Jeff Chiu / REUTERS

Companies such as Uber will get regulated eventually—but whether that's the best way to help on-demand workers is still being debated.

If asked to define the variously named sharing/gig/on-demand economy, anyone would struggle. Despite the fact that Uber and Airbnb have become household names, most companies that are considered part of this new tech-driven, non-ownership economy do vastly different things. And so do their workers.

This nebulousness of these companies makes them hard not only to define, but also to regulate.

Part of the problem is the limited, binary system for labeling workers—either they are employees with all the legal protections that imbues or not—argue Seth Harris and Alan Krueger in a new paper from the Brookings Institution. They (and others) have suggested that the solution is finding a new, middle classification, which would allow workers and employers to retain some of the freedoms associated with independent work while enjoying some of the protections from being mistreated.

Krueger and Harris specifically recommend that workers who straddle the line between being a 1099 independent contractor and a W-2 employee should be able to retain flexibility of hours, while enjoying the right to organize, civil-rights protections, and tax withholding—but not the more contested benefits of unemployment insurance, workers comp, and minimum-wage requirements. For many workers’ advocates, leaving these benefits out of the classification is a weakness of this proposal. In particular, the rejection of workers comp, for individuals injured on the job, and unemployment insurance, should a worker be suddenly dismissed, would be hard to swallow. Harris says these benefits were left out because they could be addressed through collective bargaining, which the proposed classification does protect.

During an event hosted by Brookings to discuss the new proposal, experts agreed that the fast and vast growth of these companies made pinning down precise problems and solutions difficult. “We are creating really large businesses very very quickly and are not completely educated on what it takes to be a good employer,” said Marcela Sapone, the chief executive officer of Hello Alfred, an on-demand service that helps coordinate chores like grocery shopping, laundry delivery, and cleaning. But already the conversation about employee classification seems to be having an impact without explicit regulation. Hello Alfred and a spate of companies that fit the sharing or on-demand model have already made the choice to bestow greater protections on their workers by making them full employees. The benefit for workers is apparent, but for companies it also means that they have greater control over their workers and their work product and they don’t have to worry about lawsuits or impending legislation that could force them to make their workers employees.

A middle ground for classification sounds useful, given that for many workers the benefits provided would be an upgrade over their current self-employed status, but is America ready to alter the legal framework that defines the relationships of workers and their employers—and is doing so even necessary?

“If we legislate too quickly we're going to screw it up,” said Virginia Senator Mark Warner during the event. That fear seems to be something widespread among both regulators and businesses, despite encouragement from workers and their advocates. Legislators see reforming the worker-classification system as a major undertaking, one that Gene Sperling, the former director of the National Economic Council, called a once-in-a-generation endeavor.

And it’s possible that even once new regulations kick in, they won't be as protective as some might hope, which means that businesses still bear some responsibility in caring for workers, says Arun Sundararjan, a professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business. “We don't have a rich and deep government-provided social-safety net. If we look to the government as the place the social-safety net is going to come from, we'll fall short.” That means, at least for now, the industry and it’s workers will have to figure out a way forward on their own, while regulators and laws play catch up.

This post originally appeared on The Atlantic.

About the Author

Most Popular

  1. Homes in Amsterdam are pictured.

    Amsterdam's Plan: If You Buy a Newly Built House, You Can't Rent It Out

    In an effort to make housing more affordable, the Dutch capital is crafting a law that says anyone who buys a newly built home must live in it themselves.

  2. In this image from "No Small Plans," a character makes his way to the intersection of State and Madison Streets in 1928 Chicago.

    Drawing Up an Urban Planning Manual for Chicago Teens

    The graphic novel No Small Plans aims to empower the city’s youth through stories about their neighborhoods.

  3. Equity

    How Poor Americans Get Exploited by Their Landlords

    American landlords derive more profit from renters in low-income neighborhoods, researchers Matthew Desmond and Nathan Wilmers find.

  4. Design

    Cities Deserve Better Than These Thomas Heatherwick Gimmicks

    The “Vessel” at New York’s Hudson Yards—like so many of his designs—look as if the dystopian world of 1984 has been given a precious makeover.

  5. Plogging combines running with trash picking.

    Pick Up Trash While You Exercise. It's Called Plogging.

    If the Swedish fitness trend is more than just a fad, it’s a win-win for everyone.