Gig Work is Not Slave Labor

Clip Title: GIGS UP! UC AFT Lecturers FIGHT GIG Slave Labor

I was recently sent a video clip of lecturer David Walter at UC Berkeley representing the UC-AFT union. He explains that lecturers have not received benefits and that their contracts are written so that they expire before they can be considered employees. This is the plight of all gig workers, so I can fully sympathize with his frustrations.

However, about a minute into the clip, he says, that they are treated as “a gig labor force, basically.” The title of the clip even equates gig work with slave labor. Now, hold on a minute. It’s clear that he sees being part of the gig economy as a negative thing. Maybe being “gig” is beneath a UC lecturer?

Now we’ve been saying for years that adjunct faculty, such as the lecturer position he describes, is part of the gig economy. Yes, this is the reality for millions of us. We work on a contract basis, usually without benefits and the appointment is typically short. Welcome to the club, but don’t insult the rest of us who are here.

Working at UC

I should clarify that I am a former career employee of the UC System. My experience, however, was as a staff person, not a lecturer, so I cannot speak to the specific situation that David Walter finds himself in. If there is significant pay inequity between lecturers and tenured faculty, then this should be corrected.

Gig employees typically are paid a higher rate than their career counterparts so that they can cover the additional expenses of benefits, which they typically pay for themselves. That is the whole idea behind gig work. With the flexibility of being able to work on temporary assignments, those are the “advantages” of being part of the gig economy.

UC has hired gig workers to supplement staff work for as long as I can remember. In my field, IT, these gig workers were always paid very well. Whether this was always a good return on investment for UC is beyond the scope of this article, but I do know that in my experience the projects were typically completed well and within the required timeframe.

According to David Walter, that does not seem to be the case with lecturers. If so, I fully support the complaint of the UC-AFT union. They should be able to collectively bargain for equitable pay. That is what they are there for, and they should do what they must to achieve their goals.

The problem

Obviously, I take umbrage with associating the word “gig” with a negative state of work. I do not agree that this should be so. As a matter of fact, I believe that being part of the gig economy should be a positive thing. The gig workforce includes highly educated, skilled and professional people. Likewise, the fact that it is temporary in no way diminishes its value.

Therefore, I also take issue with the demand from UC-AFT to have permanence of employment. What they are asking for is to become career/tenured faculty with benefits. If so, then they should also accept that they cannot ask for higher salaries.

Gig workers earn higher salaries because they perform temporary work. That work is not continuous which can create down-times but also busier times. That uncertainty is a large part of why the work should receive higher pay; to cover those down-times.

Essentially, UC-AFT is asking for their lecturers to leave the gig economy. If so, then salaries will not be higher than career/tenured faculty. In most cases, those should be entry-level. Granted, skills and experience should also be considered, but they need to choose which side of the gig economy fence they are on.

I fully realize that UC may not be treating the lecturers fairly. I also understand the criticism of their decisions being very corporate-minded. While UC is semi-public and funded by the state, they also believe that they need to resist any effort to increase costs from salaries. This is a fiscally minded requirement that does indeed seem very corporate. I do not know the legal standing of this position.

Conclusion

As part of the gig economy, I naturally take offense at any suggestion that gig work is less than in any way. It has always been my position that lecturers and adjunct faculty are essentially gig workers because many of their work specifics are exactly like gig work.

The UC-AFT likely has a very good reason to protest unfair labor conditions. Likewise, UC has a fiscally minded reason to resist any changes. The point is that from my position, both sides have some wiggle room to give in a bit. This could go a long way to resolving the impasse and avoid an escalation in the form of a strike or punitive measures from UC.

However, I think the idea that being part of the gig economy is somehow negative or deficient is a huge misunderstanding of who gig workers are. As I’ve said many times already, we aren’t just uber drivers and weekend musicians. We are also programmers, artists, architects, lawyers, authors, public speakers, psychologists, and yes, we are also lecturers and adjuncts.

Most importantly, we are professionals who work in those industries, and we also run our own businesses. For that we also are paid more because it is also full-time work, even if the individual projects are not done in a traditional 9-5 timeframe in an office.