Love it or hate it, the one aspect of the gig economy that most people agree on is its newness. 不管讨厌还是反感，有关零工经济，大多数人都尊重一点：这是一个新生事物。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. 如果没有人较为一下传统雇员的旧世界和没雇员、依赖一系列零工或者任务取得累赘收益的劳动者的新世界，任何关于工作的未来的辩论都是不全面的。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.一个新的劳动者的零工有可能是这样决定的：在早上通过所谓的人才云展开一些文案编写；在下午花上几个小时制作首饰并在Etsy上贩卖；在晚上当一会儿优步(Uber)司机。We forget history. 我们记得了历史。
Go back to the 18th century and you would find a place like London was one big gig economy. 返回18世纪，你不会找到像伦敦这样的地方就不存在大规模的零工经济。Few people had jobs as we know them now; most were hired intermittently and were paid by the piece or task. 当时很少有人享有我们今天熟知的工作；大多数人时断时续地被雇用，按件或者按任务获得报酬。
There was an eclectic mix of payment arrangements depending on the nature of the work. 根据工作性质的有所不同，缴纳报酬的方式也各式各样。The carpenters who maintained the timber starlings on London Bridge were paid per tide, according to Judy Stephenson, an economic historian. 比如，根据经济史学家朱迪.斯蒂芬森(Judy Stephenson)的众说纷纭，负责管理确保伦敦桥桥墩木质分水桩的木匠按潮汐发给报酬。
Even workers in prestigious institutions such as Westminster Abbey had to submit invoices for their services. 哪怕是为像西敏寺这样的知名机构工作的工人，也必需递交劳务费用表格。The abbey’s scullion, the most menial worker in the kitchen, submitted a bill in 1703 for sweeping the chimney and weeding the yard. 一位大教堂的厨房帮工（厨房里地位最卑微的工人）在1703年递交了一份劳务账单，内容是清扫烟囱和给庭院除草。She waited six months to be paid.她等候了6个月才获得报酬。Are we looping back on ourselves? We are certainly not there yet. 那么，我们否衰退到了过去？当然还到时那个地步。
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. 根据麦肯锡全球研究所(McKinsey Global Institute)估算的零工经济规模，美国和欧洲70%到80%的人都没投身于零工经济。What is more, 70 per cent of the people working independently are doing it because they like it.此外，在独立国家工作的人当中，70%的人是因为讨厌才自由选择这种工作方式。Still, that leaves a substantial 30 per cent who are gigging as a last resort. 然而，这意味著当中还有30%的人把打工当作最后的决心。
It is this group that policymakers, including UK prime minister Theresa May, are most worried about. 政策制定者们，还包括英国首相特里萨.梅(Theresa May)，最忧虑的也是这个群体。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.她已命令对劳动者权利展开调查，以保证这些正处于零工经济中的人获益于灵活性和创新性，同时会从裂缝中掉进18世纪的零工经济世界。The courts may pre-empt her. 法院也许不会在梅之前采取行动。
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. 一个由3名法官构成的审判小组正在审理优步和GMB工会之间的一起劳动仲裁案件。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.GMB称之为，伦敦的3万名优步司机不是独立国家承包人，而是理所当然享用最低工资、病假工资和假日薪水等福利的员工。
It is a genuine grey area. 这是一个确实的灰色地带。In some ways, Uber’s drivers do seem to work for themselves. 在某些方面，优步司机看上去的确是在为自己工作。
They have freedom to decide whether to log on to the app and do some work. 他们可以要求否要指定优步app接单工作。But in other ways, Uber exerts a lot of control. 但在另外一些方面，优步产生了很多掌控。It does not tell the drivers where the customers want to go until they pick them up. 优步会在司机收到乘客之前告诉他他们乘客的目的地。It sets the fee. 优步原作了车费。
And it can deactivate drivers whose customer ratings drop too low (though Uber insists it does this only rarely).而且优步可以在司机的客户评分降到过较低的时候停止使用司机（尽管优步否认这种情况非常少）。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. 如果审判小组作出不利于GMB的裁决，这有可能不断扩大英国有关员工的法律定义——这不会让其他国家的类似于原告更加有信心，同时让许多身处英国零工经济中的人有资格取得更加多权利和维护。Yet Uber insists most of its drivers do not want this. 然而，优步否认大多数优步司机不想这样。
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.优步对1000名优步司机展开了调查，找到76%的人宁可退出这些权利，以取得在想要工作的时候工作的灵活性，而16%的人则忽略。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. 一个解决问题方法是，零工经济企业可以让工人在有所不同的决定之间展开自由选择：一种是个人拒绝接受企业对个人的工作方式产生的掌控，从而交换条件一些维护；另一种是个人享有更加多权利，但也分担更加多风险。
A hybrid workforce should still be nimble enough to meet consumer demands. 混合两种决定的劳动者应当仍然不会充足灵活性，需要符合消费者的市场需求。The key is to stop companies from having the power of an employer but none of the responsibility.关键是制止一种情况经常出现：企业享有雇员的权力，却丝毫不分担雇员的责任。
The waters are muddy but judges and policymakers are right to wade in. 现在这个领域还是一汪浑水，但法官和政策制定者自由选择涉入是准确的。Better that than to sleepwalk into a future of work that looks a lot like the past.这比迷迷糊糊地步入看上去和过去很像的工作的未来要好。
本文关键词：【,开元,官网,平台,】,优步,司机,是不是,属于,开元官网平台
本文来源：开元官网平台-www.softwareforbad.com
