By making themselves invisible, platforms cast themselves as digital infrastructures without responsibilities or agency, write Daniel Curto-Millet and Roser Pujada

Curto-Millet, Daniel

Pujadas, R.

English

LSE Research Online

Managing	while	invisible:	how	the	gig	economyshapes	us	and	our	citiesThe	gig	economy	is	full	of	disruptive	technological	darlings.	Uber	revolutionised	how	we	used	taxis,	AirBnB	changedthe	hospitality	market	forever,	while	Deliveroo	has	a	substantial	impact	on	how	cities	develop	and	change	and	howwe	use	our	city	space.	Their	impact,	we	argue,	is	a	consequence	of	one	of	their	most	important	inventions:	how	tolook	like	they’re	invisible.	It	is	by	making	themselves	invisible	that	they	redefine	social	responsibilities.	This	is	theirbasic	modus	operandi	(MO),	which	they	put	forward	and	apply	again,	and	again,	most	recently,	to	deny	employeerights	to	their	workers.	This	MO	is	based	on	their	effortful	attempt	to	act	and	manage	invisibly,	which	is	a	politicalact.	We	look	at	Uber	for	evidence	of	such	invisible	management.We	draw	these	conclusions	from	our	analysis	of	two	UK	court	cases,	one	in	the	High	Court	of	Justice	in	2015,	andthe	following	major	Uber	case	in	the	UK	that	took	place	in	the	Central	London	Employment	Tribunal	in	2016.	Thesecases	are	interesting	because	they	reveal	how	the	judges	have	to	navigate	the	law	to	rule	on	concepts	that	weren’tthought	of	when	the	laws	were	written.	Quite	a	challenge	indeed!The	first	court	case	was	a	ruling	from	the	High	Court	of	Justice	in	October	2015.	The	judge	had	to	consider	whetherUber	was	a	taxi	service,	and	hence,	a	transport	service	and	not	a	technology	company.	The	key	object	in	that	issuewas	whether	the	app	could	be	considered	a	taximeter	or	not.	What	is	a	taximeter?	It	is	defined	as	a	calculativedevice	that	“must	be	for	the	calculation	of	the	fare”.	Yes,	clients	exchange	money	with	drivers	to	take	them	from	onepoint	to	another	and	this	is	displayed	on	the	clients’	and	drivers’	apps.	The	calculation,	however,	happens	in	Uber’sservers	and	not	in	the	apps,	and	so	the	smartphones	are	not	taximeters,	and	thus	Uber	is	not	a	taxi	service.	Its	non-presence	in	the	drivers’	car	allows	it	to	remain	a	technology	company	and	not	a	transport	service.	Uber,	then,	wasjust	a	technological	infrastructure	that	matched	people	together.If	Uber	is	not	there	in	the	car	for	calculating	fares,	its	presence	is	felt	in	other	ways	as	the	second	case	will	show.	Inthe	Central	London	Employment	Tribunal	in	2016,	the	judge’s	ruling	centres	this	time	on	the	changing	nature	ofUber	and	its	position	as	an	intermediary.	Uber	presents	itself	as	an	invisible	infrastructure	that	connects	two	peopleand	proposes	a	fare	and	travel	option.	An	infrastructure	is	a	great	analogy	for	Uber:	you	don’t	think	about	the	roadsyou	walk	in	when	you	walk	them,	their	purpose	or	why	they	are	there.	You	don’t	wonder	where	the	water	pipes	thatgive	you	water	come	from	or	go	to:	it’s	there	and	it’s	as	if	it’s	always	been	there.	It’s	hard	to	imagine	London	withoutits	roads.LSE Business Review: Managing while invisible: how the gig economy shapes us and our cities Page 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2020-07-02Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2020/07/02/managing-while-invisible-how-the-gig-economy-shapes-us-and-our-cities/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/So	when	questions	arise	whether	drivers	should	be	considered	as	employees	and	what	is	Uber’s	involvement	withthem,	the	invisible	infrastructure	is	a	great	analogy	for	them	because	it	rationalises	their	usefulness	without	thembeing	conspicuously	involved;	even	their	fare	calculations	are	unseen.	As	an	infrastructure	company,	Uber	is	like	aroad	connecting	people	together.	Their	involvement	is	invisible,	you	don’t	question	the	road	you	walk	on	when	yougo	meet	someone,	do	you?	However,	a	series	of	documents	presented	to	the	judge	by	both	the	claimants	anddefendants	make	the	judge	unpack	the	invisible	aspect	of	the	infrastructure.Indeed,	Uber	imposes	upon	the	drivers	the	path	to	take	(with	ensuing	punishment	if	the	drivers	fail	to	take	it),monitors	the	behaviour	of	drivers	(through	a	rating	system),	or	screens	the	drivers	and	their	cars	at	recruitment(black	cars	are	preferred).	Many	of	these	conditions	and	monitoring	happens	through	and	by	the	algorithm.Invisible,	yet	organising	work,	Uber’s	algorithm	was	deemed	to	manage	people	just	as	a	supervisor	would.The	law	here	is	a	key	player	in	the	definition	of	Uber	itself	and	technology.	Before	the	Central	London	EmploymentTribunal’s	ruling,	Uber	was	a	digital	platform,	exemplar	among	the	technology	companies	as	a	match-makerinfrastructure	having	as	much	right	to	be	part	of	our	cities	as	the	streets	have;	an	invisible	actor	connecting	peopletogether	and	drawing	up	the	public	space	for	us.	After	the	ruling,	Uber	became	an	infrastructure	withresponsibilities.	These	can	be	listed:	Uber	made	sense	of	the	city,	mapped	it,	decided	what	cars	should	roamwhere,	what	roads	to	take,	what	price	to	pay.	Uber	did	not	only	match	people	together,	it	also	became	seen	as	anagent	responsible	for	defining	the	roles	of	the	people	it	connected.	Through	its	driver	ratings,	Uber,	for	example,would	define	what	a	good	driver	was.	The	app	rating	system	had	an	answer,	Uber	could	define	the	notion	of	driverfrom	their	interactions	with	the	app.	Ironically,	it	is	these	questions	that	pushed	the	two	claimants	to	present	theircase	against	Uber:	they	resisted	the	app’s	control	over	their	own	understanding	of	what	drivers	are,	where	theyshould	be,	and	who	should	judge	them.Uber	is	an	infrastructure	different	to	the	roads,	the	ports,	and	the	pipes	in	our	cities.	It	is	a	thinking	infrastructurethat	manages	people	through	our	very	use.	It	is	important,	in	our	mind,	to	think	beyond	digital	infrastructures	cast	asplatforms	without	responsibilities,	without	agencies.	They	make	people	perform	certain	roles	and	act	in	certain	andspecific	ways	which	may	be	obscured,	obfuscated,	or	plainly	unclear.	We	have	to	think	about	infrastructures	beyondjust	a	foundation	upon	which	other	things	are	built,	but	as	infrastructures	that	create	relations	and	create	roles.From	this	perspective,	defining	infrastructure	becomes	a	political	act.	Beyond	the	promise	of	efficient	matchmaking,what	sort	of	society	are	such	platforms	trying	to	configure?	Perhaps,	we	should	also	ask	ourselves:	what	sort	ofsociety	are	we	willing	to	see?♣♣♣Notes:This	blog	post	expresses	the	views	of	its	author(s),	not	the	position	of	LSE	Business	Review	or	the	LondonSchool	of	Economics.Featured	image	by	www.quotecatalog.com,	under	a	CC-BY-2.0	licenceWhen	you	leave	a	comment,	you’re	agreeing	to	our	Comment	PolicyDaniel	Curto-Millet	is	a	Marie	Curie	research	fellow	at	the	Spanish	National	Research	Council(CSIC),	studying	the	sustainability	of	open	source	beyond	technical	environments.	His	is	interested	inthe	intersection	between	organisation,	technology,	and	society.	He	has	conducted	research	onopenness	as	an	organisational	principle	and	open	source	software	development.	Daniel	holds	a	PhDin	Information	systems	from	LSE.	Twitter	@curtomil.Roser	Pujadas	is	a	research	fellow	in	information	systems	at	LSE,	undertakingresearch	on	the	organisational,	managerial	and	social	implications	of	digital	interfaces,as	part	of	the	EPSRC-funded	project	Interface	Reasoning	for	Interacting	Systems(IRIS).	She	is	broadly	interested	in	the	social	and	organisational	implications	of	digitalinnovation.	She	has	conducted	research	on	the	sharing	economy,	considering	thevariety	of	models	of	economic	organisation	that	digital	platforms	support,	and	the	waysgig	workers	navigate	and	support	each	other	in	the	sharing	economy	landscape.	Roserholds	a	PhD	in	information	systems	(LSE).	Twitter	@roserpujadas1.LSE Business Review: Managing while invisible: how the gig economy shapes us and our cities Page 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2020-07-02Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2020/07/02/managing-while-invisible-how-the-gig-economy-shapes-us-and-our-cities/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/	LSE Business Review: Managing while invisible: how the gig economy shapes us and our cities Page 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2020-07-02Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2020/07/02/managing-while-invisible-how-the-gig-economy-shapes-us-and-our-cities/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/

Managing while invisible: how the gig economy shapes us and our cities

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/105915/1/businessreview_2020_07_02_managing_while_invisible_how_the_gig.pdf

Managing while invisible: how the gig economy shapes us and our cities

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online