Global Equities

The gig economy faces a crackdown

Policymakers are cooling to a business model that lowers wages and skirts regulations.

The gig economy faces a crackdown

December 2019

In 2004, Dynamex Operations West, a California-based courier company, suddenly reclassified its permanent full-time employees as independent contractors, depriving them of entitlements such as minimum wages, overtime, paid sick days and workers compensation. The reclassified drivers had to use their own vehicles and pay for all expenses including petrol, tolls and insurance to earn a contracted delivery fee that amounted to a wage cut.

Two drivers fought back. A putative class action began in 2005 that last year prompted California’s supreme court to make it harder to classify workers as independent contractors. To categorise staff as such, a company must show a person is “free from (its) control”, works “outside” its core operations and has an “independently established trade, occupation or business”.[1] In September, the Democrat-controlled government of California wrote these tests into law under Assembly Bill 5.

AB5, as it is known, which exempts many types of independent contractors, is of significance because a dispute within a traditional business is serving as a means to attack the employment model of the ‘gig economy’ companies that didn’t exist when the Dynamex dispute began.[2] These are the online labour marketplaces pioneered by ‘ride hailer’ Uber Technologies that match people to short-term jobs, or ‘gigs’.

Due to companies such as TaskRabbit (like Airtasker in Australia) that auctions handymen, that hires out creative talent and Uber and Lyft that sell rides via app, about 6.9% of the US workforce is now classed as independent contractors[3] – many of whom are gig workers – while about 7% of Australian workers find gigs through digital platforms.[4]

To admirers, the giganomics labour model lets people operate remotely, set flexible hours, work for multiple employers and promote their services via ratings. Many gig workers are no doubt happy with their earnings and conditions and the broader opportunities they have to find work. But to critics, the gig model is a form of ‘feudalism’, a ‘poverty trap’ that weakens worker rights and conditions and undercuts wages, thus further tilts the labour market in capital’s favour. Another criticism is that the gig labour model allows platforms to skirt regulatory controls when they move beyond the tech industry – think how app-based companies have upset transportation by bypassing regulations.

For all its happy customers and no doubt many willing and well-paid workers, giganomics is vulnerable politically because it comes with five social costs. The first is that giganomics can harm established competitors in non-tech industries that are bound by regulations that gig companies can ignore. The second is the gig economy can hurt government finances through lost taxes (especially payroll taxes) and higher welfare payments to struggling gig workers – California estimates the cost to be US$7 billion a year.[5] Third, the spread of gigging is blamed for reducing worker income and making it more insecure. Stemming from that are the fourth and fifth costs; lower and less-stable income weakens the consumption that drives economies and deepens the inequality centred on stagnant wages and record profits that is roiling politics across the developed world.

These drawbacks are prompting a regulatory and worker-based backlash against the gig economy that might only be getting started. More US states are preparing laws similar to AB5 and California and other states are looking at ways to help independent contractors unionise and bargain collectively. The result could be some solution whereby gig workers are afforded better pay and some protections while keeping their flexibility. At the same time, the scrutiny of the gig economy could broaden into a push back against contracting and outsourcing more generally to ensure the rising number of workers who lack permanent full-time employment status enjoy a fairer and more secure share of today’s riches.

To be sure, the gig labour market is here to stay – Australia has an estimated 100 platforms offering work and that number will no doubt grow. In some ways, it’s unfair that gig companies such as the ride hailers are targets because they are fixing flaws in regulated markets (such as the lack of taxis at peak times due to licence restrictions). Efforts to tame the model could flounder. In the US, a key federal body recently ruled that gig workers are independent contractors who can’t unionise,[6] which means the legislative fight against the gig economy must be at state level – and the push against gigging is largely restricted to states where the Democrats are in power. Car-booking companies could succeed in overturning California’s law (even though they say it doesn’t apply to them because they are tech platforms where people auction rides, not taxi companies) because it could boost their labour bills by 30%.[7] AB5 is being questioned by many independent contractors who don’t want to be covered by the law.[8] A jump in jobless rates would impede efforts to help workers. No sure-fire proof exists that gigging has suppressed wages share in output, or even that app-based companies have increased the percentage of independent contractors in the US workforce.[9]

But the zeitgeist focused on inequality says otherwise. Giganomics is disruptive enough to promote a counterattack, especially when many allege that gigging tilts the labour market further against workers at a time when profits are at record levels.

Evasive model

Bill Phillips (1914-1970) was a New Zealander who in 1958 came across more than a century’s worth of data on UK unemployment rates and wages growth that allowed him to test his hunch that economic growth influences inflation.[10] The result of his “wet weekend’s work”[11] was a plotted relationship that formed the first half of a U that showed an inverse relationship between unemployment and wages growth.[12]

What subsequent economists referred to as the Phillips Curve proved a useful framework because it displays the short-term trade-off between economic growth and inflation that policymakers must make. Until now, it seems.

The analysis appears redundant because in many countries wages growth is low even at full employment. Wages growth in the US, for instance, has stayed mostly below a 3% annual pace even though the US jobless rate has fallen from 10% in 2009 to a 50-year low of 3.5% this year.

Wages growth is contained these days largely because politics tilted right during the past four decades, to exacerbate capitalism’s natural bias to reward capital over labour. Backed by government, businesses fought unions and forced workers onto individual contracts. Temporary and contract work rose as a result as did unpaid overtime. Over time, labour’s share of GDP fell to 43% of output in 2017 from a post-World War II peak of 52% in 1969. (Labour’s record low share of GDP was 42% in 2011.)[13]

Critics of the gig model say tech platforms exacerbated wage-lowering practices. A US study in 2018 found Uber drivers only earn an income of U$9.21 an hour after costs,[14] below California’s minimum wage of US$12 an hour for a company of Uber’s size (26 employees or more)[15] – other studies show many gig workers on similar low pay.[16]

In an age of growing angst about inequality centres on low wages growth, the gig economy is likely to attract more scrutiny. In the US, Congress is examining ‘transportation network companies’[17] and states beyond California are looking at the gig economy model more generally.[18] Illinois, New York, Oregon and Washington states have indicated they might introduce AB5-like laws while Democratic presidential candidates have promised to do this at a federal level. California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom is marshalling to help independent contractors unionise, bargain collectively, earn more and have more say over conditions to overturn “the hollowing out of our middle class that has been 40 years in the making”.[19] There’s political gain in such steps. San Francisco voters, in a 68%-to-32% result, in November approved a congestion tax on shared rides.[20] In Europe, to empower gig workers, the EU is thinking of changing competition laws that prevent the self-employed from collectively setting prices.[21]

 If momentum against the gig economy were to build, flexible labour practices might be introduced to protect gig workers that would diffuse the labour model’s controversial aspects. At the same time, the campaign could broaden into a fight against the casualisation of the workforce beyond app-land, to reverse what companies such as Dynamex have done over recent decades.[22]

By Michael Collins, Investment Specialist

[1] The Supreme Court of California. ‘Dynamex Operations West, Inc petitioner v The Superior Court of Los Angeles Country Respondent; Charles Lee et al, real parties in interest.’ Court document filed 30 April 2018. Page 57.

[2] Dynamex is now part of TForce Final Mile. See ‘Our story’.

[3] US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Contingent and alternative employment arrangements news release. The figures are for 2017. 7 June 2018.

[4] Victorian government. ‘Revealing the true size of Australia’s gig workforce.’ 18 June 2019.’s-Gig-Workforce.pdf

[5] Government of California. Labour Commissioner’s Office. ‘Worker misclassification.’ The government estimates the misclassification of workers cost the state US$7 billion a year through lost payments and the increased reliance on gig workers on the public safety net.

[6] National Labor Relations Board. Decision made on 21 October 2019.

[7] The companies say they will seek to establish a new classification for ride-share drivers via a plebiscite ‘ballot measure’ mechanism allowed under Californian law. Gig-economy companies come to a political fight with the emails and mobiles of their customers. People who prefer hired drivers rated on apps to ones licensed by the government and workers who value flexibility form a political asset that helps gig companies in this fight.

[8] See Andy Kessler. “The gig’s up for freelancers.’ The Wall Street Journal. 27 October 2019.

[9] A survey in 2018 by the Public Religion Research Institute said 10% of Californian workers are gig workers.[9] (Public Religion Research Institute, non-profit and non-partisan body focused on the intersection of religion, culture and policy. ‘A renewed struggle for the American dream: PPRI 2018 California workers survey.’ 28 August 2018. Another says the numbers are US workers classified as independent contractors (many would be gig workers) is fewer percentage-wise than in 2005 when 7.4% were so classified. (US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Contingent and alternative employment arrangements news release. The figures are for 2017. 7 June 2018. Another says that the number of independent contractors has soared from two million only six years ago to 10 million now. (Government of California. Labour Commissioner’s Office. ‘Worker misclassification.’ The government estimates the misclassification of workers cost the state US$7 billion a year through lost payments and the increased reliance on gig workers on the public safety net.

[10] Alan Bollard. ‘A few hares to chase: The economic life and times of Bill Phillips.’ Oxford University Press. 2016. See also: The Bill Phillips lecture, Wellington. 16 July 2008. ‘How a unique man built a machine, drew a curve and helped world economics advance.’

[11] Bollard. Op cit. Page 165

[12] The Phillips Curve represents how in good times firms paid more to attract and retain staff and then boost prices to preserve margins, while in tougher times no wages pressures come through. Wages growth was shown on the y axis.

[13] US Bureau of Economic Analysis displayed by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. ‘Compensation of employees: Wages and salary accruals/gross domestic product.’ Chart shows from 1947 to 2017.

[14] Economic Policy Institute. ‘Uber and the labour market.’ 15 May 2018.

[15] State of California. Department of Industrial Relations. “Minimum wage.’

[16] Uber is open that lowering driver remuneration is a deliberate strategy. In its IPO filing this year, the company said: “We aim to reduce driver incentives to improve our financial performance” where incentives refer to company payments that reward drivers – perhaps it was no coincidence that Uber drivers staged protests on four continents the week of the IPO. See Uber Technologies filing to US Securities and Exchange Commission. ‘Form S-1’. Page 30. 11 April 2019. In Australia, Uber deducts 27.5% from a driver’s gross fare as a ‘service fee’. (2.5% of this is goods and services tax.)

[17] Congress is looking at the safety and labour practices of Uber and Lyft. See The Washington Post. ‘Congress wanted to grill Uber and Lyft on safety. The companies blew them off.’ 17 October 2019. On October 16, Uber, Lyft and Via were invited and declined to attend The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit Hearing on: “Examining the future of transportation network companies: challenges and opportunities”. See the subcommittee’s page.

[18] New York City is already enforcing minimum pay for drivers, charging a congestion fee and limiting the time app-employed drivers can spend in busy areas, to protect the regulated taxi industry. Officials needed to address ride-hailing’s disruption after eight drivers in the city killed themselves in 2018. See The New York Times. ‘Why are taxi drivers in New York killing themselves.’ 2 December 2018.

[19] Office of the governor of California. Letter dated 18 September 2019 to the members of the California Assembly.

[20] See Proposition D – Traffic congestion mitigation tax. City and county of San Francisco. Department of elections. ‘November 5, 2019 election results – summary.’

[21] Financial Times. ‘Vestager says gig economy workers should ‘team up’ on wages. 25 October 2019.

[22] See, American Affairs journal. ‘Uber’s path of destruction.’ Summer 2019/volume 3, number 2.

Important Information: This material has been produced by Magellan Asset Management Limited trading as MFG Asset Management (‘MFG Asset Management’) and has been prepared for general information purposes only and must not be construed as investment advice or as an investment recommendation. This material does not take into account your investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs. This material does not constitute an offer or inducement to engage in an investment activity nor does it form part of any offer documentation, offer or invitation to purchase, sell or subscribe for interests in any type of investment product or service. You should read and consider any relevant offer documentation applicable to any investment product or service and consider obtaining professional investment advice tailored to your specific circumstances before making any investment decision.

This material may include data, research and other information from third party sources. MFG Asset Management makes no guarantee that such information is accurate, complete or timely and does not provide any warranties regarding results obtained from its use. Statements contained in this material that are not historical facts are based on current expectations, estimates, projections, opinions and beliefs of MFG Asset Management. Such statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, and undue reliance should not be placed thereon.
Any trademarks, logos, and service marks contained herein may be the registered and unregistered trademarks of their respective owners. This material and the information contained within it may not be reproduced, or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of MFG Asset Management.

How to invest

  • Magellan offers two market-leading strategies, global equities and global listed infrastructure. Find out how easy it is to invest in the world’s best companies, as chosen by Magellan’s experts.

  • Global Equity Products

    You buy from the world’s best companies, so why not invest in them? Magellan offers a range of highly-rated global equity funds, containing some the world’s best companies that we believe are positioned to benefit from long-term investment tailwinds.

    Invest in global equities
  • Global listed Infrastructure products

    Infrastructure: Supporting you every minute of every day. Our range of top-rated global listed infrastructure funds are positioned to generate inflation-protected, stable yet solid returns.

    Invest in global infrastructure
  • Magellan Sustainable Fund

    Invest in 20 to 50 high quality global companies within a framework that considers ESG risks. The Magellan Sustainable Fund aims to achieve attractive risk-adjusted returns and preserve capital in adverse markets.

    Find out more
  • MFG Core Series

    Our range of lower-cost global equity funds, designed to offer investors a unique and compelling combination of active portfolio construction and ongoing systematic portfolio management.

    Find out More
  • Magellan FuturePayTM

    Investing for income and growth, particularly in retirement. Magellan FuturePay is an innovative new fund that aims to deliver a predictable monthly income that grows with inflation, capital growth with a focus on downside protection, a reserving strategy and on-going income support, and daily access to capital.

    Invest in FuturePay