In search of a better future of work for Uber drivers

IN THE same week that Uber showcased and piloted a robot to deliver food in the US, the ride hailing/food delivery company hosted a “Future of Work” event in South Africa while Fairwork in Austria was launching a report that rated Uber as one of the poor performing platforms to work for in terms of working conditions.

These activities capture issues (automation and the changing nature of work and working conditions) that need to be taken into account as we reflect about the future of work in the world that is technology driven.

We are headed towards a future that will make use of robots and this has raised questions about the role of human beings in the workplace.

When Uber was showcasing the robots pilot programme, the company indicated that “it will be some time before this technology is operated at scale”.

This is true in Africa where adoption of technology takes time.

For now, the issue that everyone is grappling with is the condition of work for drivers/owners who are using the ride-hailing platform.

On one hand, some car owners are complaining about an unbalanced relationship between Uber and drivers/owners.

In addressing the challenges related to work with tech companies there’s a need to take into account the different schools of thought in order to arrive at a conclusion that assists with solutions.

One school of thought was very well articulated by Professor Mthunzi Mdwaba, a former vice-president of an International Labour Organisation (ILO) employer body the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), who was the keynote speaker at the “Future of Work” event organised by Uber.

He pointed out that there’s a need to embrace technology in view of our unemployment challenge.

He said “"technology cannot be controlled, innovation will happen whether we like it or not." He indicated that Uber was providing work that should be appreciated.

In that regard, Mthunzi is correct about work provided by Uber. When Uber came onto the scene it created a platform for people to consider alternative ways of earning an income.

Today, a student can serve as a driver instead of having only the choice of being a waiter. People can work for multiple companies and decide when they want to work.

There’s no question about the flexibility provided by working with Uber. The ride-hailing company has provided a platform for work and introduced a new model which has been adopted by other companies.

Today, just about everyone is

trying to apply for an Uber type model which can be better referred to as Ubernomics.

There’s an Uber-like product for just about anything you can think of. All of this can be attributed to Uber.

Society, however, has not yet adapted to the model and hence we have a situation where labour activists are raising concerns about the Uber model. Entities that are representing drivers are highlighting another element that needs to be taken into account.

Their school of thought is that drivers should be treated as workers and that their working conditions should be conducive enough for them to execute their tasks with ease.

This school of thought is shared by the UK courts. The Supreme Court justices ruled unanimously that although

Uber said it was a technology platform that only connected drivers with passengers, it behaved more like an employer by setting rates, assigning rides, requiring drivers to follow certain routes and using a rating system to discipline them.

The decision was a major victory for labour activists in the US and Europe who are pushing for better wages and stronger protections for workers with services like Uber, Lyft, Doordash and Grubhub, which have long been criticised for how they treat their drivers and delivery people.

In Africa, however, drivers are still independent and are not treated as employees.

As a result, labour activists and some unions in Africa who regard the ruling as a victory would like to see the legal principle followed on the continent. In that regard and in relation to demands by labour activists and unions, Mdwaba argued that unions do not represent the entire workforce. This also means that other views should be considered to find a solution to the future of work challenges in the tech-driven world.

Another school of thought worthy of our consideration advocates for a middle ground between independence and support.

This would mean drivers maintain their independence and engage with Uber as equals.

The tech company would treat drivers and owners as important stakeholder who are consulted before decisions are taken.

This is a school of thought that is embraced by a co-operative ride hailing company like Drivers Co-operative.

They developed Co-op Ride, an app that takes the freedom and independence that Uber and Lyft promised rideshare drivers, and adds worker ownership.

Each driver is also a member who owns one share of the company, with one vote toward leadership and business decisions.

Their model includes sharing of profits with driver-owners. The co-op upends the traditional model where the profits generated by workers accrue to executives and shareholders, instead redistributing them back to the drivers.

Co-op Ride says drivers earn more on each trip – 8% to 10% more than Uber and Lyft rides, according to the cooperative, because it takes a smaller commission – and all profits go back to the drivers in the form of annual dividends, based on how much labour they contributed; the more trips they complete, the bigger their share of profit.

The three schools of thought should be studied very carefully in the process of shaping the future of work that is driven by technology.