Regulating work in the gig economy: What are the options?

By A. Stewart, J. Stanford. 2017

434 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Public Administration, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d6ec825f335ca4241b265f41972ef57d8d430ee3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

In Public Administration

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Youth, enterprise and precarity: or, what is, and what is wrong with, the ‘gig economy’? (2019, background): “…to a process wherein short-term tasks are advertised by companies through online platforms with workers bidding a (wage) price to undertake the job as an independent contractor, working on a series of discrete ‘gigs’ (see Stewart and Stanford, 2017; and the introduction to this Special Issue).”
‘I’m my own boss…’: Active intermediation and ‘entrepreneurial’ worker agency in the Australian gig-economy (2020, methodology): “The state applies a multi-factor test to determine the appropriateness of classifications (Stewart and Stanford, 2017).”
“Is your gig any good?” Analysing job quality in the Australian platform-based food-delivery sector (2019, background): “Although some have suggested the simple solution to reclassify these workers as employees (Stewart and Stanford, 2017), this ignores the platforms’ engagement with the regulatory regimes under which they operate as well as the realities and complexities of these work arrangements.”
Platform-Capital’s ‘App-etite’ for Control: A Labour Process Analysis of Food-Delivery Work in Australia (2019, background): “…attention on app-based platform-work focuses on the distinctive features of the work, such as the reliance on algorithms to manage workers (Kenney and Zysman, 2016; Rosenblat and Stark, 2016; Zwick, 2018), and how these forms of work should be regulated (Cherry, 2016; Stewart and Stanford, 2017).”
The resurgence of gig work: Historical and theoretical perspectives (2017, background): “Data on the number of workers producing through digital platforms are imprecise, but most research concludes that it is well under 1% of the working population – and thus constitutes a very small proportion of all precarious work (Stewart and Stanford, 2017).”
Negotiating labour standards in the gig economy: Airtasker and Unions New South Wales (2017, background): “As Stewart and Stanford (2017) argue in this symposium, the existence and effectiveness of this supposed ‘contract’ are often doubtful.”
What is the future of work? A science mapping analysis (2020, background): “Gig economy offers autonomy and flexibility to workers, but conversely it could represent a trend towards precarious working (Friedman, 2014; Stewart & Stanford, 2017).”
The COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons on building more equal and sustainable societies (2020, background): “Concerns with excluding gig workers from minimum employment standards, despite the dependent nature of their work, have been well aired (Stewart and Stanford, 2017).”
Conceptualizing the Gig Economy and Its Regulatory Problems (2020, background): “And, when looking at scholars who provide clear ‐ cut conceptualizations of what they regard as the gig economy, substantial differences remain (Healy et al., 2017; Kuhn & Maleki, 2017; Stewart & Stanford, 2017).”
The organisation and experience of work in the gig economy (2019, background): “Another source of risk lies in the fact that workers provide capital in the form of tools or equipment, support the fluctuation of business and income, or can be ‘deactivated’ from an app (Stewart and Stanford, 2017).”