A gig economy is no excuse to go back to the past
优步司机是不是“雇员”？
广州汽车翻译公司：奥康纳：优步司机看起来是在为自己工作，但优步也对司机施加很多控制。他们是否应该享受最低工资和假日薪水？
Love it or hate it, the one aspect of the “gig economy” that most people agree on is its newness. No discussion about the future of work is complete without someone contrasting the old world of traditional employee jobs with the new world of workers without employers, piecing an income together from a series of “gigs” or tasks. Perhaps some copywriting in the so-called human cloud in the morning; a few hours making jewellery to sell on Etsy in the afternoon; a spot of Uber driving in the evening.
不管喜欢还是厌恶，有关“零工经济”，大多数人都认同一点：这是一个新生事物。如果没有人比较一下传统雇员的旧世界和没有雇主、依靠一系列“零工”或者任务获得零碎收入的劳动者的新世界，任何关于工作的未来的讨论都是不全面的。一个新劳动者的零工可能是这样安排的：在早上通过所谓的“人才云”进行一些文案撰写；在下午花几个小时制作首饰并在Etsy上售卖；在晚上当一会儿优步(Uber)司机。广州汽车翻译公司。
We forget history. Go back to the 18th century and you would find a place like London was one big gig economy. Few people had jobs as we know them now; most were hired intermittently and were paid by the “piece” or task. There was an eclectic mix of payment arrangements depending on the nature of the work. The carpenters who maintained the timber starlings on London Bridge were paid per tide, according to Judy Stephenson, an economic historian. Even workers in prestigious institutions such as Westminster Abbey had to submit invoices for their services. The abbey’s scullion, the most menial worker in the kitchen, submitted a bill in 1703 for sweeping the chimney and weeding the yard. She waited six months to be paid.
我们忘记了历史。回到18世纪，你会发现像伦敦这样的地方就存在大规模的零工经济。当时很少有人拥有我们今天所知的工作；大多数人时断时续地被雇佣，按“件”或者按任务得到报酬。根据工作性质的不同，支付报酬的方式也各式各样。比如，根据经济史学家朱迪•斯蒂芬森(Judy Stephenson)的说法，负责维护伦敦桥桥墩木质分水桩的木匠按潮汐领取报酬。哪怕是为像西敏寺这样的著名机构工作的工人，也必须提交劳务费用清单。一位大教堂的厨房帮工（厨房里地位最低微的工人）在1703年提交了一份劳务账单，内容是打扫烟囱和给庭院除草。她等待了6个月才拿到报酬。
Are we looping back on ourselves? We are certainly not there yet. According to estimates of the size of the gig economy by the McKinsey Global Institute, 70 to 80 per cent of people in the US and Europe have nothing to do with it. What is more, 70 per cent of the people working independently are doing it because they like it.
那么，我们是否倒退到了过去？当然还没到那个地步。根据麦肯锡全球研究所(McKinsey Global Institute)估计的零工经济规模，美国和欧洲70%到80%的人都没有涉足零工经济。此外，在独立工作的人当中，70%的人是因为喜欢才选择这种工作方式。广州汽车翻译公司。
Still, that leaves a substantial 30 per cent who are “gigging” as a last resort. It is this group that policymakers, including UK prime minister Theresa May, are most worried about. She has ordered a review into workers’ rights to make sure those in the gig economy benefit from “flexibility and innovation” and do not fall through the cracks into an 18th-century world.
然而，这意味着当中还有30%的人把打零工当做最后的出路。政策制定者们，包括英国首相特里萨•梅(Theresa May)，最担忧的也是这个群体。她已指示对劳动者权利进行调查，以确保这些处于零工经济中的人受益于“灵活性和创新性”，同时不会从裂缝中掉入18世纪的零工经济世界。
The courts may pre-empt her. This week, a panel of three men will meet in London to decide the outcome of an employment tribunal case between Uber and the GMB union. The GMB alleges that Uber’s 30,000 London drivers are not “independent contractors” but “workers” owed the minimum wage, sick pay and holiday pay.
法院或许会在梅之前采取行动。一个由3名法官组成的审判小组正在审理优步和GMB工会之间的一起劳动仲裁案件。GMB称，伦敦的3万名优步司机不是“独立承包人”，而是理应享受最低工资、病假工资和假日薪水等福利的“员工”。
It is a genuine grey area. In some ways, Uber’s drivers do seem to work for themselves. They have freedom to decide whether to log on to the app and do some work. But in other ways, Uber exerts a lot of control. It does not tell the drivers where the customers want to go until they pick them up. It sets the fee. And it can “deactivate” drivers whose customer ratings drop too low (though Uber insists it does this only rarely).
这是一个真正的灰色地带。在某些方面，优步司机看起来的确是在为自己工作。他们可以决定是否要登录优步app接单工作。但在另外一些方面，优步施加了很多控制。优步不会在司机接到乘客之前告诉他们乘客的目的地。优步设定了车费。而且优步可以在司机的客户评分降至过低的时候“停用”司机（尽管优步坚称这种情况非常少）。广州汽车翻译公司。
If the tribunal panel finds for the GMB, it could broaden the legal definition of who counts as a worker in the UK — emboldening similar claimants in other countries, while making many in Britain’s gig economy eligible for more rights and protections. Yet Uber insists most of its drivers do not want this. It has polled 1,000 of them and found 76 per cent would rather give up these rights to maintain their flexibility to work when they want, while 16 per cent would prefer the opposite deal.
如果审判小组做出有利于GMB的判决，这可能扩大英国有关“员工”的法律定义——这会让其他国家的类似原告更有信心，同时让许多身处英国零工经济中的人有资格获得更多权利和保护。然而，优步坚称大多数优步司机不想要这样。优步对1000名优步司机进行了调查，发现76%的人宁可放弃这些权利，以获得在想工作的时候工作的灵活性，而16%的人则相反。
One answer could be for gig economy companies to let workers choose between arrangements: one where they exert control over how the person works in exchange for some protection, and the other where the person has more freedom but shoulders more risk. A hybrid workforce should still be nimble enough to meet consumer demands. The key is to stop companies from having the power of an employer but none of the responsibility.
一个解决方法是，零工经济企业可以让工人在不同的安排之间进行选择：一种是个人接受企业对个人的工作方式施加的控制，从而换取一些保护；另一种是个人拥有更多自由，但也承担更多风险。混合两种安排的劳动者应该依然会足够灵活，能够满足消费者的需求。关键是阻止一种情况出现：企业拥有雇主的权力，却丝毫不承担雇主的责任。
The waters are muddy but judges and policymakers are right to wade in. Better that than to sleepwalk into a “future of work” that looks a lot like the past.
现在这个领域还是一汪浑水，但法官和政策制定者选择涉入是正确的。这比迷迷糊糊地踏入看起来和过去很像的“工作的未来”要好。
