When Your Boss Is An Algorithm (ft.com)

Slashdot reader Presto Vivace shares an article on FT.com about "workers without a workplace, striking against a company that does not employ them...managed not by people but by an algorithm that communicates with them via their smartphones." And what they are rebelling against is an app update... They might be free to choose when to work but not how to work or, crucially, how much they are paid... Some gig-economy workers and unions are bringing this question to court. They argue that these companies' algorithms exert so much control over workers that they are really employees in the eyes of the law and thus owed hourly minimum wages, sick pay, holiday pay and the like.
The article offers a detailed look at historical precedents for today's strict "service level assessments," noting that for the companies, "algorithmic management solves a problem: how to instruct, track and evaluate a crowd of casual workers you do not employ, so they deliver a responsive, seamless, standardized service." But for workers in the gig economy -- 800,000 in the U.S. alone -- the question becomes whether reporting to an algorithm in an app is liberating -- or exploitative?

Comments

Re:I think it's fair

[careysub]

Absolutely. And companies like Uber are recruiting real live people to devote their actual working lives and resources to supporting the company's profit-making business, with specific promises of the terms of work and pay. Then changing them (always in the negative direction) without warning, or appeal.

This is why company's everywhere need regulation. Crazy abuse of workers for profit will happen unless standards are imposed and enforced, otherwise it is always a race to the bottom. Uber sounds like it is turning into a sweatshop on the street.

Re: I think it's fair

[BarbaraHudson]

When the company using them exercises as much control as to how the contractor does the job ad they would over an employee, the "independent" of "independent contractor" is missing.

Re:it's pretty simple

[PRMan]

Somebody needs to read the history that started the unions to begin with. People couldn't afford to live even WITH a job, moron.

The counter argument to that

[rsilvergun]

is that in the absence of regulation free enterprise would drive down costs and result in better services without oppressive government rules and the risk of fascist dictatorships rising up out of the enormous power structures necessitated by widespread regulation.

Now, I could write two or three paragraphs debunking the above, but they would be dry and make people feel down. Deregulation is a nice, simple solution to a complex problem. Like most simple solutions to complex problems it causes more problems, but simple solutions feel great, make great sound bites and are easy to market.

It's the difference between Hilary boring everyone to tears saying she's gonna sweat the details on Donald Trump's wall. They're both solutions to our economic problems, but the latter is simpler, bolder and just feels better (as long as you don't think too much about it).

If anyone knows a way to make the hard work of solving complex problems marketable let me know.

Corporate Boards are a HUUUGE problem

[bussdriver]

Corporate law has changed over time and not for the better. Corporations are defined by law; therefore they exist by regulation which owes all it's force to the power of governments (external governments included.)

The corporate board used to not be easily stacked with friends of the CEO... and that was historically the case. Also, it was less likely that a small population of buddies were on boards of each other's corporation in the past, which is a huge conflict of interest. Changing that would be new; however, modern times created a problem which needs to be addressed. People forget the problems of government power/corruption are human organization problems which exist in every organization.

Some nations such as Germany require by corporate law that boards have a significant portion of the board be WORKERS or their union. This makes so much sense it is hard to understand why it isn't mentioned in the USA.

The intended purpose of a corporation is to provide gainful employment; however, legally we define it as solely looking out for the share holders. That can be altered; in the past, there was a moral aspect in society which to some degree infected management. Ethics essentially has been removed from the culture and what remains is removed in MBA school.

The balance of powers within government systems has to be extended to everything within their grasp otherwise the loopholes will allow for the creation of monsters beyond the power of the system and will corrupt and hijack the government which defines/regulates them. It's like an unchecked disease becoming an epidemic and then killing off everybody at the CDC. That is where we are today...

Re: I think it's fair

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, their regular job doesn't pay a living wage, and neither does Uber or they would quit their regular job and do Uber full time. The "gig economy" is a symptom, not a solution, for the rising numbers of the precariate - people who are living with a precarious job because the benefits of the rising economy don't float all boats.