Thread by @JimboStanford

Ontario's plan to guarantee a 'minimum wage' of $15/hr for gig workers (but ONLY for time engaged on an assignment) will have ABSOLUTELY ZERO impact on the incomes of gig workers. Anyone who thinks it means something does not understand how the gig business model works #canlab…2

Gig workers spend a great deal of time (often OVER HALF) waiting for assigned fares/tasks, or traveling to central hubs. It's bad enough this unpaid time is excluded from this 'minimum wage'. Eg. if you spend half your work day waiting, then the 'min. wage' falls to $7.50 …3

Even worse is the impact of the endogeneity of labour supply in the platform model. Uber & co depend on enough workers signing on to keep a surplus pool of drivers available to meet demand. The cost of unpaid waiting time is part of the calculation drivers make in signing on…4

Lifting the wage for 'engaged' time, without limiting labour supply (or forcing Uber to pay for waiting time), will be frustrated by a resulting increase in labour supply (ie. workers signed on waiting) until the REAL wage (incl. waiting time) falls so low workers are deterred…5

So long as enough desperate workers are willing to sign on for effective wages well below the true minimum wage (as is true today), this measure will have no impact on realized earnings. This is true even if the rate was 120% of the legal min (as Uber & UFCW advocate)…6

Another huge issue is how this so-called minimum wage for gig workers will treat expenses (vehicle, gas, insurance, phone, data, etc.). Generally accepted accounting principles would add many $s to the required wage. Uber will counter this, saying drivers already had their car…7

No other business treats capital assets, depreciation, and maintenance this way. In fact, they'd be hauled into court by shareholders if they tried. Why should gig workers be forced to pretend their capital equipment is 'free'? …8

The proposed 'portable benefits' package that the Ontario govt is also exploring is also a sham. It would accumulate funds in personal accounts to supposedly pay for typical benefits (like supplementary health, pension, workers comp). Without effective regulation of base pay,…9

Uber can easily offset this new 'cost' by unilaterally adjusting its revenue sharing formula with drivers (as it can do anytime). It puts a few $s into the driver's left pocket, while taking it out of their right. And it allows Uber & co to continue to free-ride on taxpayers…10

By denying workers normal employment-related benefits (including EI, CPP, workers comp. & employer health tax), Uber shifts those costs to the workers and to taxpayers (since the costs of those exclusions fall onto public programs). The Ont program would ratify that rip-off…11

Make no mistake: This approach to regulating gig work will do absolutely nothing for gig workers. It is all about the Ont govt posing as 'supporting worker rights'. And about Uber (and its allies) posing as being committed to treating gig workers 'more fairly'…12

In fact, it's worse than doing nothing, because it confuses the discussion about gig jobs, and will leave many workers thinking they now have protection. At the end of the day, however, after operating costs & unpaid time, they'll still be left with well-below-minimum wages…13

Many will then give up in despair (turnover of gig workers is already astronomical, often over 100% per yr). And this may be the biggest threat to Uber's viability. As labour markets tighten they're finding it impossible to recruit & retain enough drivers under this system…14

Already Uber fares & wait times are soaring in many cities because of lack of drivers. The company continues to burn cash (even as revenues grow), and its share price is down almost half over the past year…15

Ont's manipulative plan is an attempt to forestall genuine legislative & regulatory changes that I think are still coming (including through normal union drives and OLRB cases). But in the meantime, these money-burning financialized platforms face bigger and more urgent threats.