Notes on the ethics of Uber

Healy and Pekarek 2022, Consumers in the gig economy: Resisting or reinforcing precarious work?

• Much less attention has been paid in these debates to the potential for another key actor in the gig economy – the consumer – to influence platforms’ labour management practices and the resulting conditions of gig workers. Yet because of their centrality to the operation of the gig economy, consumers warrant closer consideration. We will argue here that they have considerable potential to influence the shape and direction of labour practices in the gig economy,for better and for worse. By virtue of their different levels of interaction with platforms and gig workers and their choices at each of these levels, consumers are able to either reinforce or resist the precarity that many gig workers contend with on the job
• Efforts to inform, support, and profit from positive consumer choices in this regard have come from two quite different sources. On the one hand, some emerging platforms have sought to tap into latent consumer demand for better worker treatment, by advertising more ‘worker-friendly’ approaches (Healy and Pekarek, 2020).
• The other important development in this vein involves new rating schemes that scrutinise and rank different platforms according to their labour practices, such as the pioneering Oxford Fairwork project and its international spin-offs (Fredman et al., 2020; Graham et al., 2020).
• The option for consumers to ‘tip’ workers on some labour platforms is another related but theoretically challenging development (Duhaime and Woessner, 2019). Should such choices ultimately be seen as reinforcing or resisting gig workers’ precarity? At a superficial level, tipping corresponds to resistance: these are direct, discretionary transfers of income from consumers to workers that acknowledge the efforts of the latter and act as supplementary compensation. […] At a deeper level, tips maybe seen to absolve platforms of responsibility for paying gig workers fairly. By tipping, customers are voluntarily ‘taking up the slack’ but are counterintuitively reinforcing the underlying labour practices that place workers in precarious circumstances in the first place.

Healy et al 2020, Sceptics or supporters? Consumers’ views of work in the gig economy

• Australians have generally positive views about some important dimensions of work in the gig economy. Irrespective of whether or not they personally use labour platforms, most Australians see some good sides to gig work in its flexibility and the labour market opportunities it creates. Platform users are consistently more positive than non-users about these non-financial benefits of gig work.
• While positive views dominate with respect to some key aspects of gig work, many Australians nonetheless see it as deleterious to workers’ financial security. This opens up the potential for trade-offs in how consumers ultimately evaluate gig work
• A major practical implication of our findings is that efforts to improve gig work should target its one widely perceived drawback: financial insecurity for workers.
• While our analysis emphasises consumers’ views, it is pertinent to recall that most Australians (around two-thirds at the time of our survey) are not using any of the major platform services.

Fair Work Ombudsman 2019

• [(link)](https://www.fairwork.gov.au/newsroom/media-releases/2019-media-releases/june-2019/20190607-uber-media-release
• the relationship between Uber Australia and the drivers is not an employment relationship
• “For such a relationship to exist, the courts have determined that there must be, at a minimum, an obligation for an employee to perform work when it is demanded by the employer.” “Our investigation found that Uber Australia drivers are not subject to any formal or operational obligation to perform work,” Ms Parker said. “Uber Australia drivers have control over whether, when, and for how long they perform work, on any given day or on any given week.” “Uber Australia does not require drivers to perform work at particular times and this was a key factor in our assessment that the commercial arrangement between the company and the drivers does not amount to an employment relationship,” Ms Parker said. “As a consequence, the Fair Work Ombudsman will not take compliance action in relation to this matter.”

Ahsan 2019, Entrepreneurship and Ethics in the Sharing Economy: A Critical Perspective

• We conclude by arguing that the sharing economy reflects the intensification of an ongoing neoliberal trend that misuses the concept of entrepreneurship in order to justify certain forms of employment practices, and make a case for regulatory oversight.
• Uber, for example, operates what is in essence a taxi service without paying heed to licensing requirements, commercial insurance, background checks, vehicle inspections, etc., giving it a significant competitive advantage over commercial transportation providers. It isn’t obliged to follow minimum wage or overtime regulations, nor is it required to offer its drivers any benefits such as health care insurance, vacations, etc.
• It is important to note that the major sharing economy companies rose from the ashes of the 2008 financial crisis.
• A large number individuals were on the cusp of losing their homes when an opportunity in the form of giving rides to strangers and/or letting strangers stay in their homes for monetary benefit was presented to them. […] the prevailing income inequalities (Bapuji and Neville 2015; Davis and Cobb 2010) that compel low-wage earners to work multiple jobs to supplement their earnings.
• Indeed, a recent report released by the Economic Policy Institute indicates that 90% of all wage and salary workers earn more than Uber drivers (Mishel 2018). The income Uber drivers earn after deducting Uber fees and vehicle expenses is only $11.77 per hour, which is approximately 65% less than the hourly compensation of private-sector workers and 20% less than the hourly compensation in the lowest-paid major occupation.

Hua and ray 2022, Beyond the precariat: race, gender, and labor in the taxi and Uber economy

• In his order, Judge Edward Chen enumerates several points that call into question Uber’s claim that it does not employ drivers, including the fact that Uber can terminate contracts with drivers, that Uber controls hiring of drivers through an interview process, and the fact that Uber profits not from selling its software, but in its ability to provide rides. As the Judge notes, “Uber only makes money if its drivers actually transport passengers. Furthermore, Uber not only depends on drivers’ provision of transportation services to obtain revenue, it exercises significant control over the amount of any revenue it earns: Uber sets the fares it charges riders unilaterally.”
• Rather than producing a stable part-time workforce, Uber seems to be productive of a disposable, intermittent one instead.7 And indeed, a recent BuzzFeed news report reveals that most Uber drivers are making below minimum wage (though according to our June 26 interview with a labor organizer, BuzzFeed may be overstating take-home pay by under-reporting driver costs).
• In the documentation of these counter suits, drivers recount buying and leasing cars explicitly to drive for Uber;8 and often commuting long distances to service-rich areas to work, often sleeping and eating in their cars in between driving opportunities.

McDaid et al 2023, Algorithmic management and the politics of demand: Control and resistance at Uber

• Drawing on interviews with 36 Uber drivers, mainly from Australia and France, this research investigates how the ‘gig economy’ workforce engages with platform-based control. We find that the platform organization’s control algorithms operate with strong disciplinary effects.
• Uber primarily uses algorithms to evaluate performance (the star ratings and rewards), supervise (the driver dashboard), allocate work (sorting and matching), as well as calculate pay (dynamic pricing).
• During fieldwork, drivers explained why they chose to drive for Uber, highlighting elements of working for Uber that kept them engaged. Drivers frequently referred to financial needs as a motivator. Some also saw it as a way to fulfil desires for human connection and belonging. Drivers mostly expressed mild levels of satisfaction with the platform, referring to features they found acceptable, fair, and even entertaining. Only one interviewee expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the platform.
• During interviews, many drivers revealed the financial struggles they faced. Some were enduring sustained unemployment or a recent redundancy, while others were university students seeking doctorates or MBAs. For these individuals, Uber provided a welcome way of making money. One of the most appealing features of Uber was the easy sign-on process - it was a relatively straightforward, administrative process, free from judgement or discretion, and provided a guaranteed income source.
• Max (an immigrant who was also in full-time education) clarified that while Uber was a good option, he would give up if he had alternatives. Max also revealed how the platform made him reconsider the way he spent his time in more calculative terms.
• For others, driving was a way to get to know people – to spend time with people and feel part of something more. Drivers expressed how they enjoyed the conversations they had on the job, recounting tales of brushes with celebrities and encounters with fascinating people. These interviewees, some of whom were retired and struggling with loneliness, highlighted the importance of Uber in their lives. Such perspectives and anecdotes were less common among more entrenched, full-time drivers. Those that chose to use Uber for more social and personal reasons often did so part-time, and became disenchanted when the application tried to coerce a minimum level of usage out of them, giving up once their control rights were limited.
• The threat posed by the GPS dashboard control is more ambiguous. Uber’s GPS surveillance technology provokes an almost irrational fear or cynicism that it gives the organization limitless powers to encroach upon worker liberty.
• With respect to the sorting and matching feature, that drivers cannot know a rider’s destination when they accept or reject a trip request, is a feature of driving they find significantly frustrating.
• The slave metaphor was evoked by many interviewees, but particularly the French, who expressed repeated concerns about exploitation, some comparing Uber to a factory or Uber drivers to soldiers.
• many described how they tried to work around the algorithm. This involves initiating the trip within the application before the customer enters the vehicle to find out the destination, and then cancelling if the destination is unsuitable.
• Driver attrition at Uber is a long-standing challenge for the company. Throughout this field research, we often came across drivers reporting that they were leaving Uber. This became particularly salient once competition entered the market from mid-2017 onwards. Platforms like Ola, Taxify, Didi, Allocab and LeCab offered drivers promotional fares and bonuses as well as a different style and level of service – for example, providing a telephone number that drivers can call when in need of help. The main reason that drivers cited for switching from Uber was pay related, as well as the transactional nature of their interactions with Uber and the limited effort that Uber has put into building a long-term relationship.

Smith et al 2021, Consumer ‘app-etite’ for workers’ rights in the Australian ‘gig’ economy

• The findings also cast doubt upon on the notion of ethical consumers as a means to solve social problems, particularly in relation to work and employment conditions. The study highlight the limitations of consumers as a moral actors in solving social problems.
• This study highlights that relying upon ethical consumption based upon moral decision making may at best see workers receive slightly more money. Perhaps in the form of a tip, or see no improvement at all. It may even indicate to platforms that consumers may be willing to pay more for the services they provide, resulting in higher cost to the consumer, better returns for platforms and no without any material improvement to workers’ wages or conditions. Either way, improvements to workers conditions and entitlements are far from guaranteed.