Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
22 June 2021 | Story André Damons
Gig economy and Uber
Left: Associate Prof Denine Smit is a lecturer in the Department of Mercantile Law, Faculty of Law, University of the Free State (UFS) where she currently lectures several modules with her focus on Labour Law. Right: Mr Grey Stopforth is a lecturer in the UFS Department of Mercantile Law, Faculty of Law.

Opinion article by Associate Prof Denine Smit and Mr Grey Stopforth, Lecturer, Department of Mercantile Law, Faculty of Law, University of the Free State 

Introduction
The modern world of work is changing rapidly – to such an extent that by 2030, 65% of primary school learners will take up positions currently unknown to man. ‘Gig work’ is an umbrella term comprising three distinct types of services: capital platform work, crowd work, and app work. (Duggan et al. 2019:117) ‘Gig work’, within the labour context, is regarded as an umbrella term comprising two distinct types of work: crowd work, and app work. Each of the previously mentioned types of gig work performs a particular service in the gig economy. To illustrate, crowd work refers to work that ranges in skills level and difficulty, which is outsourced to a large pool of online workers, for example, tasks available on Freelancer and Fiverr. In contrast, app work (also known as on-demand work) involves an application (app) that connects clients and workers via the online platform to perform tasks, also referred to as ‘gigs’, in a specific geographical area. This type of gig work consists of various types of tasks, such as ride-sharing services (e.g., Uber and Bolt), cleaning services (e.g., SweepSouth), and the running of errands (e.g., TaskRabbit and Errandworld). Uber currently serves more than 10 000 cities worldwide.  

The previous three industrial revolutions were prompted by disruptions that occurred through the harnessing of steam. The discovery of telecommunications and computers and technological advancements led to the internet of things, a typical characteristic of 4IR. It is in 4IR where the new techno-economic paradigm needs to be addressed. This is where robotic devices could replace humans. We now face two sides of the coin: working in a digitised environment where workers are not protected by traditional labour laws, such as Uber drivers, or seeking formal employment where there are not enough standard jobs.  

The changing landscape
The modern industrial workplace is already characterised by the introduction of several robotic devices that could easily replace human capital in the future. Examples hereof are rife:  Libby is a robot at the University of Pretoria that assists students. A social humanoid robot called Sophia, created with her ‘own’ passport, was interviewed on her own at the UN, and is regarded as our first digital citizen. We also have Deep Blue, an IBM computer that defeated the world's best chess player, and Watson, another IBM computer that beat the Jeopardy! champions, as well as robots that can now play the piano, grade high school tests, paint, compose music, and write newspaper articles. (Doci & Virgillito 2019: 602). A job for life and a physical workplace may both disappear in future and be replaced by gigs for payment, flexibility, and continuous learning. The COVID-19 pandemic fast-tracked 4IR, and this is becoming worrisome in South Africa, where we reached formal unemployment figures of 32,6% (7,2 million) and 42,6% (11,4 million) if discouraged work seekers are added to the mix. More critical, South Africa's youth unemployment rate is at a staggering all-time high of 74,7% (STATS SA, 5 April 2021). We need to look at new opportunities in the gig economy, like Uber, to earn a living and alleviate poverty.

Uber and work
Uber is merely an example of ‘work’ on the platform, but many gig workers are not protected by law. If we focus on the new categories of workers, such as those working for Uber, the legal landscape is exciting and problematic. However, problems have led to sporadic strike actions in several African countries such as Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa.

In January 2021, Uber Eats drivers in South Africa laid down their 'tools' by deactivating their apps as part of a nationwide strike action in response to a decision taken by Uber Eats South Africa to lower the fee paid to drivers per delivery.  Later in March 2021, Uber and Bolt drivers from South Africa engaged in strike action, demanding that e-hailing companies adopt a fair pricing strategy, and that their own and their passengers' safety be prioritised. Other African countries followed suit shortly thereafter. In the past year, many app workers have brought court claims in different countries in the hopes of obtaining full employee status. Let’s see what happens in other countries.

United Kindom (UK)
On 19 February 2021, the Supreme Court in the UK ruled in Uber BV v Aslam (2021) UKSC 5 that Uber drivers are ‘workers’ rather than self-employed independent contractors. The court outlined several key factors to justify its decision, most of which relate to the degree of control that Uber has over its drivers. Based on this, the court found that drivers were, in reality, ‘workers’ and not independent contractors, which implies that they are legally protected.

Australia
A recent decision by Australia’s Fair Commission (FWC) in Diego Franco v Deliveroo Australia Pty Ltd (2021) FWC 2818, could impact Uber’s operation in the country in the future. On 18 May 2021, the commission ruled that a former Dilveroo driver was an employee of Deliveroo rather than an independent contractor. The FWC emphasised the importance of standing back from the detailed picture and looking at the overall effect of the relationship. Similar to the UK ruling, the FWC also noted that Deliveroo was able to implement or withdraw a significant level of control over Mr Franco, which was a decisive factor indicating the existence of an employment relationship. Having considered the facts, the FWC found the driver to be an employee of Deliveroo, and he was therefore entitled to unfair dismissal protection. Whether this decision will stand in the future remains to be seen, as Deliveroo has indicated that it will appeal the FWC's decision.

United States of America (USA)
Similar to many other countries, the USA also has several cases with mixed judgements. For the purpose of this opinion piece, we will single out Proposal 22 (Prop 22), which was passed in California at the end of 2020. The Prop provides drivers with a guaranteed minimum earning for the time worked while actively providing rides, compensation for some vehicle expenses, occupational accident insurance to cover injuries and illnesses on the job, and ‘funding for new health benefits’ that apply to drivers with prescribed minimum hours per week.

Spain
A new royal decree regulating delivery app workers, also known as the ‘rider law’, was ratified by Spain's cabinet in March 2021. The new ‘rider law’ introduces additional provisions for a new presumption regarding the existence of an employment relationship in the context of the delivery and distribution of products through digital delivery platforms. The decree also makes it mandatory for gig businesses to inform the app workers’ legal representatives of the parameters, rules, and instructions on which the algorithms or artificial intelligence (AI) systems are based, which affect decision-making that may influence working conditions, access to, and maintenance of employment, including profiling. The law comes into effect 90 days following its publication in the Spanish Official Gazette. The gig businesses, therefore, have until mid-August to comply.

The way forward for South Africa
It is currently uncertain whether South Africa’s Uber drivers will be classified as employees or independent contractors. See Uber South Africa Technology Services (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Public Service and Allied Workers (NUPSAW) and Others (2018) 39 ILJ 903 (LC), in which the Labour Court held that the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration’s ruling failed to consider the fact that Uber SA and Uber B.V. are two separate entities. The question as to whether Uber drivers are employees of Uber was subsequently left unanswered. Each country has a unique and intricate statutory framework that regulates the traditional work relationship, making a universal approach to classifying on-demand workers almost impossible. However, it would be in our best interest to be mindful of these developments to pursue a workable solution that fits our South African context.

Thus, the jury is still out on whether gig work is good, bad or a little of both.

News Archive

Statement on protest at the UFS
2005-03-04

Following a protest by student and non-student organisations today, the management of the University of the Free State (UFS) would like to place the following facts on record:

1. There is a well-documented process underway to further transform the UFS. At the official opening of the UFS on 4 February 2005 , the Rector and Vice-chancellor, Prof Frederick Fourie, announced that the UFS would draft a comprehensive Transformation Plan to guide the next phase of transformation at the institution.

The UFS appeals to student formations, staff associations, trade unions and other role-players to make a constructive input into this Transformation Plan.

The UFS management has been - and always will be - willing to engage with role-players and is prepared to do so even after today’s protest.

2. There is thus no regulation or policy prescription which separates students in hostels according to race.

The reality is that students exercise their freedom of choice as to which hostel they wish to be placed in. This was agreed upon by black and white students in 1997/8.

However, the unintended consequence and practice of this hostel placement policy has been that students themselves have tended to choose to stay in hostels which have over time become black hostels and white hostels.

This is a matter of concern for the management of the UFS as such a situation does not promote interaction across language, cultural and socio-economic groupings of students.

This matter is receiving attention and an intensive consultative process, which will include students, will be launched to review this policy.

The management is convinced that such interaction will enhance the learning experience of all students and sensitise them to the reality of a multicultural South Africa and a multicultural world.

3. No student organisation has been banned from operating at any of the three campuses of the UFS.

In the past few weeks, SASCO, the Young Communist League and the ANC Youth League (ANCYL) have held meetings on all three campuses, namely the Qwaqwa campus, the Vista campus and the main campus.

There are also regular interactions between top management and the leadership of SASCO and the ANCYL on campus.

In fact, the UFS upholds the right of students and staff to associate freely and to organise themselves as they see fit.

The UFS also upholds the rights of staff and students to engage in legal and peaceful protests.

The management however remains committed to discussing issues that affect staff and students in a constructive manner and appeals to student organisations in this case to engage with management.

4. The issues of registration, fees, debt and financial aid are continually monitored, and interventions to assist students are made regularly. To assist as far as possible those academically deserving students who face financial difficulties, the UFS management has put in place a structure called the Monitoring committee that includes management and student representatives.

The purpose of the Monitoring Committee is to review the cases of individual students to determine how best they can be assisted.

This applies to the Qwaqwa campus, the Vista campus and the main campus.

It is generally the case that students who perform academically will not have any difficulty in obtaining financial assistance. However, according to the requirements of National Student Financial Scheme, students who perform poorly will have difficulty in obtaining such assistance.

5. With regard to student governance, the process to institute an inclusive Central Student Representative Council (SRC), on which all three campuses will be equitably represented, was launched in July 2004, and a preliminary constitution has just been drafted. At the same time an inclusive process to review certain elements of the constitution of the main campus SRC was initiated at the end of 2004. This process, which includes all relevant student organisations and structures, is planned to produce an outcome within the next couple of months.

6. There is no policy at the UFS that is based on racism or that discriminates on the basis of the race of students and staff.

As part of the building of a new institutional culture within the broader transformation process, the UFS management is determined to eradicate all elements of racism that may occur on its campuses, and has already instituted inclusive forums on campus to discuss the issue of values and principles for a non-racial university.

Issued by: Mr Anton Fisher
Director: Strategic Communication
Cell: 072 207 8334
Tel: (051) 401-2749
4 March 2005

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept