Unbundling Freedom in the Sharing Economy

Abstract

conceptions of freedom, both deeply entrenched in American culture, explains why the concept of control has been both "faulty" and "sticky" when it comes to worker classification. Drawing on a first-of-its-kind body of ethnographic fieldwork among workers and policymakers across several sharing economy industries, this Article begins by showing how workers themselves conceptualize freedom as both non-interference and non-domination. It then goes on to show that both these conceptualizations of freedom also exist in case law and statutory law pertaining to work. In doing so, the Article demonstrates that there is no great divide between work law and work practices and that, if anything, the problem is that classification doctrine reflects and reinforces an irresolvable tension in the way lay and legal actors think about freedom at work.

On the (mis)classification of paid labor: When should gig workers have employee status?

“…22 It's possible that the legal idea of employer control has been historically subject to a narrow interpretation that does not anticipate the kinds of control attempted by digital platforms. For discussion of the role played by control and dependency in existing law, see Acevedo (2018), Cunningham-Parker (2016), Pinsof (2016. 23 These factors can come apart: Workers may have a single buyer of their labor who happens not to direct them much, such as a proof-reader whose entire work is for a single publisher.…”

“…For some background seeAcevedo (2018),Pinsof (2016).3 See for examplePrassl & Risak (2015).4 For the full judgment see https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/uber-bv-ors-vaslam-ors-judgment-19.12.18.pdf (accessed 2/2/2020). As the final version of this paper was prepared for publication, the UK Supreme Court issued a judgment upholding that of the Appeals Court: https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2019-0029.html (accessed (4/4/2020) 5 For an official press release see https://www.fairwork.gov.au/about-us/news-and-mediareleases/2019-media-releases/june-2019/20190607-uber-media-release (accessed 2/2/2020) 6 For the complete bill, see https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5 (accessed 2/2/2020)7 On this, with special attention to US law, seeAcevedo (2020).…”

“… 22. It’s possible that the legal idea of employer control has been historically subject to a narrow interpretation that does not anticipate the kinds of control attempted by digital platforms. For discussion of the role played by control and dependency in existing law, see Acevedo (2018), Cunningham-Parker (2016), Pinsof (2016). …”

“… 35. More could be said about rating systems, particularly in relation to how to construe the sort of freedom they undermine. Deepa Acevedo plausibly observes that workers under pressure to secure a good rating may become obsequious toward customers, and notes that this may be evaluated as a loss of freedom from domination rather than from interference (2018: 816). …”

Sharing Property Sharing Labour: The Co-Production of Value in Platform Economies

“…This has led to a schizophrenic fission in commentators' responses, with some emphasising the new economies' potential heralding of a collaborative economic model (Aloni 2016;Botsman and Rogers 2011), and others claiming they are extensions of the 'worst excesses' of commercial exploitation (Kenney and Zysman 2016). Claims of exploitation are especially acute on the topic of labour (Ravenelle 2017;Morozov 2013), however, many of these arguments are specific to the relationship between providers and platforms in the gig economy (Bieber and Moggia 2020;Das Acevedo 2018), and neglect the peer-to-peer aspect of sharing. Huws (1998) and Terranova (2000) advance a different conception of labour as voluntary participation, however, they both adopt an immaterial approach which I argue cannot fully accommodate the sharing of material resources.…”