Collective action and provider classification in the sharing economy

Abstract

Conditions in the sharing economy are often favourably designed for consumers and platforms but entail new challenges for the labour side, such as substandard socialsecurity and rigid forms of algorithmic management. Since comparatively little is known about how providers in the sharing economy make their voices heard collectively, we investigate their opinions and behaviours regarding collective action and perceived solidarities. Using cluster analysis on representative data from across 12 European countries, we determine five distinct types of labour-activists, ranging from those opposed to any forms of collective action to those enthusiastic to organise and correct perceived wrongs. We conclude by conjecturing that the still-ongoing influx of new providers, the difficulty of organising in purely virtual settings, combined with the narrative of voluntariness of participation and hedonic gratifications might be responsible for the inaction of large parts of the provider base in collectivist activities.

Sceptics or supporters? Consumers’ views of work in the gig economy

“…This performative dimension of the work potentially introduces a layer of inauthenticity that obscures consumers’ view of the full spectrum of workers’ experiences and may confound an empathetic response. Subsequent research should broach this conundrum, by collecting data across a wider range of attitudes, including whether consumers believe that gig workers can freely express their ‘voice’ while doing work on platforms (Johnston and Land‐Kazlauskas, ; Newlands et al , ). It is also worth reiterating here that our study focuses only on the face‐to‐face, locally delivered portion of the gig economy.…”

“…Initiatives to improve gig work conditions have so far been largely driven by workers. Their efforts have taken varying forms, consistent with evidence that they do not necessarily share a single work identity or the same level of commitment to collectivism (Newlands et al, 2018). At a basic level, gig workers practise 'mutual aid' (Nissen and Jarley, 2005), by exchanging informal knowledge about work experiences and fostering communal bonds that may lead to further expressions of solidarity.…”

Digital inequalities in the age of artificial intelligence and big data

“…Digital inequalities research has been slow in investigating the emerging digital economy (Schor, Fitzmaurice, Carfagna, Attwood‐Charles, & Poteat, , for a good counter‐example). What we know today about participation in the digital economy is that emerging forms of digital (e.g., Upwork, Amazon Mechincal Turk) or digitally mediated (e.g., Uber, TaskRabbit) work come with new challenges, for example in terms of surveillance and control (Rosenblat & Stark, ; Wood, Graham, Lehdonvirta, & Hjorth, ) as well as collective action (Newlands, Lutz, & Fieseler, ; Wood, Lehdonvirta, & Graham, ). However, how these challenges connect to structural inequalities—for example whether economically advantaged workers are better able to avoid algorithmic control and organize collectively—remains an open question that digital inequalities research should set out to answer.…”

Negotiating the Digital Transformation of Work: Non-Standard Workers’ Voice, Collective Rights and Mobilisation Practices in the Platform Economy

“…To begin with, the structure of trade unions and nature of collective bargaining agreements reflect a particular system and historical context (Hayter, 2015). The "iconic" model (Newlands et al, 2018) "was based on the unities of place and work (work performed on the premises of the firm), of time and work (work carried out in a single temporal sequence), and of action and work (a single occupational activity)" (Veneziani, 2009). On the contrary, today, new decentralised formats somehow incompatible with the paradigm of industrial democracy are the norm (Kahn-Freund, 1977).…”

“…To some extent, platform work and logged-in jobs set back the clock for organised labor to the second half of the 19 th century (Terranova, 2014). Understandably, organisations involving strong command-and-control and attenuated protective obligations may trigger or accelerate the rise of new attempts of collective voice and labour militancy (Rogers, 2016;Newlands, 2018). 37 In addition to this, it has been claimed that, as labour markets have reacquired characteristics that were prevalent in the industrial system (De Stefano and Aloisi, forthcoming), the union movement should engage to improve job quality and to give workers more of a say (Stone, 2017), by "return[ing] to forms of organization that were effective at that time" (Heery, 2009).…”