In 2016, on-demand companies whose businesses depend on the independent contractor model—letting workers choose their own hours and, at least on the face of it, act as their own boss—will start to feel the pressure from the public to treat their on-demand workers as real employees. And they'll act.
Over the past year, apps that offer everything from grocery delivery to getting a ride, have surged in popularity and reach. That’s also created a vast pool of cheap and flexible labor—a new Internet-powered workforce. But critics have decried the lack of worker protections and point out that it spares these companies a host of costs, from Social Security to workers’ compensation. Some workers themselves find that they don’t end up enjoying the flexible hours or wages they’ve been led to expect. But under federal law, they can’t unionize to improve their situation.
Still, this prized business model is increasingly under threat. In California, two landmark lawsuits against ride-hailing services Uber and Lyft will likely go to jury trial. (The suit against Uber, which is further along, has already been granted class-action status.) A slew of complaints against other on-demand companies may also see their day in court. Seattle lawmakers voted unanimously to pass legislation that will let the city’s for-hire drivers organize, regardless of how they’re classified. And a forthcoming bill in California may lead the country' most populous state to follow in Seattle’s footsteps, not just for drivers but for workers on other gig-economy platforms, regardless of the specific task.
Employers like Uber will likely challenge the bills' legality, which means the laws may not take effect for a while. But their passage suggests that the political will exists to create protections for workers in the 1099 economy, which has already emerged as a key issue in the 2016 presidential campaign. Congress will no doubt do nothing. But increasingly, cities and states will take up the fight.
“I think [these efforts are] hugely significant,” Rebecca Smith, deputy director at the National Employment Law Project in Seattle, tells WIRED. “At a time when collective bargaining has become less available to workers in this country, [the bills are] making collective bargaining more available, and available to workers who are perhaps among those who need it most.”
But whatever their workers' legal status, on-demand companies will see the direction of the political winds. They'll decide that the goodwill gained from extending broader protections to their workers voluntarily will outweigh the extra cost. The on-demand labor force in many ways looks like the future of work. But much as the industrial revolution fostered new protections after the nature of labor changed, the forces behind the on-demand economy will find that the way forward will mean abandoning the old distinctions between freelancer and full-time.
