As the gig economy grows, it is challenging the role and purpose of equality law. Legal researchers propose ways to reform the law to protect gig workers.
To find out whether existing equality laws cover the gig economy or if law reform is needed, Associate Professor Blackham studied laws in Australia and the UK.
Equality law generally protects ‘employees’ against discrimination by ‘employers’.
Most companies in the gig economy classify workers as self-employed or independent contractors, not employees. However, Australian equality laws generally define ‘employment’ broadly to include independent contractors, so this does not pose a problem, according to Associate Professor Blackham’s research.
But identifying the employer is a problem for equality law, according to the research. Uncertainty exists over whether, legally, the employer is the company, or the customer who uses the company to request and pay for a service.
In Aslam v Uber (2016), the UK Employment Tribunal found it was impossible for Uber to argue that its drivers are hired by customers rather than by Uber itself. This decision was upheld by the UK Court of Appeal but is being appealed to the UK Supreme Court. But Uber is different to many other companies in the gig economy – the company, rather than the customer, sets the price of transactions – so this ruling may not extend to other workers, says Associate Professor Blackham.
The research also revealed difficulty proving bias or discrimination in the gig economy.
For example, the algorithms that companies often use to assign work and rank performance are not publicly available. This makes it hard to know if the algorithms – or their input data – are biased or if they allow bias to flourish. What’s more, gig workers are often members of groups that are less likely to complain about discrimination, including people with health problems or disabilities, people from ethnic minority groups, and women.
Associate Professor Blackham suggests four reforms to equality law to protect gig workers:
- Extend equality law to specifically include gig workers, where it doesn’t already do so.
- Regulate work contracts, rather than specific relationships between employers and employees.
- Remove barriers preventing gig workers from forming unions or engaging in collective bargaining, where possible.
- Encourage – or legally require – companies to find and remove any discrimination in their data, algorithms and operations.
The research, and the proposed reforms, were included in Associate Professor Blackham’s recommendations to the Victorian Government’s inquiry into the on-demand workforce.
Associate Professor Blackham is currently studying how Australia and the UK enforce age discrimination law, including in the gig economy, as well as examining the barriers to addressing age discrimination at work.
Addressing Age Discrimination in Employment (DE170100228)
Blackham A (2018) ‘We are all entrepreneurs now’: Options and new approaches for adapting equality law for the ‘gig economy’. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations 34(4): 413–434
Re-use this text
Please use the text of this article for your own purposes. The text is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 International license. This lets you copy, transform and share the text without restriction. We appreciate appropriate credit and links back to this website. Other content on this page (such as images, videos and logos) is not covered by the CC BY license and may not be used without permission from the copyright holder. If you have any questions about using this text, please contact the research web team.
First published on 11 March 2022.
Share this article
Discover your graduate research options in law.
Pursuit: Women, age, discrimination and work
Ageism and sexism are nothing new, but many countries are reporting an increase in age bias, particularly against women.
Pursuit: Challenging discrimination in the gig economy
As the world’s gig economy continues to grow, equality law needs to catch up with technology to tackle discrimination.