# Labor Party policy on the gig economy: speech by Anthony Albanese



## Jack Malarkey (Jan 11, 2016)

https://anthonyalbanese.com.au/25094-2
[HEADING=2]ANTHONY ALBANESE MP[/HEADING]
[HEADING=2]LEADER OF THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY[/HEADING]
[HEADING=2]MEMBER FOR GRAYNDLER[/HEADING]

[HEADING=2]SECURE AUSTRALIAN JOBS PLAN[/HEADING]

[HEADING=2]TAFE QUEENSLAND[/HEADING]
[HEADING=2]BRISBANE[/HEADING]
[HEADING=2]WEDNESDAY, 10 FEBRUARY 2021[/HEADING]

...

In addition, we will legislate to ensure more Australian workers have access to employee protections and entitlements currently denied to them by that narrow, outdated definition of an "employee".

We will do this by extending the powers of the Fair Work Commission to include employee-like forms of work, allowing the Commission to make orders for minimum standards in new forms of work.

The most obvious example of what we are talking about here is of course the "gig" or "on demand" economy - an ever-increasing and entrenched part of our daily lives.

Technology underpinning on-demand services has transformed the way certain services are delivered for consumers. It's all about convenience.

Anyone who has ordered food through Deliveroo, taken a trip on Uber or used AirTasker knows that.

But beneath the surface we are seeing a depressingly familiar picture: workers scrambling for insecure jobs and agreeing to below minimum wage rates to perform work that's paid by the piece.

For these big global firms, there's a supply of workers "on demand", yet no employment relationship to manage. It's all so easy.

But in recent times we've seen the terrible consequences of a largely unregulated industry that puts unacceptable pressure on gig workers to meet the demands of an algorithm - five deaths on our roads over just three months.

Because of the way the gig economy is being structured, workers are being denied basic rights such as award benefits, superannuation, the right to collectively bargain and access to unfair dismissal protections.

Take Diego, a food delivery driver. He was sacked for being 'late' but never once was told that he wasn't delivering fast enough. Not given a chance to improve. Yet he had no recourse because he's a gig worker.

Or Rosya, who hit a car door while delivering food on her bike. Without sick leave, she had to return to work too soon after her injury. And then she was sacked because her injury was causing her to allegedly cycle too slowly. Again, Rosya had no recourse, no legal protections.

The problem here is clear enough. While technology has transformed the patterns of commerce and brought benefits, the do-nothing LNP Government has failed to ensure that industrial relations laws keep up with this rapid change.

In their inaction, they have favoured employers over employees, when their responsibility is to maintain a system that respects the interests of both.

Labor will ensure the independent umpire has the capacity to inquire into all forms of work and determine what rights and obligations should apply.

...


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

By and large, the definition of employee has been left to the courts to decide. I reckon it's now past time to change that. If you can't delegate the work, and can't negotiate pay rates, then it's reasonable in my view to deem such a worker as an employee for various purposes: minimum pay rates, super entitlements, worker's comp, and if the work is more casual ad hoc work in nature, then a 50% pay loading (in lieu of leave entitlements) rather than the 25% that applies for standard casual rates.


----------



## Sandhills (Feb 9, 2018)

if you earn over $30 an hour uber will throttle your jobs back to keep you around that $30...as a matter of fact uber dictates your hourly income

if you reject jobs that are unsafe uber will stop giving you jobs...as a matter of fact they direct and control your work flow for their benefit and against your interests 

we are told over and over we are independent yet both our wage and work practice, as a matter of obvious fact is dictated

the courts have been sold the sham and are unable to properly understand the dictorial and controlling substance of gig work

the govt and regulatory bodies are simply sidestepped by the nimble gig operators


----------



## DA08 (Mar 18, 2017)

Sandhills said:


> if you earn over $30 an hour uber will throttle your jobs back to keep you around that $30...as a matter of fact uber dictates your hourly income
> 
> if you reject jobs that are unsafe uber will stop giving you jobs...as a matter of fact they direct and control your work flow for their benefit and against your interests
> 
> ...


Get your on demand licence and you can do what Eva you want... Set your price etc..

But no apart from @Scottie B no one did or does anything... Just whinge and whinge and whinge.


----------



## Scottie B (Oct 18, 2016)

DA08 said:


> Get your on demand licence and you can do what Eva you want... Set your price etc..
> 
> But no apart from @Scottie B no one did or does anything... Just whinge and whinge and whinge.


Lost sheep who will never change their way


----------



## DA08 (Mar 18, 2017)

Scottie B said:


> Lost sheep who will never change their way


Yep. I'm surprised that people like @Mulder99 didn't doesn't do this given he's a full-time driver...

The rest that just whinge and don't do nothing to improve themselves, will not get anywhere..


----------

