填空题 Recently, French taxi drivers paralysed Paris in protest against Uber, a ride-sharing service, and attacked a few Uber cars for good measure. From Uber"s point of view, all this is but a minor inconvenience: Paris is just one of 300 cities it serves. Far more worrying is what is happening in the company"s own backyard in San Francisco.
The California Labour Commissioner ruled that Uber owes a former driver, Berwick, $ 4,152, mostly in expenses, on the ground that she was an employee rather than, as Uber claims, an independent contractor. 1
Uber is not the only big American company whose business model may be upended by employment law. Last year the National Labour Relations Board"s general counsel said he would treat McDonald"s as a joint employer, together with franchisees, of staff in the chain"s franchised restaurants. This opinion will soon be tested in a case brought by ten employees who claim that they were sacked by a franchisee in Virginia on racial grounds.
2 Uber has to confront state governments which stand to gain sizeable tax revenues if on-demand workers are classified as employees. McDonald"s has to wrestle with the Service Employees International Union, which has been trying for years to unionise fast-food restaurants.
The legal situation seems to be murky in both cases. A pro-Uber lawyer could argue that the firm is essentially little more than a marketmaker that provides a forum for buyers and sellers of rides to come together. 3 Likewise, a pro-McDonald"s lawyer could argue that it is the franchisees who hire and fire workers, and who run the business from day to day. An anti-McDonald"s lawyer could point to the detailed rules that the company lays down on how workers in franchised restaurants are trained and how they should serve customers.
4 The post-war growth of franchising, and the expansion of companies that used freelance door-to-door sellers, began to blur the distinction. Now, the "on-demand" economy is all but obliterating it, by letting people sell their labour and rent out their assets—from cars to apartments—in a series of short-term assignments arranged by smartphone app.
That the law is so dated suggests that judges should exercise as light a touch as possible. 5 Forcing McDonald"s to become a co-employer would expose those franchisees to coordinated union action and make it much more difficult for them to respond to local circumstances.
A. Both Uber and McDonald"s are up against powerful interest groups that are capable of both fighting prolonged legal battles and playing on the public"s heartstrings.
B. Uber"s drivers, and their peers at on-demand firms, would get expenses and other benefits if they were declared employees—but they would have less flexibility over working hours and, more important, the increased cost of employing them might mean fewer jobs.
C. If the rulings go against the company, its labour costs may rise significantly, as it is forced to pay drivers" social security and other benefits as well as their expenses. Its valuation, which is currently above $ 40 billion, may suffer.
D. The fundamental problem is that in America, as in many other rich countries, employment law has failed to keep up with the changing realities of modern work. In those days a far larger proportion of American men worked in manufacturing; most women did not work; and the difference between employees, who worked full-time for a company, and contractors, who were typically tradesmen such as plumbers, seemed much clearer.
E. The most important thing to remember about the on-demand economy is that it has been a dramatic success not just for consumers but also for workers seeking flexibility. That is why Uber"s number of drivers has been doubling every six months for the past couple of years.
F. The franchise model has thrived because it allows local entrepreneurs to join forces with a global goliath to scale up their businesses quickly while operating them according to local labour-market conditions.
G. They are free to work for rivals, such as Lyft. An anti-Uber lawyer could retort that the company exercises considerable control over its workers. It screens them for criminal records, and weeds out those who get poor reviews from passengers.