Thread by @rcolvile

This Uber announcement is fascinating - a big test of how well Britain's new 'worker' status (which AFAIK is still unique) plays out, in which you're not a pure contractor, but not employed either 1/? apnews.com/article/minimu…

As I pointed out in a thread just the other day, one of the really weird things about the debate on the gig economy is that it ignores the fact that most people in it are there by choice (and that actually full-time work has been going up not down...)

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1371443055077650443

See for example this academic study of Uber's own drivers - which involved Uber's co-operation, but was done by some pretty respectable academics - oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/acad…

This move comes in response to a Supreme Court verdict which said Uber's drivers shouldn't be considered self-employed. So Uber is going to treat them as employees, but only while they're actually driving for Uber - from the time they accept a ride to the time they drop off.

The predictable objection is that this should happen as soon as they start the engine. But that ignores the fact that drivers are now free (as they weren't when the court cases started...) to use multiple apps, and do.

This obviously isn't going to please many on the Left. But it feels like a sensible compromise, and as far as you can go without destroying the 'gig' element of the gig economy completely.

But the broader point to remember, as I've written before, is that the gig economy is not exploitation. Survey after survey shows that the people in it are largely in it by choice, and value flexibility over security (which is why they're in it in the first place)

If you're interested I wrote about this for the Times a while back thetimes.co.uk/article/labour… - we've also covered the issues extensively over at @CapX