Unbundling Employment: Flexible Benefits for the Gig Economy

Seth C. Oranburg
{"title":"Unbundling Employment: Flexible Benefits for the Gig Economy","authors":"Seth C. Oranburg","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3135936","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Federal labor law requires employers to give employees a rigid bundle of benefits, including the right to unionize, unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation insurance, health insurance, family medical leave, and more. These benefits are not free – benefits cost about one third of wages – and someone must pay for them. Which of these benefits are worth their cost? This article takes a theoretical approach to that problem and proposes a flexible benefits solution. \n \nLabor law developed under a traditional model of work: long-term employees who depended on a single employer to engage in goods-producing work. Few people work that way today. Instead, modern workers are increasingly using multiple technology platforms (such as Uber, Lyft, TaskRabbit, Amazon Flex, DoorDash, Handy, Moonlighting, FLEXABLE, PeoplePerHour, Rover, Snagajob, TaskEasy, Upwork, and many more) to provide short-term service-producing work. Labor laws are a bad fit for this “gig economy.” New legal paradigms are needed. \n \nThe rigid labor law classification of all workers as either “employees” (who get the entire bundle of benefits) or “independent contractors” (who get none) has led to many lawsuits attempting to re-define who is an “employee” in the gig economy. This issue grows larger as more than one fifth of the workforce is now categorized as an independent contractor. Ironically, the requirement to provide a rigid bundle of benefits to employees has resulted in fewer workers receiving any benefits at all. \n \nThis article argues for unbundling employment benefits so workers in the gig economy can obtain a more optimal mix of benefits and wages. This article also provides a framework for a more flexible system of employee benefits. This article thus makes three contributions. First, this article demonstrates how a rigid requirement of employment benefits can harm workers. Second, this article shows how labor law should incorporate advances in economic theory that heretofore it generally ignored. Third, this article presents a flexible framework to solve the refractory problem of rigid worker categorization.","PeriodicalId":143238,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Employment & Wage Determination (Sub-Topic)","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERPN: Employment & Wage Determination (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3135936","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Federal labor law requires employers to give employees a rigid bundle of benefits, including the right to unionize, unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation insurance, health insurance, family medical leave, and more. These benefits are not free – benefits cost about one third of wages – and someone must pay for them. Which of these benefits are worth their cost? This article takes a theoretical approach to that problem and proposes a flexible benefits solution. Labor law developed under a traditional model of work: long-term employees who depended on a single employer to engage in goods-producing work. Few people work that way today. Instead, modern workers are increasingly using multiple technology platforms (such as Uber, Lyft, TaskRabbit, Amazon Flex, DoorDash, Handy, Moonlighting, FLEXABLE, PeoplePerHour, Rover, Snagajob, TaskEasy, Upwork, and many more) to provide short-term service-producing work. Labor laws are a bad fit for this “gig economy.” New legal paradigms are needed. The rigid labor law classification of all workers as either “employees” (who get the entire bundle of benefits) or “independent contractors” (who get none) has led to many lawsuits attempting to re-define who is an “employee” in the gig economy. This issue grows larger as more than one fifth of the workforce is now categorized as an independent contractor. Ironically, the requirement to provide a rigid bundle of benefits to employees has resulted in fewer workers receiving any benefits at all. This article argues for unbundling employment benefits so workers in the gig economy can obtain a more optimal mix of benefits and wages. This article also provides a framework for a more flexible system of employee benefits. This article thus makes three contributions. First, this article demonstrates how a rigid requirement of employment benefits can harm workers. Second, this article shows how labor law should incorporate advances in economic theory that heretofore it generally ignored. Third, this article presents a flexible framework to solve the refractory problem of rigid worker categorization.
拆分就业:零工经济的灵活福利
联邦劳动法要求雇主为雇员提供一系列严格的福利,包括成立工会的权利、失业保险、工人赔偿保险、健康保险、家庭病假等等。这些福利不是免费的——福利的成本约为工资的三分之一——必须有人为此买单。这些好处中哪些值得付出代价?本文对这一问题进行了理论分析,并提出了一种灵活的效益解决方案。劳动法是在传统的工作模式下发展起来的:依靠单一雇主从事产品生产工作的长期雇员。现在很少有人这样工作了。相反,现代员工越来越多地使用多种技术平台(如Uber、Lyft、TaskRabbit、Amazon Flex、DoorDash、Handy、Moonlighting、FLEXABLE、PeoplePerHour、Rover、Snagajob、TaskEasy、Upwork等)来提供短期的服务性工作。劳动法并不适合这种“零工经济”。需要新的法律范例。劳动法对所有工人的严格分类,要么是“雇员”(享有全部福利),要么是“独立承包商”(没有任何福利),这导致了许多试图重新定义零工经济中谁是“雇员”的诉讼。随着超过五分之一的劳动力现在被归类为独立承包商,这个问题变得更加严重。具有讽刺意味的是,为员工提供严格的福利组合的要求导致了更少的工人获得任何福利。本文主张将就业福利分开,这样零工经济中的工人就能获得更优的福利和工资组合。本文还为更灵活的员工福利制度提供了一个框架。因此,本文做出了三点贡献。首先,本文论证了对就业福利的严格要求是如何伤害工人的。其次,本文展示了劳动法应该如何纳入经济理论的进步,而这些进步在以前通常被忽视。第三,本文提出了一个灵活的框架来解决工人分类僵化的难解问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信