Introduction
In the modern world, precarious work is becoming more popular in the gig economy. This type of employment is rising due to insufficient public jobs and the lack of demand for people in the traditional labor market (Marginson, 2015). The structure of the essay consists of describing precarious work, clarifying problems with its classification, and identifying ways to improve it.
These key points will be discussed better to understand the meaning of this type of entrepreneurship. This is readily visible in agriculture, construction, and retail commerce, where effort cannot be adequately accounted for (Meardi, 2018). Many people work in private subsidiaries and farms where no employment contracts are in place.
Deregulation and Flexible Labor Markets
How the Gig Economy Operates
Deregulation and flexibility are core values in the gig economy. Traditional employment concepts are beginning to fade into the background due to the emergence of modern and more convenient ways to earn money (Sisson and Purcell, 2010). In this context, workers are considered independent contractors rather than permanently hired labor. The organization of work thus gives many opportunities to people, which can manifest in a better organization of working time (Marchington et al., 2016). This job is most popular in the freelance, gig economy, and hospitality sectors.
However, due to deregulation, there are also problems in this area, such as a lack of benefits or pension benefits. Independent contractors must create suitable, comfortable conditions for themselves (Koukiadaki et al., 2016). Thus, this partially violates the essence of labor relations, which can destroy the social protection system. Employers operating in such a gray area of responsibility can use various reasons and loopholes to get around the responsibility assigned to them under the laws (Teague and Donaghey, 2018; Hyman, 2010). In addition, the power imbalance between workers and earning platforms can negatively affect contractors and customers.
The Implications of Classifying Workers
The classification of independent contractors in the United Kingdom can have various negative and positive consequences. 29% of such individuals are employed in the trade and repair of automobiles and motor vehicles (Colling, 2010). Agriculture and forestry, hunting, fishing, and fish breeding are the second most frequent occupations among unofficial workers, accounting for 16% (Martinez, 2015).
The transportation and storage business comes in third with 11% (Bingham, 2016). For most of them, this was their sole source of income; only 6% of individuals working in the insecure sector combined formal employment with part-time labor in the U.K. (Waddington, 2019). The Labor Code does not cover Citizens in precarious employment, making this job insecure.
Avoiding the Provision of Traditional Benefits
Many employers enjoy the special status of people who are hired as contractors. High company development expenses, high taxes, a lack of corporate jobs, and growing unemployment are among the drawbacks (Johnstone and Wilkinson, 2018). The provision of traditional benefits burdens them, and therefore, they go to specific detours to deprive workers of the promised benefits. Low salaries enable businesses to compensate for labor productivity losses and, as a result, foster the emergence of precarious work.
Furthermore, the amount and dynamics of technological advances in the United Kingdom impact worker productivity by 85% (Frege and Kelly, 2013). The potential for labor productivity development is equally constrained because technical innovation options in the precarious sector are restricted (Kelly, 2020). The imbalance in wage levels in the formal and precarious sectors of the economy and the general low wage level are the causes of the establishment and accumulation of significant population differentiation.
Technological Advances and Platform Capitalism
Facilitating the Growth of the Gig Economy
Digital platforms provide significant assistance in stimulating the growth of the gig economy. They act as intermediaries responsible for finding workers who can take on some short-term work. At the same time, they contact companies that leave their orders for a specific type of service. This system allows all parties to conclude agreements that are satisfactory to them. Thus, thanks to such companies’ constant emergence and operation, the gig economy is expanding significantly. Employment opportunities have become more democratic because people have more choices in the gig economy.
Moreover, digital platforms are critical as they can have benefits that positively impact the gig economy’s growth. First, this is the efficiency and convenience they provide to people in their search for employees and employers (Grimshaw and Rubery, 2010; Grimshaw and Rubery, 2012). The digital nature of these processes means that they occur much faster and can perform more operations.
In this way, it helps to find jobs for many people and place them in the most suitable places (Kaufman, 2010). It also shows the flexibility of digital platforms as an essential aspect that allows them to improve the gig economy by aligning the values and needs of workers with what they can get (Waddington et al., 2019). Independence is one of the main parameters people value when applying for a job. Digital platforms can translate this principle into people’s work by creating offers for them.
The Concept of Algorithmic Management
The concept of algorithmic management is that it regulates and uses management, assignment, monitoring, and task algorithms to assign workers to tasks. Algorithms help determine which employees can best fit specific tasks based on a rating system. In addition, rating data is also received from users, which allows one to understand the level of employees and how well they coped with the assigned work (Hyman, 2008). Such algorithmic management increases efficiency because it impacts the control of the rights of employees and their observance.
In some cases, worker control and rights can be reflected in employees’ loss of autonomy. This manifests itself depending on the decisions made with the help of algorithms that can make mistakes and arbitrarily distribute tasks (Heery, 2016). Thus, it reduces employees’ freedom and can put them in an uncomfortable position. In addition, the decision-making process is opaque since the algorithms are pretty tricky to understand. This, in turn, can lead to workers no longer fully trusting the system, leading them to frustration.
Platform Capitalism
Platform capitalism manifests itself in owning several platforms, the leading work resources, and the companies that work with them. This can hurt employees’ wages due to their large number and the need for solid competition. Thus, wages can be reduced to a minimum to hire all workers (Darlington, 2009). How much one will need to pay for the services of an employee is an important selection criterion, and accordingly, this variable may decrease.
Platform capitalism also hurts the schedule and can make it worse for the worker. The gig economy’s flexibility can become volatile due to fluctuating available tasks within platforms (Cullinane and Dundon, 2014). This also affects the limitation of labor rights since the contractor’s classification deprives the hired worker of many essential benefits and bonuses related to health care and pensions.
Precarity and Insecurity
The Characteristics of Precarious Work
Precarious work in the gig economy has specific characteristics that employees who would like to work in this field need to know. First, this provides for irregular income generated due to the sporadic nature of orders in systems. Wages can also depend on factors leading to worker inequality (Bingham, 2016). In addition, the lack of benefits is also a severe aspect integral to this work with a non-standard approach (Coderre-LaPalme and Greer, 2018). This exacerbates the problem of financial insecurity for workers, which is manifested in the fact that the work is precarious.
Inconsistency means, in this case, the lack of job security that people in other work areas could have. However, fully providing all employees with orders is not always possible in the gig economy. This results in uneven pay and a lack of ability to secure commitments, making future planning difficult (Budd and Bhave, 2008). The unpredictability of the schedule is another significant disadvantage that can have a big impact on how employees feel about work (Bacon, 2008). Lack of control over the schedule can make people frustrated and unable to devote themselves to work fully.
Financial Instability and Limited Social Protection
Financial instability and insufficient social protection are inherent characteristics of the job. This is primarily due to income volatility. The irregular nature of work means that income fluctuates, and workers may be unable to cover regular expenses (Friedman, 2019; Frege and Kelly, 2013). This reflects financial instability, a severe aspect that keeps people away from the type of employment discussed. Emergency planning can also be complex because people do not know the exact amount of their earnings.
The limited social protection that the employer must sponsor, combined with the previous problem, could mean that gig workers lack insurance options. Workers must take the initiative and take care of their pensions and other savings to secure a normal future for themselves (Dundon and Rollinson, 2011). Medical assistance can significantly deplete the worker’s supplies, and the client company cannot help them (Howell, 2020). Thus, gig workers are utterly unprotected in case of emergency when they may need help.
The Impact of Precarious Work on Access to Services
The non-standard nature of gig work contributes to the fact that it seriously affects the overall well-being of workers. Essential services may be less available to gig employees than regular jobs (Martinez Lucio, 2015). Thus, this has consequences for the medical protection of workers, which is not always fully available. This may further affect the general condition of employees and how they relate to the company (Marchington, 2015).
Limited social support can significantly impact how big company employees feel in society. This can manifest itself, for example, in a feeling of isolation or detachment. Moreover, the nature of remote work can further affect the social distance of workers.
The above factors can cause mental stress that will worsen workers’ performance. Moreover, it can contribute to the production of a lot of stress, which is a negative factor for gig companies (Mustchin and Martínez Lucio, 2020). A significant disadvantage of such work is the lack of career opportunities in other areas (Novitz, 2017). Completing specific tasks is paramount for workers in the gig economy. Thus, promotions or bonuses are not habitual aspects in such cases.
Legal and Policy Challenges
Practical and Legal Regulation of the Gig Economy
Effective regulation in the gig economy is possible through classifying independent contractors and observing traditional legal norms. Labor laws are designed to regulate the relationship between workers and the organizations that employ them (Waddington, 2019). In this case, gig platforms can be seen as employing organizations because they allow workers to receive orders and pay for them (Williams, 2020; Taylor, 2019). However, for digital companies and clients, employees are hired contractors who are central to this economic system. Thus, such a classification will allow the use of an indispensable framework to regulate the operation of the gig economy better.
The Employment Status of Gig Workers
Determining gig workers’ employment type is essential, as it determines what bonuses and social protections they can receive. Several factors accompany problems with determining the status of gig workers, the main of which can be called the Fluid nature of the work (Rubery, 2015). Flexibility and autonomy are both a big positive and a negative as it prevents a clear definition of gig workers in any category (Hyman, 1975). Another aspect that creates difficulty in determining the exact category of gig workers is their variety of tasks. Receipt of orders can be ranked by different areas depending on the client’s needs; thus, it does not allow the selection of a specification.
Control and independence also significantly affect how a gig worker is defined. In the system of standard companies, there is a clear hierarchy and distribution of responsibilities. The gig economy does not provide for such a structure since most people hired for this job can receive orders, execute them, and then transfer them to the client (Hyman and Gumbrell-McCormick, 2020). Such interaction does not imply superiors, which significantly reduces control. Because of this, gig workers can have hybrid roles, as many of them perform the tasks of other employees (Grimshaw et al., 2014). Thus, they can combine several jobs, further complicating the legal classification.
The Implications of Ambiguous Definitions
Unambiguous legal gaps can mean the risk of exploitation and instability. Thus, ambiguity on some digital platforms can be perceived by managers as permission for employees to overwork (Gooberman et al., 2018). By depriving people of benefits and social protection, work can directly violate human rights and the excessive work that a gig worker must do. Unfair treatment and ambiguity in legislation can result from uncertain status in gig work (Braverman, 1974). This may cause problems with regulators, as they will not be able to check digital platforms for the adequacy of their actions (Blyton and Turnbull, 2004). This situation can pose significant threats to workers because the ambiguous definitions of gig workers harm their ability to receive bonuses.
Power Imbalance and Collective Bargaining
Decentralized Nature of the Gig Economy
The decentralized structure of the gig economy can have a significant impact on collective bargaining. This creates particular problems, as labor rights are not fully considered when hiring gig workers to perform any tasks. Thus, collective bargaining cannot be accepted for communicating and discussing important issues (Farnham, 2015). Negotiations between employers and organized workers are the cornerstone, as there may be some demands. For example, employees can ask for an increase in wages or the introduction of a bonus system (Brown, 2010).
In the gig economy, however, such demands can be ignored because lack of space prevents all workers in a gig company from getting together to discuss their concerns. The lack of a unifying factor can significantly interfere with workers’ plans, as they cannot form their plans and strategies (Fagan and Rubery, 2018). Fluidity in such firms is also a constant problem as they fail to organize the means of retention properly. In addition, this is because there is no progression of career opportunities in gig companies.
Challenges Faced by Traditional Labor Unions
Traditional trade unions and organizations that protect freelancers may face obstacles in their activities. One of them is the legal classification, the lack of a clear understanding of which complicates the process of helping and defending the interests of gig workers (Colling, 2010). In addition, the resistance of large online platforms may also affect the fact that trade unions cannot provide sufficient assistance (Deakin et al., 2015; Crouch, 2010). Collective bargaining could eliminate their flexible work model, jeopardizing financial viability.
Alternative Models of Collective Representation
Among the alternative methods of collective representation, one can single out platform cooperatives that embody complete obedience to hired workers. In this case, everyone collectively manages the platform by sharing the profits from its activities (Colling and Terry, 2010). This opens up opportunities for employees to negotiate the best terms they need. Hybrid models can also serve as a way out, combining the traditional aspects of trade unions and digital forms of advocacy (Buckley, 2015; Arrowsmith, 2010). Industry group negotiations can be made possible by finding an average for employee freedom and having the company control all decisions.
Conclusion
This paper looked at the complex relationship dynamics in the context of precarious employment, which has both positive and negative sides. They have a significant impact on the workers themselves and the entire gig economy. The characteristics of precarious work make it possible to consider it in the context of one that is contrary to the standard labor code. This creates difficulties with trade unions and the protection of workers’ rights since they do not formally belong to any work area.
The identified vulnerabilities in the gig economy require urgent policy interventions. Government, digital platforms, and unions must work together to provide people with the most comfortable working conditions. Thus, creating strategies that would improve social dynamics and, more significantly, social security is of imperative importance. Transferable perks, for example, could be a potential solution to the problem, as they would help introduce collective submission mechanisms.
The rise in precarious work suggests that many people view regular work with a skepticism that is justified. However, there are drawbacks to the gig economy that can affect people’s choices. The consequences of precarious work manifest when people begin to agree to work on the terms of the employer, whatever they may be. This is a detrimental trend, as precarious work will not retain employees long.
Reference List
Arrowsmith, J. (2010) ‘Industrial relations in the private sector.’ In Colling, T. and Terry, M. (eds.) Industrial relations: Theory and practice. 3rd edition. Wiley.
Bacon, N. (2008) ‘Management strategy and industrial relations.’ in Blyton, P., Bacon, N., Fiorito, J. and Heery, E. (eds.) The Sage handbook of industrial relations. London: Sage.
Bingham, C. (2016) Employment relations: Fairness and trust in the workplace. London: Sage.
Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (2004) The dynamics of employee relations. 3rd edition. MacMillan.
Braverman, H. (1974) Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. Monthly Review Press.
Brown, W. (2010) ‘Negotiation and collective bargaining.’ In Colling, T. and Terry, M. (eds.) Industrial relations: Theory & practice in Britain. 3rd edition. Wiley.
Buckley, S. (2015) ‘The state, the police and the judiciary in the miners’ strike: Observations and discussions, thirty years on.’ Capital and Class, 39(3), 419–434.
Budd, J. W. and Bhave, D. (2008). ‘Values, ideologies, and frames of reference in industrial relations.’ In Blyton, P., Bacon, N., Fiorito, J. and Heery, E. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations. London: Sage, 92-112.
Coderre-LaPalme, G. and Greer, I. (2018). ‘Dependence on a hostile state: UK trade unions before and after Brexit’. In Lehndorff, S., Dribbusch, H., & Schulten, T. (Eds.). (2018). Rough waters: European trade unions in a time of crises. European Trade Union Institute.
Colling, T. and Terry, M. (2010) ‘Work, the employment relationship and the field of industrial relations.’ In Colling, T. and Terry, M. (eds.) Industrial relations: theory and practice. 3rd edition. Wiley.
Colling, T. (2010) ‘Legal institutions and the regulation of workplaces.’ In Colling, T. and Terry, M. (eds.) Industrial relations: Theory and practice. 3rd edition. Wiley.
Crouch, C. (2010) ‘British industrial relations: Between security and flexibility.’ In Colling, T. and Terry, M. (eds.) Industrial relations: theory and practice. 3rd edition. Wiley.
Cullinane, N. and Dundon, T. (2014) ‘Unitarism and employer resistance to trade unionism’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(18), 2573-2590.
Darlington, R./ BUIRA (ed.) (2009) What’s the point of industrial relations? British Universities Industrial Relations Association (BUIRA). ISBN 9780954796112.
Deakin, S., Fraser Butlin, S., McLaughlin, C., & Polanska, A. (2015). Are litigation and collective bargaining complements or substitutes for achieving gender equality? A study of the British Equal Pay Act. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 39(2), 381-403.
Dundon, T. and Rollinson, D. (2011) Understanding employment relations. McGraw-Hill.
Fagan, C. and Rubery, J. (2018). Advancing gender equality through European employment policy: The impact of the UK’s EU membership and the risks of Brexit. Social Policy and Society, 17(2), 297-317.
Farnham, D. (2015) The changing faces of employment relations: Global, comparative and theoretical perspectives. Palgrave.
Frege, C. and Kelly, J. (2013) ‘Theoretical perspectives on comparative employment relations.’ In Frege, C. and Kelly, J. (eds.) Comparative employment relations in the global economy. 1st edition. Routledge.
Friedman, G. (2019) ‘Employers and their representatives: discretion, power, markets and managers in the transformation of twenty-first-century work.’ In Gall, G. (ed.) Handbook of the politics of labour, work and employment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Gooberman, L., Hauptmeier, M., & Heery, E. (2018). ‘Contemporary employer interest representation in the United Kingdom.’ Work, Employment and Society, 32(1), 114-132.
Grimshaw, D., Bosch, G. and Rubery, J. (2014) ‘Minimum wages and collective bargaining: What types of pay bargaining can foster positive pay equity outcomes?’ British Journal of Industrial Relations, 52, 470–498.
Grimshaw, D. and Rubery, J. (2012). ‘The end of the UK’s liberal collectivist social model? The implications of the coalition government’s policy during the austerity crisis.’ Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36 (1), 105-126.
Grimshaw, D. and Rubery, J. (2010) ‘Pay and working time: Shifting contours of the employment relationship.’ In Colling, T and Terry, M (eds). Industrial relations: Theory & practice in Britain. 3rd Edition. Wiley.
Heery, E. (2016). British industrial relations pluralism in the era of neoliberalism. Journal of Industrial Relations, 58(1), 3-24.
Howell, C. (2020). Rethinking the role of the state in employment relations for a neoliberal era. ILR Review.
Hyman, R. and Gumbrell-McCormick, C. (2020) ‘Collective representation at work: Institutions and dynamics.’ In Frege, C. and Kelly, J. (eds.) Comparative employment relations in the global economy. 2nd edition. Routledge.
Hyman, R. (2010) ‘British industrial relations: The European dimension.’ In Colling, T. and Terry, M. (eds.) Industrial relations: Theory and practice. 3rd edition. Wiley.
Hyman, R. (2008) ‘The state in industrial relations.’ in Blyton, P., Bacon, N., Fiorito, J. and Heery, E. (eds.) The Sage handbook of Industrial Relations. London: Sage.
Hyman, R. (1975) Marxism and the sociology of trade unionism. Pluto Press.
Johnstone, S. and Wilkinson, A. (2018). ‘The potential of labor − management partnership: A longitudinal case analysis.’ British Journal of Management, 29(3), 554-570.
Kaufman, B. E. (2010). The theoretical foundation of industrial relations and its implications for labor economics and human resource management. ILR Review, 64(1), 74-108.
Kelly, J. (2020) ‘The United Kingdom.’ In Frege, C. and Kelly, J. (eds.) Comparative employment relations in the global economy. 2nd edition. Routledge
Koukiadaki, A., Távora, I. and Lucio, M. M. (Eds.). (2016). Joint regulation and labor market policy in Europe during the crisis. Brussels: European Trade Union Institute (ETUI).
Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A., Donnelly, R., and Kynighou, A. (2016). Human resource management at work. London: Kogan Page Publishers.
Marchington, M. (2015) ‘Human resource management (HRM): Too busy looking up to see where it is going longer term?’ Human Resource Management Review, 25(2), 176-187.
Marginson, P. (2015). The changing nature of collective employment relations. Employee Relations, 37(6), 645-657.
Martinez Lucio, M. (2015). ‘Beyond consensus: The state and industrial relations in the United Kingdom from 1964 to 2014.’ Employee Relations, 37(6), 692.
Meardi, G. (2018). Economic integration and state responses: Change in European industrial relations since Maastricht. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 56(3), 631-655.
Mustchin, S. and Martínez Lucio, M. (2020). ‘The evolving nature of labour inspection, enforcement of employment rights and the regulatory reach of the state in Britain.’ Journal of Industrial Relations.
Novitz, T. (2017) Collective bargaining, equality and migration: The journey to and from Brexit, Industrial Law Journal, 46(1), 109–133.
Rubery, J. (2015). Change at work: Feminization, flexibilization, fragmentation and financialization. Employee Relations, 37(6), 633.
Sisson, K. and Purcell, J. (2010) ‘Management: Caught between conflicting views of the organization.’ In Colling, T. and Terry, M. (eds.) Industrial relations: Theory and practice. 3rd edition. Wiley.
Taylor, P. (2019). A band aid on a gaping wound: Taylor and modern working practices. New Technology, Work and Employment, 34(2), 100-105.
Teague, P. and Donaghey, J. (2018). Brexit: EU social policy and the UK employment model. Industrial Relations Journal, 49(5-6), 512-533.
Waddington, J, Müller, T. and Vandaele, K. (2019) ‘Setting the scene: Collective bargaining under neoliberalism’ In Müller, T., Vandaele, K., & Waddington, J. (eds.) Collective bargaining in Europe: Towards an endgame. Brussels: ETUI.
Waddington, J. (2019) ‘The United Kingdom: A long-term assault on collective bargaining.’ In Müller, T., Vandaele, K., & Waddington, J. (eds.) Collective bargaining in Europe: Towards an endgame. Brussels: ETUI.
Williams, S. (2020) Introducing employment relations: A critical approach. Oxford University Press.