Task 16

App-Enabled On-Demand Workers Are Not Robots Here’s the sharing economy business model. Set up a smart device app that matches people needing rides with freelance drivers willing to provide them—think Uber or Lyft. Take a fee for the matchup, monitor and post driver quality and customer satisfaction scores, and keep the technology up to date. Nice! This ride sharing example is just one of many avenues of on-demand work fast appearing on the employment scene. But what’s it like to be one of the app-enabled workers? The opportunity for income with job flexibility is attractive to many—work when you want, as long as want, as oft en as you want. But, what rights do “on-demand workers” have? If a ride sharing company sets pay schedules, requires certain attire and behaviors, and can fire at will, are the drivers true “employees”? Current U.S. labor laws off er two classifications of workers— traditional and independent contractors. Traditional workers are off icial employees and have legal protections in respect to minimum wage, antidiscrimination, union membership, and more. Independent contractors lack these protections, and it’s mainly a net gain for employers who don’t have to deal with legal obligations and off er costly benefits. Federal courts are now hearing lawsuits filed by on-demand workers seeking more employment rights. One plaintiff says: “We are not robots; we are not a remote control; we are individuals.” How About It? Are you comfortable with Uber’s business model? What are the social responsibilities of organizations that hire on-demand workers? Is it enough to offer income opportunity with work flexibility, or should more be on the table as part of the employer employee contract? Are the sharing economy and the app-enabled workforce good for human sustainability?