uas lawv tau ua: txwv tsis pub cov neeg sawv cev raug xaiv los kho txoj cai yav tom ntej.
As Bloomberg wrote, “Buried deep in the measure’s mind-numbing legalese, is a rare proviso: The authors prohibit any change to the law unless it’s consistent with the proposal’s intent and can garner a seven-eighths majority in each house of the state legislature.”
Qhov no yog Pej xeem United ntawm steroids.
Lub koom haum phiaj xwm los thawb Prop 22 yog qhov kim tshaj plaws kev xaiv tsa pib phiaj xwm hauv California keeb kwm. Zaj lus qhia rau cov tuam txhab: cov phiaj xwm kim rau dej nyab cov neeg pov npav nrog cov ntaub ntawv tsis tseeb ua haujlwm zoo. Thiab peb yuav tsum cia siab tias yuav muaj ntau ntawm nws hauv kev sib tw yav tom ntej - tshwj tsis yog tias peb rov ua nws hauv.
Nov yog xov xwm zoo. Thawj Tswj Hwm- Xaiv Joe Biden tawm los ntawm kev txhawb nqa cov neeg ua haujlwm, thiab tawm tsam qhov kev pib, ib yam li ntau lwm tus neeg sib tw tseem ceeb ntawm Democratic. Senators Bernie Sanders thiab Elizabeth Warren tau muaj zog heev ntawm txoj cai ntawm "gig" cov neeg ua haujlwm, thiab peb muaj sijhawm los tuav lawv rau txoj haujlwm no. Thiab lawv txoj kev txhawb nqa tau tshwm sim tsis yog los ntawm kev sib tsoo, tab sis vim yog qhov tshwm sim ntawm cov nthwv dej loj ntawm cov neeg ua haujlwm gig koom nrog thoob plaws Tebchaws Meskas, thiab tsom mus rau kev ua tiav zoo hauv lwm lub tebchaws.
Cov tuam txhab tau tsim lawv cov qauv kev lag luam ntawm lub tsev ntawm daim npav, tab sis lub koom haum tau ua pov thawj tias muaj tseeb thiab ruaj khov thiab tsis yog los ntawm cov ntaub ntawv tsis tseeb tab sis nyob thiab sib qhia qhov tseeb. Lub sijhawm rau qhov tseeb-raws li txoj cai thaum nws los txog rau kev tiv thaiv kev ua haujlwm rau txhua tus neeg ua haujlwm.
Bama Athreya is the Head of Gender, Equity and Inclusion at Laudes Foundation. Follow her at @bathreya1 or @PodcastGig
ZNetwork tau txais nyiaj tsuas yog los ntawm kev ua siab zoo ntawm nws cov neeg nyeem.
Pab Nyiaj