優(yōu)步司機(jī)是不是“雇員”？

Love it or hate it, the one aspect of the “gig economy” that most people agree on is its newness. No discussion about the future of work is complete without someone contrasting the old world of traditional employee jobs with the new world of workers without employers, piecing an income together from a series of “gigs” or tasks. Perhaps some copywriting in the so-called human cloud in the morning; a few hours making jewellery to sell on Etsy in the afternoon; a spot of Uber driving in the evening.

不管喜歡還是厭惡，有關(guān)“零工經(jīng)濟(jì)”，大多數(shù)人都認(rèn)同一點(diǎn)：這是一個新生事物。如果沒有人比較一下傳統(tǒng)雇員的舊世界和沒有雇主、依靠一系列“零工”或者任務(wù)獲得零碎收入的勞動者的新世界，任何關(guān)于工作的未來的討論都是不全面的。一個新勞動者的零工可能是這樣安排的：在早上通過所謂的“人才云”進(jìn)行一些文案撰寫;在下午花幾個小時制作首飾并在Etsy上售賣;在晚上當(dāng)一會兒優(yōu)步(Uber)司機(jī)。

We forget history. Go back to the 18th century and you would find a place like London was one big gig economy. Few people had jobs as we know them now; most were hired intermittently and were paid by the “piece” or task. There was an eclectic mix of payment arrangements depending on the nature of the work. The carpenters who maintained the timber starlings on London Bridge were paid per tide, according to Judy Stephenson, an economic historian. Even workers in prestigious institutions such as Westminster Abbey had to submit invoices for their services. The abbey’s scullion, the most menial worker in the kitchen, submitted a bill in 1703 for sweeping the chimney and weeding the yard. She waited six months to be paid.

我們忘記了歷史?；氐?8世紀(jì)，你會發(fā)現(xiàn)像倫敦這樣的地方就存在大規(guī)模的零工經(jīng)濟(jì)。當(dāng)時很少有人擁有我們今天所知的工作;大多數(shù)人時斷時續(xù)地被雇傭，按“件”或者按任務(wù)得到報(bào)酬。根據(jù)工作性質(zhì)的不同，支付報(bào)酬的方式也各式各樣。比如，根據(jù)經(jīng)濟(jì)史學(xué)家朱迪•斯蒂芬森(Judy Stephenson)的說法，負(fù)責(zé)維護(hù)倫敦橋橋墩木質(zhì)分水樁的木匠按潮汐領(lǐng)取報(bào)酬。哪怕是為像西敏寺這樣的著名機(jī)構(gòu)工作的工人，也必須提交勞務(wù)費(fèi)用清單。一位大教堂的廚房幫工(廚房里地位最低微的工人)在1703年提交了一份勞務(wù)賬單，內(nèi)容是打掃煙囪和給庭院除草。她等待了6個月才拿到報(bào)酬。

Are we looping back on ourselves? We are certainly not there yet. According to estimates of the size of the gig economy by the McKinsey Global Institute, 70 to 80 per cent of people in the US and Europe have nothing to do with it. What is more, 70 per cent of the people working independently are doing it because they like it.

那么，我們是否倒退到了過去?當(dāng)然還沒到那個地步。根據(jù)麥肯錫全球研究所(McKinsey Global Institute)估計(jì)的零工經(jīng)濟(jì)規(guī)模，美國和歐洲70%到80%的人都沒有涉足零工經(jīng)濟(jì)。此外，在獨(dú)立工作的人當(dāng)中，70%的人是因?yàn)橄矚g才選擇這種工作方式。

Still, that leaves a substantial 30 per cent who are “gigging” as a last resort. It is this group that policymakers, including UK prime minister Theresa May, are most worried about. She has ordered a review into workers’ rights to make sure those in the gig economy benefit from “flexibility and innovation” and do not fall through the cracks into an 18th-century world.

然而，這意味著當(dāng)中還有30%的人把打零工當(dāng)做最后的出路。政策制定者們，包括英國首相特里薩•梅(Theresa May)，最擔(dān)憂的也是這個群體。她已指示對勞動者權(quán)利進(jìn)行調(diào)查，以確保這些處于零工經(jīng)濟(jì)中的人受益于“靈活性和創(chuàng)新性”，同時不會從裂縫中掉入18世紀(jì)的零工經(jīng)濟(jì)世界。

The courts may pre-empt her. This week, a panel of three men will meet in London to decide the outcome of an employment tribunal case between Uber and the GMB union. The GMB alleges that Uber’s 30,000 London drivers are not “independent contractors” but “workers” owed the minimum wage, sick pay and holiday pay.

法院或許會在梅之前采取行動。一個由3名法官組成的審判小組正在審理優(yōu)步和GMB工會之間的一起勞動仲裁案件。GMB稱，倫敦的3萬名優(yōu)步司機(jī)不是“獨(dú)立承包人”，而是理應(yīng)享受最低工資、病假工資和假日薪水等福利的“員工”。

It is a genuine grey area. In some ways, Uber’s drivers do seem to work for themselves. They have freedom to decide whether to log on to the app and do some work. But in other ways, Uber exerts a lot of control. It does not tell the drivers where the customers want to go until they pick them up. It sets the fee. And it can “deactivate” drivers whose customer ratings drop too low (though Uber insists it does this only rarely).

這是一個真正的灰色地帶。在某些方面，優(yōu)步司機(jī)看起來的確是在為自己工作。他們可以決定是否要登錄優(yōu)步app接單工作。但在另外一些方面，優(yōu)步施加了很多控制。優(yōu)步不會在司機(jī)接到乘客之前告訴他們乘客的目的地。優(yōu)步設(shè)定了車費(fèi)。而且優(yōu)步可以在司機(jī)的客戶評分降至過低的時候“停用”司機(jī)(盡管優(yōu)步堅(jiān)稱這種情況非常少)。

If the tribunal panel finds for the GMB, it could broaden the legal definition of who counts as a worker in the UK — emboldening similar claimants in other countries, while making many in Britain’s gig economy eligible for more rights and protections. Yet Uber insists most of its drivers do not want this. It has polled 1,000 of them and found 76 per cent would rather give up these rights to maintain their flexibility to work when they want, while 16 per cent would prefer the opposite deal.

如果審判小組做出有利于GMB的判決，這可能擴(kuò)大英國有關(guān)“員工”的法律定義——這會讓其他國家的類似原告更有信心，同時讓許多身處英國零工經(jīng)濟(jì)中的人有資格獲得更多權(quán)利和保護(hù)。然而，優(yōu)步堅(jiān)稱大多數(shù)優(yōu)步司機(jī)不想要這樣。優(yōu)步對1000名優(yōu)步司機(jī)進(jìn)行了調(diào)查，發(fā)現(xiàn)76%的人寧可放棄這些權(quán)利，以獲得在想工作的時候工作的靈活性，而16%的人則相反。

One answer could be for gig economy companies to let workers choose between arrangements: one where they exert control over how the person works in exchange for some protection, and the other where the person has more freedom but shoulders more risk. A hybrid workforce should still be nimble enough to meet consumer demands. The key is to stop companies from having the power of an employer but none of the responsibility.

一個解決方法是，零工經(jīng)濟(jì)企業(yè)可以讓工人在不同的安排之間進(jìn)行選擇：一種是個人接受企業(yè)對個人的工作方式施加的控制，從而換取一些保護(hù);另一種是個人擁有更多自由，但也承擔(dān)更多風(fēng)險(xiǎn)?；旌蟽煞N安排的勞動者應(yīng)該依然會足夠靈活，能夠滿足消費(fèi)者的需求。關(guān)鍵是阻止一種情況出現(xiàn)：企業(yè)擁有雇主的權(quán)力，卻絲毫不承擔(dān)雇主的責(zé)任。

The waters are muddy but judges and policymakers are right to wade in. Better that than to sleepwalk into a “future of work” that looks a lot like the past.

現(xiàn)在這個領(lǐng)域還是一汪渾水，但法官和政策制定者選擇涉入是正確的。這比迷迷糊糊地踏入看起來和過去很像的“工作的未來”要好。