It is so good to be here with all of you. And yes I will be call­ing on peo­ple. Mostly those of you stand­ing in the back. I always know why peo­ple are stand­ing in the back. That’s what teach­ers do.

But thank you. And thank you for the intro­duc­tion, Anne-Marie [Slaughter]. Thank you to the New America Foundation for invit­ing me here today to talk about the gig econ­o­my. This is actu­al­ly speech I’ve want­ed to give for a long time, so I’m glad I have the chance to do it. It’s some­thing we’ve been work­ing on. You know, across the coun­try, new com­pa­nies are using the Internet to trans­form the way that Americans work, shop, social­ize, vaca­tion, look for love, talk to the doc­tor, get around, and track down ten-foot feath­er boas, which is actu­al­ly my lat­est search on Amazon. It’s a long sto­ry. It’s actu­al­ly true.

These inno­va­tions have helped improve our lives in count­less ways, reduc­ing inef­fi­cien­cies and lever­ag­ing net­work effects to help grow our econ­o­my. And this is real growth. For exam­ple, increas­ing broad­band pen­e­tra­tion boosts GDP. And increas­ing 3G con­nec­tions increas­es mobile data use, which in turn increas­es GDP. The most famous exam­ple of this is prob­a­bly the ride-sharing plat­forms in our cities. The taxi cab indus­try was rid­dled with monop­o­lies, rents, inef­fi­cien­cies. Cities lim­it­ed the num­ber of taxi licens­es. They charged dri­vers steep fees for taxi medal­lions. They required dri­vers to pay addi­tion­al fees to pick up pas­sen­gers at the air­port. They micro-managed paint jobs for indi­vid­ual cars, and even out­lawed price com­pe­ti­tion.

Uber and Lyft, two ride-sharing plat­forms came onto the scene about five years ago, rad­i­cal­ly altered this mod­el, enabling any­one with a smart­phone and a car to deliv­er rides. They also enabled cus­tomers to find a ride any time of day with the touch of a but­ton. The result was more rides, cheap­er rides, and short­er wait times.

The ride-sharing sto­ry illus­trates the promise of these new busi­ness­es. And the dan­gers. Uber and Lyft fought against local taxi cab rules that kept prices high and lim­it­ed access to ser­vices. But as the dis­pute in Austin, Texas has demon­strat­ed, the com­pa­nies have fought just as vig­or­ous­ly against local rules designed to cre­ate a lev­el play­ing field between them­selves and their taxi com­peti­tors. And they have also resist­ed rules designed to pro­mote rid­er safe­ty and dri­ver account­abil­i­ty.

And while their busi­ness­es pro­vide work­ers with greater flex­i­bil­i­ty, com­pa­nies like Lyft and Uber have often resist­ed efforts of those very same work­ers to try to access a greater share of the wealth that is gen­er­at­ed from the work that they do. Their busi­ness mod­el is, in part, depen­dent on extreme­ly low wages for their dri­vers.

Now look, it is excit­ing and very hip to talk about Uber and Lyft and TaskRabbit and a whole bunch of oth­er new plat­forms out there. But the promise and the risks of these com­pa­nies isn’t new. For cen­turies, tech­no­log­i­cal advances have helped cre­ate new wealth and have increased GDP. But it is pol­i­cy, rules and reg­u­la­tions, that will deter­mine whether work­ers have a mean­ing­ful oppor­tu­ni­ty to share in the wealth that is gen­er­at­ed.

A cen­tu­ry ago, the Industrial Revolution rad­i­cal­ly altered the American econ­o­my. Millions moved from farms to fac­to­ries. These sweep­ing changes in our econ­o­my gen­er­at­ed enor­mous wealth. They also wreaked hav­oc on work­ers and their fam­i­lies. Workplaces were mon­strous­ly unsafe. Wages were pal­try. Hours were gru­el­ing.

Now, America’s response wasn’t too aban­don tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tions and improve­ments from the Industrial Revolution. We didn’t send every­one back to the farms. No. Instead we came togeth­er, and through our gov­ern­ment, we changed pub­lic poli­cies to adapt to a chang­ing econ­o­my, to try to keep the good and get rid of the bad. The list of new laws and reg­u­la­tions was long. Think about it: min­i­mum wage, work­place safe­ty, work­er com­pen­sa­tion, child labor laws, the 40-hour work week, Social Security, the right to union­ize. But each of those changes made a pro­found dif­fer­ence. They put guard rails around the abil­i­ty of giant cor­po­ra­tions to exploit work­ers, to gen­er­ate addi­tion­al prof­its at any cost. They helped make sure that part of the increased wealth that was gen­er­at­ed by inno­va­tion would be used to build a strong mid­dle class.

The changes, by the way, were not all focused on work­ers. Antitrust laws and newly-created pub­lic util­i­ties addressed the new tech­no­log­i­cal revolution’s ten­den­cy toward con­cen­tra­tion and monop­oly, and kept our mar­kets com­pet­i­tive. Rules to pre­vent cheat­ing and fraud were added to make sure that bad actors in the mar­ket­place couldn’t get a leg up over folks who played by the rules.

Now, those changes didn’t hap­pen overnight. There were big fights over decades to estab­lish that bal­ance. But once in place, these poli­cies under­wrote the widely-shared growth and pros­per­i­ty of the 20th cen­tu­ry. I just want to put one num­ber in front of you. From 1935 to 1980, the 90% of America, every­body not in the top 10%, got 70% of all income growth gen­er­at­ed in this econ­o­my. In oth­er words, as the econ­o­my grew and became more pro­duc­tive, so did the aver­age worker’s wages. Instead of all the wealth going to a hand­ful of giant com­pa­nies, fac­to­ry own­ers, and investors—the rob­ber barons of the ear­ly 20th century—the growth cre­at­ed by our man­u­fac­tur­ing econ­o­my sup­port­ed the growth of a pros­per­ous, secure mid­dle class. And this dis­tri­b­u­tion occurred because of a new­ly emerg­ing, basic bar­gain for work­ers.

A hun­dred years ago, nobody grap­pling with the rapid changes in tech­nol­o­gy and work seri­ous­ly enter­tained the idea of ban­ning man­u­fac­tur­ing advances. And today, nobody seri­ous­ly enter­tains the idea of pulling the plug on the Internet. Massive tech­no­log­i­cal change is a gift, a byprod­uct of human inge­nu­ity. And it cre­ates extra­or­di­nary oppor­tu­ni­ties to improve the lives of bil­lions of peo­ple.

But his­to­ry shows that to har­ness those oppor­tu­ni­ties, to cre­ate and sus­tain a strong mid­dle class, pol­i­cy also mat­ters. To ful­ly real­ize the poten­tial of this new econ­o­my, laws must be adapt­ed to make sure that the basic bar­gain for work­ers remains intact. And that work­ers have a chance to share in the growth that they helped pro­duce.

Now, the chal­lenge today is dou­bly dif­fi­cult. At the same time that we need to adapt to new work rela­tion­ships in a gig econ­o­my, the basic bar­gain of the old work rela­tion­ships has become bad­ly frayed. Over the past three decades, work­ers have been under mer­ci­less attack. For decades now, big busi­ness has tried to squeeze more prof­its out of work­ers by duck­ing and dodg­ing reg­u­la­tions and by tak­ing advan­tage of loop­holes in employ­ment pol­i­cy, by skirt­ing enforce­ment efforts, and even by fla­grant­ly vio­lat­ing the law. Giant cor­po­ra­tions have deployed armies of lob­by­ists and lawyers to freeze, to lim­it, to dis­man­tle, as many work­er pro­tec­tions as they could. And the result is that for decades the guard rails that once served to build a robust mid­dle class no longer offer the same kind of pro­tec­tion.

More and more of today’s jobs have sharply-limited pro­tec­tions and ben­e­fits. Look, long before any­body ever wrote an arti­cle about the gig econ­o­my, cor­po­ra­tions had dis­cov­ered the high­er prof­its they could wring out of an on-demand work force made up of inde­pen­dent con­trac­tors. Labor laws make sharp dis­tinc­tions between employ­ees on the one hand and inde­pen­dent con­trac­tors on the oth­er. And the con­se­quence of this is that many employ­ers fig­ured out how to exploit that dis­tinc­tion between the two. They hired peo­ple who once were char­ac­ter­ized as employ­ees, now to become inde­pen­dent con­trac­tors. And the result was that these work­ers lost their ben­e­fit, they lost the sta­bil­i­ty of guar­an­teed work, and they lost the abil­i­ty to form a union and bar­gain col­lec­tive­ly.

But the employee/1099 divide is not the only way that the basic bar­gain is fray­ing. Employees, par­tic­u­lar­ly low wage employ­ees, face chal­lenges that are not unlike the chal­lenges fac­ing gig work­ers and inde­pen­dent con­trac­tors. They too have lost both the ben­e­fits and the sta­bil­i­ty of a guar­an­teed work sched­ule and a steady income. As employ­ers have moved to just-in-time staffing, more hourly work­ers are trapped in part-time jobs or stripped down full-time jobs. An increas­ing num­ber of work­ers are in sub­con­tract­ing or fran­chise arrange­ments, where their employ­ment con­di­tions are con­trolled by firms they can’t bar­gain with, they can’t hold them account­able for even basic safe­ty or wage pro­tec­tion. They may not even actu­al­ly know the name of their employ­ers.

At the same time that the bar­gain with work­ers has become increas­ing­ly one-sided for mil­lions of inde­pen­dent con­trac­tors and hourly employ­ees, yet anoth­er part of the basic eco­nom­ic bar­gain has also begun to fray. The safe­ty net (unem­ploy­ment insur­ance, worker’s comp, Social Security) hasn’t been updat­ed to fill in the holes that employ­ers have cre­at­ed. Temporary work­ers, con­tract work­er, sea­son­al work­ers, per­matemps, and part-time work­ers rarely have access to these ben­e­fits. Which means that the work­ers who most need the safe­ty net are the very ones who are least like­ly to have it.

Let’s be clear. The gig econ­o­my didn’t invent any of these prob­lems. In fact, the gig econ­o­my has become a stop­gap for some work­ers who can’t make ends meet in a weak labor mar­ket. The much-touted virtues of flex­i­bil­i­ty, inde­pen­dence, and cre­ativ­i­ty offered by gig work might be true for some work­ers in some con­di­tions. But for many, the gig econ­o­my is sim­ply the next step in a los­ing effort to build some eco­nom­ic secu­ri­ty in a world where all of the ben­e­fits and wealth are float­ing to the top 10%.

The prob­lems fac­ing gig work­ers are much like the prob­lems fac­ing mil­lions of oth­er work­ers. An out­dat­ed employ­ee ben­e­fits mod­el makes it all but impos­si­ble for tem­po­rary work­ers, con­tract work­ers, part-time work­ers, and work­ers in indus­tries like retail or con­struc­tion, who switch jobs fre­quent­ly, to build any eco­nom­ic secu­ri­ty. So, just as this coun­try did a hun­dred years ago, it’s time to rethink the basic bar­gain between work­ers and com­pa­nies. As greater wealth is gen­er­at­ed by new tech­nol­o­gy, how can we ensure that the work­ers who sup­port the econ­o­my can actu­al­ly share in the wealth?

Well, I believe we start with one sim­ple prin­ci­ple. All work­ers, no mat­ter where they work, no mat­ter how they work, no mat­ter when they work, no mat­ter who they work for, whether they pick toma­toes or build rock­et ships, all work­ers should have some basic pro­tec­tions and be able to build some eco­nom­ic secu­ri­ty for them­selves and their fam­i­lies. No work­er should fall through the cracks. And here are some ideas about how to rethink and strength­en the worker’s bar­gain.

We can start by strength­en­ing our safe­ty net so that it catch­es any­one who has fall­en on hard times, whether they have a for­mal employ­er or not. And there are three much-needed changes right off the bat on this.

First, make sure that every work­er pays into Social Security, as the law has always intend­ed. Right now, it is a chal­lenge for some­one who doesn’t have an employ­er that auto­mat­i­cal­ly deducts pay­roll tax­es to pay into Social Security. This can affect both a worker’s abil­i­ty to qual­i­fy for dis­abil­i­ty insur­ance after a major [injury], and it can result in much low­er retire­ment ben­e­fits. If Social Security is to be ful­ly fund­ed for gen­er­a­tions to come, and if all work­ers are to have ade­quate ben­e­fits, then elec­tron­ic, auto­mat­ic, manda­to­ry with­hold­ing of pay­roll tax­es must apply to every­one, gig work­ers, 1099 work­ers, and hourly employ­ees. That’s the start­ing place.

Second, every work­er should be cov­ered by cat­a­stroph­ic insur­ance. Workers who have seri­ous acci­dents or suf­fer from ill­ness­es that knock them out of the labor mar­ket for an extend­ed peri­od need a back­stop. And every­one means every­one. Even work­ers who haven’t built up enough cred­it for dis­abil­i­ty insur­ance. Even work­ers who don’t have tra­di­tion­al worker’s com­pen­sa­tion. This type of insur­ance should be rel­a­tive­ly cheap if it is pooled across the entire work­force through small, reg­u­lar, automatically-deducted con­tri­bu­tions.

And third, all work­ers, no mat­ter where they work or who they work for, should have some paid leave. Any work­er should be able to stay home when they’re sick, or take off some time to care for a sick baby with­out wor­ry­ing that that means they won’t be able to make the rent. We can debate where to draw the lines, but let’s start with two ideas. First, each work­er should be able to accrue pro­por­tion­al cred­its toward a cer­tain num­ber of days a year, for any pur­pose. And sec­ond, work­ers should have some paid fam­i­ly and med­ical leave to insure against longer absences, such as more seri­ous ill­ness­es, or to care for a new­born baby.

These three, Social Security, cat­a­stroph­ic insur­ance, and earned leave, cre­ate a safe­ty net for income. Together, they give fam­i­lies some pro­tec­tion in an ever more volatile work envi­ron­ment. And they help ensure that after a life­time of work, peo­ple will face their retire­ment years with some dig­ni­ty.

Now, the sec­ond area of change to make is on employ­ee ben­e­fits, both for health­care and retire­ment. To make them ful­ly portable. They belong to the work­er, no mat­ter what com­pa­ny or plat­form gen­er­ates the income, they should fol­low that work­er wher­ev­er that work­er goes. And the corol­lary to this is that work­ers with­out for­mal employ­ers should have access to the same kinds of ben­e­fits that some employ­ees already have.

I want to be clear here. The Affordable Care Act is a big step toward address­ing this prob­lem for health­care. Providing access for work­ers who don’t have employer-sponsored cov­er­age and pro­vid­ing a long term struc­ture for porta­bil­i­ty. We should improve on that struc­ture, enhanc­ing its porta­bil­i­ty, and reduc­ing the man­age­r­i­al involve­ment of employ­ers.

There is no sim­i­lar­ly portable struc­ture for retire­ment ben­e­fits. One change that would make a real­ly big dif­fer­ence here is a high-quality retire­ment plan for inde­pen­dent con­trac­tors, self-employed work­ers, and oth­er work­ers who have no access to retire­ment ben­e­fits, to sup­ple­ment their Social Security. This plan should use best-in-class prac­tices when it comes to asset allo­ca­tion, gov­er­nance struc­ture, and fee trans­paren­cy. It should be oper­at­ed sole­ly in the inter­est of work­ers and retirees, and those work­ers and retirees should have a voice in how the plan is run.

Instead of an employer-sponsored 401k, this plan could be run by a union or oth­er orga­ni­za­tion that could con­tract invest­ment man­age­ment to the pri­vate sec­tor, just like com­pa­nies like General Motors con­tract with providers like Fidelity to offer 401k in the employ­ment set­ting. And because of the amaz­ing advances in online invest­ment plat­forms and elec­tron­ic pay­roll sys­tems, indi­vid­u­als could set up auto­mat­ic con­tri­bu­tions. It’s time for all work­ers to have access to the same low-cost, well-protected retire­ment prod­ucts that right now only some employ­ers and unions are able to pro­vide.

The ben­e­fits to work­ers from gain­ing access to health insur­ance into retire­ment plans are pret­ty obvi­ous, but I also want to note the ben­e­fits to employ­ers are also sub­stan­tial. Those employ­ers can shed man­age­r­i­al respon­si­bil­i­ties that are periph­er­al to their busi­ness­es. And small busi­ness­es and star­tups can com­pete for work­ers with­out need­ing to get into the health insur­ance and retire­ment busi­ness. That is how com­pet­i­tive mar­kets should work.

And the third big area. It’s time to cre­ate some legal and reg­u­la­to­ry cer­tain­ty in the labor mar­ket. If it is done right, it will be pos­si­ble to reduce the red tape for large employ­ers, small busi­ness own­ers, and entre­pre­neurs. We can cut their costs and make it eas­i­er for them to employ peo­ple. Less ambi­gu­i­ty will also help make sure that some employ­ers don’t exploit loop­holes to gain com­pet­i­tive advan­tages.

And here are four ways to make progress in that area. Okay, you want­ed it all. We’re going to do it all at once.

First, enforce the laws already on the books. Can I just have an amen around that? Employers should not be mis­clas­si­fy­ing work­ers to keep labor costs down, because they shouldn’t have the chance to hide behind com­plex arrange­ments like fran­chis­ing and sub­con­tract­ing to skirt their respon­si­bil­i­ties to their work­ers. The many employ­ers who treat their employ­ees well shouldn’t have to com­pete against the ones who don’t. That’s not a lev­el play­ing field. That’s a bro­ken sys­tem.

Second, stream­line the labor laws. Currently, there are end­less legal def­i­n­i­tions of an employ­ee, depend­ing on the worker’s indus­try and occu­pa­tion. The bound­aries between employ­ees, con­tract work­ers, and gig work­ers are com­plex. Providing a wider safe­ty net and more con­sis­tent access to retire­ment and health ben­e­fits will reduce the huge impact of dif­fer­ent clas­si­fi­ca­tions. But at the same time, har­mo­niz­ing these def­i­n­i­tions will mean less reg­u­la­to­ry bur­den for busi­ness­es and few­er oppor­tu­ni­ties for mis­clas­si­fy­ing work­ers.

And third, wher­ev­er pos­si­ble, stream­line laws at the fed­er­al lev­el, so that employ­ers oper­at­ing across state lines don’t have to jump through crazy num­ber of hoops when they employ work­ers from more than one state. A small busi­ness own­er with work­ers in sev­er­al states shouldn’t have to spend her valu­able time strug­gling to mas­ter dif­fer­ent state reg­u­la­tions.

And fourth, every work­er should have the right to orga­nize, peri­od. Full-time, part-time, temp work­ers, gig work­ers, con­tract work­ers, you bet. Those who pro­vide the labor should have the right to bar­gain as a group with who­ev­er con­trols the terms of their work. And they should be pro­tect­ed from retal­i­a­tion or dis­crim­i­na­tion when they do so. Government is not the only advo­cate on behalf of work­ers. It was work­ers, bar­gain­ing through their unions, who helped intro­duce retire­ment ben­e­fits, sick pay, over­time, the week­end, and a long list of oth­er ben­e­fits, for their mem­bers and for all work­ers across this coun­try. Unions helped build America’s mid­dle class, and unions will help rebuild America’s mid­dle class.

And one more thing. A 21st cen­tu­ry econ­o­my, once again can grow a thriv­ing mid­dle class, but only if we make a few oth­er changes. It will require mak­ing invest­ments in edu­ca­tion and train­ing. In infra­struc­ture and basic research and devel­op­ment. Today’s high-tech jobs might be locat­ed on the fac­to­ry floor or in a med­ical lab. But what­ev­er the work sites look like, the work­ers increas­ing­ly need post-secondary edu­ca­tion.

So let’s be clear: to build a well edu­cat­ed ver­sa­tile work­force that this coun­try will need in the 21st cen­tu­ry, it is crit­i­cal that we stop sad­dling tomorrow’s work­ers with stu­dent debt. Student loan debt has now bal­looned to $1.3 tril­lion. Today, 70% of col­lege grads must bor­row mon­ey to make it through school. That is not a leg up, that is an anvil drag­ging work­ers down.

But I want to make it clear, this is about more than tra­di­tion­al col­lege. American work­ers will need access to afford­able life-long work­ing and retool­ing for their jobs. Jobs that emerge long after they’ve left school, but long before they retire. I know New America is mak­ing impor­tant con­tri­bu­tions on this top­ic, with both Opportunity@Work and its edu­ca­tion pro­gram. You know, peo­ple who have worked 20+ years in a chang­ing field should have access to edu­ca­tion and train­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties that will offer new ways to use their tal­ents, their cre­ativ­i­ty, and their expe­ri­ence. America will need these work­ers, and these work­ers will need train­ing.

Now for many of these pro­pos­als, gov­ern­ment may set poli­cies. But employ­ers, edu­ca­tors, unions, non­prof­its, tech inno­va­tors, all have crit­i­cal roles to play. If we’re going to rebuild America’s econ­o­my by strength­en­ing American work­ers, it’s going to take all hands on deck.

But I want to put one more thing on the table before I leave on this. Government invest­ments are one of the most reli­able sparks of tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tion and growth around. Building basic infra­struc­ture, roads and bridges, but also pow­er grids, com­mu­ni­ca­tion links, mass tran­sit, make it pos­si­ble for the econ­o­my to flour­ish. Investments in basic research pro­vide a foun­da­tion for tomorrow’s advances. A stronger econ­o­my will pro­duce more demand for work­ers that will cre­ate oppor­tu­ni­ties for mil­lions more Americans.

We can’t blame the parts of the gig econ­o­my that we don’t like on tech­nol­o­gy com­pa­nies, soft­ware, or smart­phones. There are plen­ty of out­sourced jan­i­tors and ware­house work­ers. Plenty of secu­ri­ty guards and man­u­fac­tur­ing work­ers who can explain that on-demand work is noth­ing new in America. In a healthy econ­o­my, dis­rup­tion is inevitable. But dis­rup­tion means it is time to adapt to chang­ing cir­cum­stances. Time for new busi­ness­es and old busi­ness­es to change. Time to rethink the deal for employ­ees, for con­tract work­ers, and for gig work­ers. Disruption cre­ates the push to rethink the basic bar­gain for the work­ers who pro­duced much of the val­ue in this econ­o­my.

My mes­sage today is straight­for­ward. Workers deserve a lev­el play­ing field and some basic pro­tec­tions. No mat­ter who they work for, where they work, or how the law clas­si­fies them. They deserve a strong safe­ty net, depend­able ben­e­fits, and the chance to bar­gain over their work­ing con­di­tions. That is the basic deal. And that’s the deal that is nec­es­sary to restore a strong and sus­tain­able American mid­dle class.

Most work­ers aren’t ask­ing for the moon. They want to be able to take care of their fam­i­lies, to buy a home, send their kids to col­lege, save a lit­tle mon­ey for retire­ment. They want some secu­ri­ty. And they want to know their kids are going to have a chance to do bet­ter than they did. That’s the promise of America. But that promise won’t come true unless we make some real changes.

Workers have a right to expect our gov­ern­ment to work for them. To set the basic rules of the game. If this coun­try is to have a strong mid­dle class, then we need the poli­cies that will make that pos­si­ble. That’s how shared pros­per­i­ty has been built in the past, and that is our way for­ward now. Change won’t be easy. But we don’t get what we don’t fight for. And I believe that America’s work­ers are worth fight­ing for. Thank you all.

Further Reference

The Next Social Contract event home page.


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.