70 research outputs found
Beyond the Algorithm Qualitative Insights for Gig Work Regulation
No full textIn Beyond the Algorithm: Qualitative Insights for Gig Work Regulation, Deepa Das Acevedo and a collection of scholars and experts show why government actors must go beyond mass surveys and data-scrubbing in order to truly understand the realities of gig work. The contributors draw on qualitative empirical research to reveal the narratives and real-life experiences that define gig work, and they connect these insights to policy debates being fought out in courts, town halls, and even in Congress itself. The book also bridges academic and non-academic worlds by drawing on the experiences of drivers, journalists, and workers\u27 advocates who were among the first people to study gig work from the bottom up. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in gig work, the legal infrastructure surrounding it, and how that infrastructure can and must be improved.https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/fac_books/1050/thumbnail.jp
Recommended from our members
Beyond the Algorithm Qualitative Insights for Gig Work Regulation
No full textIn Beyond the Algorithm: Qualitative Insights for Gig Work Regulation, Deepa Das Acevedo and a collection of scholars and experts show why government actors must go beyond mass surveys and data-scrubbing in order to truly understand the realities of gig work. The contributors draw on qualitative empirical research to reveal the narratives and real-life experiences that define gig work, and they connect these insights to policy debates being fought out in courts, town halls, and even in Congress itself. The book also bridges academic and non-academic worlds by drawing on the experiences of drivers, journalists, and workers\u27 advocates who were among the first people to study gig work from the bottom up. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in gig work, the legal infrastructure surrounding it, and how that infrastructure can and must be improved.https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/fac_books/1050/thumbnail.jp
Recommended from our members
Beyond the algorithm ::qualitative insights for gig work regulation /
No full textIn Beyond the Algorithm: Qualitative Insights for Gig Work Regulation, Deepa Das Acevedo and a collection of scholars and experts show why government actors must go beyond mass surveys and data-scrubbing in order to truly understand the realities of gig work. The contributors draw on qualitative empirical research to reveal the narratives and real-life experiences that define gig work, and they connect these insights to policy debates being fought out in courts, town halls, and even in Congress itself. The book also bridges academic and non-academic worlds by drawing on the experiences of drivers, journalists, and workers' advocates who were among the first people to study gig work from the bottom up. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in gig work, the legal infrastructure surrounding it, and how that infrastructure can and must be improved
“Shadow 401(k)s” in response to retirement crisis
No full textPenn Law’s Deepa Das Acevedodiscusses the looming retirement crisis, employment law, and new work model
Unbundling Freedom in the Sharing Economy
No full textCourts and scholars point to the sharing economy as the most recent proof that our labor amp employment infrastructure is obsolete because it rests on a narrow and outmoded idea ”namely that only workers subjected to direct personalized control by their employers need workrelated protections and benefits Since they diagnose the problem as being our system\u27s emphasis on control these critics have long called for reducing or eliminating the primacy of the control test in classifying workers as either protected employees or unprotected independent contractors Despite these persistent criticisms however the concept of control has been remarkably sticky in scholarly and judicial circlesbrbrThis Article argues that critics have misdiagnosed the reason why the control test is an unsatisfying method of classifying workers and dispensing workrelated safeguards Controlbased analysis is faulty because it only captures one of the two conflicting ways in which workers scholars and decisionmakers think about freedom at work One of these ways freedom as noninterference is adequately captured by the control test The other freedom as nondomination is not The tension between these two conceptions of freedom both deeply entrenched in American culture explains why the concept of control has been both faulty and sticky when it comes to worker classification brbrDrawing on a firstofitskind body of ethnographic fieldwork among workers and policymakers across several sharing economy industries this Article begins by showing how workers themselves conceptualize freedom as both noninterference and nondomination It then goes on to show that both these conceptualizations of freedom also exist in case law and statutory law pertaining to work In doing so the Article demonstrates that there is no great divide between work law and work practices and that if anything the problem is that classification doctrine reflects and reinforces an irresolvable tension in the way lay and legal actors think about freedom at wor
Invisible Bosses for Invisible Workers, or Why the Sharing Economy is Actually Minimally Disruptive
No full textBecause the idea that sharing economy companies operate as invisible bosses is central to many critiques of this new approach to labor exchange, Part I begins by explaining just what it is about their authority that makes it “invisible.” Part II extends this discussion to two earlier developments that, like the sharing economy, also significantly transformed the way Americans work: the franchise explosion of the 1950s and the spread of the independent contractor model in the late twentieth century. This article is the first to offer a detailed comparison of work practices used by sharing economy companies, franchises, and some independent contracting companies to discuss how these entities seem like invisible bosses. I conclude with a few thoughts on what the comparison tells us about regulating labor in the sharing economy
Recommended from our members
Invisible Bosses for Invisible Workers, or Why the Sharing Economy is Actually Minimally Disruptive
No full textBecause the idea that sharing economy companies operate as invisible bosses is central to many critiques of this new approach to labor exchange, Part I begins by explaining just what it is about their authority that makes it “invisible.” Part II extends this discussion to two earlier developments that, like the sharing economy, also significantly transformed the way Americans work: the franchise explosion of the 1950s and the spread of the independent contractor model in the late twentieth century. This article is the first to offer a detailed comparison of work practices used by sharing economy companies, franchises, and some independent contracting companies to discuss how these entities seem like invisible bosses. I conclude with a few thoughts on what the comparison tells us about regulating labor in the sharing economy
The Past as a Colonialist Resource
No full textOriginalism’s critics have failed to block its rise. For many jurists and legal scholars, the question is no longer whether to espouse originalism but how to espouse it. This Article argues that critics have ceded too much ground by focusing on discrediting originalism as either bad history or shoddy linguistics. To disrupt the cycle of endless “methodological” refinements and effectively address originalism’s continued popularity, critics must do two things: identify a better disciplinary analogue for originalist interpretation and advance an argument that moves beyond methods.
Anthropology can assist with both tasks. Both anthropological analysis and originalist interpretation are premised on the goal of cultural translation—that is, on rendering holistic worldviews from another time-place intelligible to the translator’s own context. Likewise, both anthropology and originalism often rely on a particular interpretive device—the Reasonable Man (or Reader)—to achieve their translational goals. This Article is the first to recognize the true goal of originalism as applied cultural translation.
But analogizing to anthropology also reveals that originalism’s greatest weakness is political and ethical rather than methodological. Pressing cultural translation into the service of state power is an inextricably colonialist endeavor: it does violence to those against whom translational insights are applied by taming and supplanting their worldviews based on racialized and gendered disparities of power. Nineteenth- and twentieth-century colonizing powers often literally used anthropological research to buttress their authority over colonized peoples. Today, originalist jurisprudence intentionally reinforces the political oppression of historically marginalized groups within the United States by magnifying the views of their historical oppressors. But whereas anthropology can exist independent of its use by political powers, originalism is inseparable from statecraft. By drawing on lessons learned in anthropology, this Article demonstrates that originalist analysis—however methodologically sound—is problematic because it uses the past as a colonialist resource
- …
