An employment regulation avoidance system

The recent discussion on the viability and credibility of the ‘gig economy’ is not a new discussion. Commentators have been

My former firm, Cornerstone, published taxonomies and discussions on the implications of the growth of the gig economy.

But my story relates to a research report on the future of the retail sector in 2017. The report, Retail Workers: Stranded Assets, focused on how the retail sector may evolve in the face of technology. While it does do some ‘sensationalism’ about worker automation, it is more nuanced about the type of changes that might occur in the sector.

The report was well-received and I had the opportunity to present to the board of one of the world’s largest private retailers (so they weren’t included in the assessment).

Post the presentation to the board, the discussion turned to a recent acquisition of a ‘gig economy’ company. The board saw the opportunity to improve convenience of their products by enabling consumers to ‘hire’ people to help situate their purchases in their home.

The private company’s current employees are one of the best paid and treated (opportunities and conditions) that we had seen.

The chair of the board (and the founder) was standing in front of me and I said ‘that is a risk purchase because it is an employment law avoidance app’. I noted that employment in the main company was seen as great job and they just added a whole group of ‘gig’ economy workers that were only viable as a business opportunity by circumventing employment law and associated requirements (sick leave, insurance, superannuation etc etc).

So here we are in 2019 having this conversation.