Law and Ethics of Human Rights 审稿状态变化-刊鹿论文编译

Silos and First Movers in the Sharing Economy Debates

Abstract:

Abstract Over the past few years, a significant global debate has developed over the classification of workers in the sharing economy either as independent contractors or as employees. While Uber and Lyft have dominated the spotlight lately, the worker classification debates extend beyond ridesharing companies and affect workers across a variety of sectors. Classification of a worker as an employee, rather than an independent contractor, can carry a range of implications for worker treatment and protections under labor law, anti-discrimination law, tort law, and tax law, depending on the legal jurisdiction. The debates, at least in the United States, have been incomplete due to the failure of policy makers and advocates to consider the scope and interconnectedness of the worker classification issues across the full sweep of legal arenas. There is time, however, to remedy the incompleteness of these policy conversations before worker classification decisions ossify and path dependence takes hold. Two interacting forces create the most serious risk for inadequate policy formulation: (1) silos among legal experts, and (2) first-mover effects. Both of these factors, silo and first mover, emerge in sharing economy debates in the United States. Tax experts and other legal specialists operate in distinct silos leading to a misunderstanding by non-tax analysts of the tax ramifications of worker classification, and to an under appreciation on the part of tax experts of the potential influence of “modest” tax rule changes on worker classification generally. The risks of such misunderstandings can be amplified by first-mover efforts, such as: (1) platforms’ contractual designation of workers as independent contractors to bolster a claim of nonemployer/nonemployee status; (2) platforms’ support for proposed tax legislation that would “clarify” the status of sharing workers as independent contractors for tax purposes if they satisfy a multiple-prong (relatively easy) safe harbor test; and (3) sharing economy worker litigation to secure employee status. This Article identifies the incompleteness in the worker classification debates and argues for the active formulation of policy through a process that looks beyond individual fields. A more complete conversation requires analytical engagement across multiple fields and recognition of the de facto power of reform in one arena to influence others. Moreover, it is by no means clear that just because tax might arrive at the legislative drawing table first (due to first mover effects), that it should drive or shape the broader worker classification debate.

Author Listing： Diane M. Ring

Volume： 13

Pages： 61 - 96

DOI： 10.1515/lehr-2019-2003

Language： English

Journal： The Law & Ethics of Human Rights

Law and Ethics of Human Rights

影响因子：0.0

是否综述期刊：否

是否OA：否

是否预警：不在预警名单内

发行时间：-

ISSN：1938-2545

发刊频率：-

收录数据库：Scopus收录

出版国家/地区：-

出版社：Walter de Gruyter

期刊介绍

年发文量	-
国人发稿量	-
国人发文占比	-
自引率	0.0%
平均录取率	-
平均审稿周期	-
版面费	-
偏重研究方向	Social Sciences-Law
期刊官网	-
投稿链接	-

质量指标占比

研究类文章占比	OA被引用占比	撤稿占比	出版后修正文章占比
0.00%	0.00%	-	-

预警情况

时间	预警情况
2024年02月发布的2024版	不在预警名单中
2023年01月发布的2023版	不在预警名单中
2021年12月发布的2021版	不在预警名单中
2020年12月发布的2020版	不在预警名单中

JCR分区 WOS分区等级：Q0区

版本	按学科	分区
WOS期刊SCI分区（2021-2022年最新版）

中科院分区

版本	大类学科	小类学科	Top期刊	综述期刊
暂无数据