We need new tools to tackle precarious employment

Since the appearance of digital platforms such as Uber and Deliveroo in our society, unions have faced the long and expensive process of getting to know this new reality and learning how to defend the rights of those who work for the gig economy. In Spain’s national centre the UGT, for example, we needed a new union tool and a new way of approaching the problem.

There are studies that estimate that between 65 per cent and 80 per cent of future jobs do not yet exist. These are complicated times for trade unions, as we focus on trying to maintain stability and balance in labour relations.

The business model of digital platforms – which have created what is known as the collaborative economy – may be a foretaste of what lies ahead. Three years ago we did not even imagine them and now young people on bikes with giant backpacks are part of the scenery in any big city.

For us it was a surprise. Overnight we have found ourselves with hundreds of people riding their bikes, delivering food from A to B, all in uniforms from the same companies. And so we began our field work to find out about the reality of these workers. It was no easy task. The official message of these companies is that they are mere platforms that, through a portal, connect suppliers with those creating the demand.

According to this model, the distributors are autonomous and the platforms bear no responsibility for how they do their work or for any problems that could arise, for example, an occupational accident while delivering. In addition, we discovered that this precarious form of work leads to lower incomes for the worker and for the social security coffers, approximately 30 per cent less compared to the corresponding amount if the same work were carried out as an employee.

Another way of sweetening the bitter pill of precariousness is the worker profile that is presented: young students who want to earn money and who can decide, flexibly and freely when and how to work. The reality is different: they take advantage of the needs of low income groups and employability problems. As for freedom and flexibility, they do not exist.

In order to work in this new sector, we decided to create an online trade union platform, a place where all gig economy workers could post their queries and labour problems, with a commitment on our part to answer them in less than 24 hours. It was a great success. We managed to get non-unionised people begin to show an interest in their working conditions and see our union as a useful tool that can help them in their day to day lives.

It is worth stressing the importance of the self-organised platforms that emerged from within the companies, and whose first demands led to very successful strikes. However, they were soon compromised, because the leaders were quickly identified and ‘disconnected’. This created fear amongst the rest of the workers and those with a trade union vocation were sidelined, which curtailed their ability to organise workers.

As far as the traditional union is concerned, with updated tools we managed to take some key steps. First, we convinced workers to file complaints with the labour authority and individual lawsuits in the labour court. The decisions of the labour authority were slow in coming, but they were favourable and gave us the energy to keep going. We were on the right track.

The most important thing of all was that, because of all the complaints and the strikes, the conflicts got media coverage. More and more people are becoming aware that the ‘riders’, as they are known, are not as happy as they are portrayed in the ads of the companies in question, and that they work in very precarious conditions. The court decisions took time, since before the case came to court the company offered large sums of money to the plaintiffs, who ended up accepting, thus avoiding the inevitable: a sentence that would tarnish the image of the brands.

From the law courts to the court of public opinion

And that is what happened. Sentences began to be handed down that, even though they went in both directions, tended in the vast majority of cases to recognise the employment relationship between the riders and the platform companies.

However, the ruling that tipped the balance in Spain was case number 188/2019 of the Labour Court of Madrid, a dispute that involved more than 500 workers against Deliveroo. The judge acknowledged that “the means and assets of greatest importance for the development of the activity are not those, but are the Deliveroo app, controlled and provided by the company for use by the distributors, and the corresponding brand, which naturally is not controlled by the distributors,” and stresses that “once an order is accepted, it has to be dealt with according to the detailed instructions decided by the company, with no appreciable margin for worker autonomy.” In short, it recognised that these workers are dependent on the company and not autonomous as had been claimed all this time.

More recently, in California – where many of the world’s biggest digital platforms are headquartered – the state assembly passed a law whereby transport companies in the collaborative economy must formally hire their drivers.

Even so, the battle is not over. These companies continue to work to maintain a business model that is not completely legal but which create a situation that neither the labour authorities nor the courts have managed to resolve. Trade unions must now focus on preventing large economic interest groups from getting politicians to legislate in their favour and against workers and citizens in general.

Finally, we have discovered what we believe is the key to dealing with these disputes from now on: the cost of fines, payments or compensation is not in itself dissuasive. What matters to the companies is the cost to their image and reputation that complaints and protest actions entail. This is a new weapon to be used by unions.

While strikes and stoppages were the tools to be used at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, today what we have is the ability to damage the image and reputation of those who do not respect workers’ rights.

We must not forget that this business model is at a stage where the profit/loss balance is not important, they can even sustain losses for several years. It is therefore pointless to carry out a one-off strike. The key to their activity is the ability to attract large amounts of financing. Companies like Deliveroo and Glovo need to continue attracting external investors and continue to make them believe that this business is stable and has a potential for future growth.

Faced, therefore, with companies that do not care about the sanctions of the labour authorities or about making a loss (since their financial survival is based on maintaining an image to attract investors), our only way to act against them by way of pressure is to make them see that we have the ability to influence people’s opinion. We have to show them that we are strong and that we have understood how to play this game: that their sector does have a place in our society, but not if it takes advantage of people. Rather it should in the service of all. In this way, we can all win.

This article has been translated from Spanish.