For businesses and workers alike, the New Year means new beginnings and new opportunities. To that end, participation in the rapidly developing gig economy is no exception. In fact, freelancers, side hustlers, and independent workers making up the gig economy now total nearly 60 million people in the U.S. alone. The gig economy workforce is currently growing three times faster than the traditional U.S. workforce, and businesses should not expect this trend to slow down anytime soon. By 2027, half of U.S. workers are expected to be freelancers.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court just agreed to weigh in on a question that could prove critical to the growth—or stagnation—of the gig work labor pool: does performing gig work in between full-time jobs disqualify a worker from receiving unemployment benefits? By accepting the case of Lowman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review for review yesterday, the state’s high court has decided that 2019 will be the year that it enters the fray on this crucial question.
On the eve of the holidays, gig businesses got a gift in the form of a ruling from a Massaschusetts federal court where a clickwrap agreement was held to be sufficient to bind a worker to an arbitration clause. The ruling in favor of Lyft will not necessarily help all businesses across the country—especially because the court specifically pointed out that his ruling might have been different had he been applying California or New York law—but it does continue the trend of holding workers to the terms of an electronic arbitration agreement.
One of my favorite workplace law reporters, Tyrone Richardson of Bloomberg Law, had two stories in the past week addressing the issue of Congress and the gig economy. They present two sides of the same coin when it comes to the possible action that our nation’s federal lawmakers might take with respect to gig workers and the companies that retain their services.
A recent decision from a federal court in California shows that there is a simple three-step process to follow if you want to ensure that your gig workers are found to be subject to your arbitration provisions. The judge’s December 17 opinion in a misclassification case against Postmates provides a classic blueprint that you might to consider adopting for your own business.
As the competition to secure investments with startups continues to increase, venture capitalists are discovering new ways to strengthen their relationships with potential investment partners. In addition to listening to pitches from startup founders and reviewing financial projections, Bloomberg reports that venture capitalists are now immersing themselves in the gig economy by working for the startups that they may ultimately invest in.
The British government announced workplace reforms yesterday (which include new legislation) that will impact employers including gig economy companies, although the reforms do not seek a “radical reworking of existing business models.” The reforms set forth in the “Good Work Plan” are based on an independent review of modern working practices conducted by Matthew Taylor (“Taylor’s Review”), chief executive of the Royal Society of Arts. Taylor’s Review was commissioned by the Prime Minister, and the Reforms bring forward 51 of Taylor’s 53 recommendations.
December 3 was the first day of the new legislative session in California, the first day that members could introduce bills for the 2019-2020 legislative session. If the first day is any indication, there is one issue that will dominate employment policy discussion in 2019: Dynamex, Dynamex and Dynamex.
Last week was a bad week for gig economy companies in Oregon. It wasn’t just the post-holiday malaise that so many suffer from after having to return to work following a long, relaxing weekend that probably included eating too much turkey.
We’ve been expecting this since August, when the New York City Council passed a proposal establishing that ride-sharing driver should earn a minimum rate of pay, the first such minimum wage in the nation. Today, the other shoe dropped and the minimum wage was set.