We've long found in our research that having work flexibility, autonomy and control are key reasons people become and like being independent workers (freelancers, contractors, self-employed, etc.).
But there's been much debate around whether or not companies - and particularly the online platform marketplaces like Uber and Lyft - could shift their workers to traditional employment and still provide the same levels of work flexibility.
Thanks to a recent California Supreme Court ruling and a new law for cannabis delivery companies, we're starting to see some companies shift their workers from independent contractors to traditional employees.
And we're starting to see how independent workers react to the shift.
The Sacramento Bee's Bottle & Barlow barbers quit over state high court’s ruling on independent contractors covers a barber shop that switched its contract workers to traditional employees.
All the contractors quit rather than become employees.
Key quote from the shop owner:
"Many hairstylists get into the trade for its flexible hours and opportunity for entrepreneurship, leaving the prospect of being an employee with set work times and withheld taxes unappealing, Giannotti said."
Another example comes from The Atlantic article What Happens When Gig-Economy Workers Become Employees. It covers the impact of a new California law requiring all cannabis deliver drivers be traditional employees.
In the case of one company, about half their drivers quit over the shift. Key quote:
"Workers are split on whether they like the changes. Sky Siegel, the general manager for the Perennial Holistic Center in Los Angeles, said about half of his drivers preferred being independent contractors, and quit before the change went into effect so they could find other gig jobs."
Both articles highlight the decline in flexibility associated with traditional employment as a reason many of the gig workers quit rather than become traditional employees.
So why don't firms offer traditional employees the same level of flexibility they can offer contractor workers?
The quick answer is labor laws, which provide protections to employees that gig workers don't get. But they also require monitoring and management of workers.
Examples of these include providing health benefits if a worker works more than 30 hours a week, overtime pay for more than 40 hours a week and minimum wage requirements. There are many, many more examples (with legal liability issues being a big one).
To insure companies are complying with all the laws and rules (and can do so profitably), companies schedule their workers. This, of course, greatly reduces worker flexibility.
In addition to legal compliance there's also a practical matter. Simply put, managers see their jobs as managing their employees.
And as anyone who has had a boss knows, they reduce your work autonomy, control and flexibility.
We spend a lot of time looking at the differences, advantages and disadvantages between traditional jobs and independent work - and how people decide which they want.
For those seeking high levels of work autonomy, control and flexibility independent work is the clear winner.
But as we've pointed out many times, in exchange independent workers face income volatility, a lack of benefits and labor protections and greater overall risk.
We think companies can provide more flexibility than they currently do. But we also think they are unable both legally and culturally to provide the same level as independent work does.
Comments