Report Sees Human Rights Issues in Gig Economy Jobs, but Companies Defend Their Model
A new report this week from London-based Business & Human Rights Resource Centre says Uber and Deliveroo are prime examples of companies in the gig economy that are misclassifying workers in order to cut costs, which could lead to human rights violations.
March 26, 2019 at 06:12 PM
4 minute read
A new report this week from a business and human rights group says Uber and meal delivery service Deliveroo are prime examples of companies in the gig economy that are misclassifying workers in order to cut costs.
The latest annual Corporate Legal Accountability Briefing from the London-based Business & Human Rights Resource Centre states that large gig economy platforms like Uber Technologies Inc. and Deliveroo are mislabeling workers as “independent contractors” rather than employees so that the companies can avoid paying the workers a minimum wage, overtime and sick pay.
A spokesperson for Deliveroo, which is U.K.-based, told Corporate Counsel that the report “is deeply flawed” and failed to consider the flexibility that workers gain by being self-employed. The report ignored many workers' preference for the flexibility “to decide whether, when and where they work, and that is their number one reason for riding with Deliveroo,” said the speaker, who asked to be identified only as a spokesperson.
San Francisco-based Uber did not respond to requests for comment, but has previously denied misclassifying its workers. General counsel at Uber and its ride-hailing rival, Lyft Inc., have recognized the risk in cases over this labor issue.
Phil Bloomer, executive director of the business rights group, sees the issue differently. Bloomer said in a statement, “The gig economy is the frontline in the battle for the future of labor rights” as companies boost their profits at the expense of workers' minimum rights and wages.
“New strategies including legal challenges are emerging to combat this abuse,” Bloomer said. “These cases have implications for everyone, as 'casual' and 'flexible' working models spread to a range of industries.”
The report, titled “The Future of Work: Litigating Labour Relationships in the Gig Economy,” analyzed recent lawsuits and legislation from around the world. It found that 2018 “was a year of victories and defeats. Workers face huge legal costs of a lengthy court battle, while profit-making companies are using their 'deep pockets' to crush legal challenges by systematically appealing unwelcome rulings and/or settling out of court to avoid worker status classification.”
Earlier this month, Uber agreed to pay $20 million to settle five years of litigation over classifying its drivers as independent contractors.
The U.K. report calls on companies to classify their workers as employees entitled to full labor rights and protections, to drop forced arbitration clauses from their contracts, and to “introduce human rights policies with proper remediation to live up to their responsibilities under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Human Rights.”
The report also calls for legislative reforms, including incentives for business to classify these workers as “employees.”
But the Deliveroo spokesperson said, “Courts across Europe have consistently concluded that riders working with us are self-employed. It is worth noting that the U.K. High Court expressly considered this question in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
The spokesperson added, “The answer to ending the trade-off between flexibility and security will not be found in the courts.”
Deliveroo's answer? The spokesperson suggested, “Governments can and must help companies who are creating well-paid work in the on-demand economy to offer greater security without compromising the flexibility that riders value most.”
In fact Deliveroo recently commissioned its own study of the gig economy by Public First, a policy consulting firm in the U.K. That study found that workers are choosing gig jobs over traditional employment in search for flexibility and higher earnings.
It predicted the gig economy has the potential to more than double over the next five years, and concluded, “This new way of working is here to stay.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDatasite's Ethics and Compliance Team Drives Transformation
Legal Chief of Retailer Beyond Exiting at Tumultuous Time
NLRB Bans 'Captive Audience' Meetings, Yanking Away Platform Employers Used to Combat Unionizing
EBay Hires Chief Legal Officer With Proven Business Chops
Trending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250