THE SHARING ECONOMY AND THE FUTURE OF WORK

POST-CONFERENCE REPORT

FIRST RELEASED: 2016 OCT. 24 PREPARED BY: LAST UPDATED: 2016 OCT. 26 TAMAR BECKER & AMAN RAJWANI

THE TED ROGERS SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT'S CENTRE FOR LABOUR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS AT RYERSON UNIVERSITY

Executive Summary ...... 2 Context ...... 8

Sharing Economy 101 ...... 12

Key Terms ...... 12

History ...... 18 Where did the term ‘sharing economy’ come from and how did it get so popular? ...... 18 What is the range of activities within the sharing economy? ...... 18 What forces enabled the emergence of the sharing economy on such a grand scale? ...... 21

Statistics ...... 26 What does participation in the sharing economy look like? ...... 26

Challenges ...... 28 Responsibilities, Risks, and Responses ...... 30

1. Consumer Protection ...... 31 2. Economic Growth ...... 33 3. Equity ...... 37 4. Labour ...... 38 5. Social Security ...... 41 6. Tax Compliance ...... 43 7. Training ...... 44 Conclusion ...... 45 References ...... 46

Centre for LAbour Management Relations

The Centre for Labour Management Relations (CLMR) is a multi­disciplinary research centre that seeks to promote collaborative, ethical, innovative, proactive and sustainable best­practices for labour and management to avoid conflicts, build relationships, and create trust in a way that results in greater productivity and profitability for businesses, increased job and income security for workers, and decreased inequality and injustice for all of society.

Since November of 2010 the CLMR has funded 50+ research projects, hosted 60+ events that have produced 10+ publications, affected the learning experience and skills development of 2,000+ students, and has had it’s distinguished faculty featured in 100+ academic publications and 600+ media articles. To learn more about the CLMR please visit https://www.ryerson.ca/clmr/

BUZZ HARGROVE MAURICE MAZEROLLE Co­Director, CLMR; Ryerson University, Co­Director, CLMR; Ryerson [email protected] University, [email protected]

TAMAR BECKER AMAN RAJWANI Research & Special Projects Research & Special Projects Coordinator, CLMR; Ryerson Coordinator, CLMR; Ryerson University, [email protected] University, [email protected]

Acknowledgements

The CLMR would like to thank the following individuals for their contributions toward the "Sharing Economy and the Future of Work" conference: Laura Anderson, Urban Health Researcher, The Wellesley Institute; Andrew Cash, CoFounder, Urban Worker Project; Charles Davis, Professor of Media, Ryerson University; Roxanne Dubois, National Representative, Organizing, Unifor; Valerie Fox, Chief Innovation Consultant, The Pivotal Point; Erin Gee, Sharing Economy Project CoLead, Deputy Ministers’ Committee on Policy Innovation at the Government of Canada; Ted Graham, Innovation Leader, PricewaterhouseCoopers; Trish Hennessy, Director, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives; Josh Hjartarson, Vice President, Public Sector, KPMG Canada; Tim Hudak, Former MPP Niagara West, Legislative Assembly of Ontario; Melanie Knight, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Ryerson University; Danielle Lamb, Assistant Professor of Human Resources, Ted Rogers School of Management; Brian Langille, Professor of Law, The University of Toronto; Chris MacDonald, Director, Ted Rogers Leadership Centre; Joe Manion, Director of Strategic Program Development, Toronto Employment & Social Services; Maurice Mazerolle, Associate Professor of Human Resources,Ted Rogers School of Management & Director, CLMR at Ryerson University; Bill Murnighan, Director of Research, Unifor; Lis Pimental, President, UNITE HERE Local 75; Allison Ridgeway, Student, Ryerson School of Journalism; Myer Siemiatycki, Professor of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University; David Wakely, Senior Partner, Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP; Margaret Yap, Associate Professor of Human Resources, Ted Rogers School of Management.

Disclaimer: The Centre cannot guarantee that the information contained in this report is accurate, complete or appropriate for use by any third party, and they hereby expressly disclaim any and all responsibility or liability to any such person or entity in connection with their use of this report. Executive Summary

“Work hard in school, get as much education as you can, play by the rules, and you will do well in life. That was the advice I got from my parents, and it clearly served me, and the majority of my baby boomer cohort, quite well.”1 – Thomas Kochan, Professor of Work and Employment Relations at MIT, and Author of Shaping the Future of Work.

Unfortunately, this advice may not assist today’s millennials and future generations of workers in their careers. The employment landscape today is drastically different than it was when baby boomers entered the job market; acquiring an education and working hard may no longer be enough for job-seekers to set themselves apart to secure a good job, let alone any job at all. The world of work is changing and it is prudent to examine what forces are enabling these transformations so that we can leave a legacy of sustainable jobs that encourage cultural, economic and social growth for the future of work.

The future of work is being shaped by a variety of demographic, legal, regulatory and social forces, which has led to changes in how organizations are structured, arranged, managed, and regulated. This, in turn, has changed the way that work is distributed, organized, designed, and performed.

Technology is one force that has begun to significantly alter the future of work. The rapid expansion and growth of intermediary platforms (e.g. agents like Uber, Airbnb, and Task Rabbit that facilitate a broad range of economic activities) have influenced these organizational and workplace changes in the labour market. Over 50% of all new Canadian jobs are non-standard work arrangements (e.g., part-time, temporary, on contract, freelance, self-employed or unpaid positions) 2, and this figure may include the number of workers providing their services on one or more intermediary platforms in the sharing economy.

The sharing economy is a term that is being used to describe the broad set of economic activities where individuals are using digital applications provided by intermediary platforms to create opportunities for others to buy, rent and/or trade goods and services. Others refer to these economic activities as: the gig economy, the new economy, the platform economy, and even the uber economy. While there are differences among the choice of terms used by stakeholders, all of these terms describe an aspect of this new world of work.

The premise of the sharing economy has proven relatively popular over recent years with consumers seeking to borrow or reuse goods rather than own them, and individuals seeking to maximize their unused assets by selling, renting and/or trading them as a source of revenue and/or income. Global revenues from intermediary platforms were $15 billion in 2015, and this figure is projected to climb by 2025 to $335 billion.3 Additionally, 40% of Ontarians reported being consumers in the sharing economy in 2015.4

2 “The world of work is changing and it is prudent to examine what forces are enabling these transformations so that we can leave a legacy of sustainable jobs that encourage cultural, economic and social growth for the future of work”

3 Historically, people have always engaged in non-standard work arrangements. While this growth is not new, the number of individuals choosing to work in these arrangements has been growing. Several studies and surveys demonstrate this growth:

• In the United States, the percentage of workers engaged in alternative work arrangements rose from 10.1% in February 2005 to 15.8% in late 2015.5 • In Canada, full-time employment fell by 71,000 jobs from June to July, while part-time work rose by 40,000 jobs.6 • In Canada, 2.52 million workers were self-employed in 2005 and this number rose to 2.76 million by 2015.7 • In Ontario, 41% of work was done outside of traditional standard, full-time, permanent employment in 2015.8

These numbers confirm an increase in our economies shift towards non-standard work arrangements, and there appears to be no sign of this trend slowing down.

As well, in the past participating in non-standard work arrangements, was largely a factor of choice for workers as a means of having greater control and flexibility over their lives. 9 These may not be the reasons that people are choosing to participate in these arrangements today; rather they may find that they are facing an increasingly difficult job market where standard full­time jobs are becoming hard to secure.

While intermediary platforms may produce financial, environmental, and community benefits, they may also cause economic, ethical, and social disadvantages, such as the rise in precarious employment.

In the sharing economy workers tend to hold several part-time or contract positions either at the same time or by moving very quickly from one to the next.10 In Canada, the percentage of workers with multiple jobs had more than doubled from 1975 to 2015. In Canada, 5.3% of workers had multiple jobs, with almost 959,000 working at least two jobs in 2016.11 Moreover, work in the sharing economy may go beyond straightforward contracting and freelancing. Whereas these forms of work could last for months or years, work in the sharing economy could only last for hours or minutes. Thus, work in the sharing economy could be becoming more precarious than other forms of work the economy has experienced.12

Furthermore, full-time employment used to refer to long-term, nine-to-five careers at one company with benefits / incentives and a broad range of protections and rights guaranteed by various employment, labour and work regulations and plans. However, today’s non-standard work arrangements appear to provide the workers who engage in them with little to no

4 protections and rights. This is because when intermediary platforms facilitate an exchange of capital for services (i.e., as opposed to capital for goods) this may initiate a form of employment arrangement (broadly defined). When interpreting tests of employment status13 many end up classifying themselves as intermediary platforms and their workers as independent contractors, as opposed to classifying themselves as employers and their workers as employees. In doing this, they are effectively able to avoid the regulatory and administrative obligations of:

• Complying with their region’s broad range of employment, labour and work regulations; • Deducting and remitting relevant contributions, premiums, and taxes; and • Providing mandatory workplace training.

One consequence of avoiding these obligations is that intermediary platforms simply shift these responsibilities and risks onto workers. Unfortunately, these additional obligations only make earning a living all the more difficult for these workers, adding more pressure to their already precarious situations.

To demonstrate:

• In Ontario, 78% of workplaces were in • In Ontario, 22% of Ontario workers violation of the Employment Standards were not fully protected by Act, 2000 (ESA) in the summer of 2015.14 employment laws because of exemptions, and 77% of precarious workers did not get benefits through their jobs.15

5 “ In their haste to develop

affordable, convenient and flexible virtual markets for on-demand goods and services, intermediary platforms appear to have prioritized the values of entrepreneurship, innovation, and technology over government priorities such as consumer protection, economic growth, equity, labour, social security, tax compliance, and training. “

6

Workers in the sharing economy are already finding themselves in an increasingly precarious job market, so taking into account that they also have little to no workplace protections and rights, have greater responsibilities and risks, and aren’t receiving workplace training, how can they ever hope to break out of this cycle of precarity? As technology, and other forces, continue to change the world of work, it is important that relevant stakeholders (e.g., government, industry, labour, workers) in the sharing economy have a voice in designing, managing, organizing and regulating non-standard work arrangements.

Coincidentally, these issues are on government and policy- maker’s radar. While the 2015 Ontario Budget recognized the importance of a regulatory and tax framework that would enable innovation in the sharing economy to thrive16, the 2014 Throne Speech also committed to exploring reforms to legislations and regulations that would protect workers.17

Luckily for governments and policymakers, these goals are not mutually exclusive. Research indicates that when jobs are designed well and workers are satisfied, this leads to greater retention and increased customer loyalty, which, in turn, boosts productivity, profitability, and revenue growth.18 In their haste to develop affordable, convenient and flexible virtual markets for on-demand goods and services, intermediary platforms appear to have prioritized the values of entrepreneurship, innovation, and technology over government priorities such as consumer protection, economic growth, equity, labour, social security, tax compliance, and training.

Taking into account all of the forces that are affecting the future of work, it is important to consider whether the societal values that initially drove the need for establishing current employment, labour and work regulations suit these non-standard work arrangements? If not, then stakeholders must find a way to come together to develop contemporary solutions to these old issues.

7 Context

On June 3rd, 2016, the Ted Rogers School of Management’s Centre for Labour Management (CLMR) at Ryerson University, hosted a one-day conference titled The Sharing Economy and the Future of Work. The conference brought together 20 speakers from academia, community, government, industry, labour, and law, as well as over 100 participants.

Before setting an agenda for the event, organizers asked a broad range of stakeholders to submit questions for consideration. These questions were categorized within the following seven priority areas: consumer protection, economic growth, equity, labour, social security, tax compliance, training. While planning the event, organizers observed that news articles and industry reports surrounding the sharing economy had, for the most part, included anecdotal evidence that was not examined through a multi-disciplinary lens. Therefore, this methodology was selected to produce an in-depth macro-qualitative analysis of the questions previously posed by having speakers examine them through a broad range of stakeholder perspectives and various macro environmental factors (e.g., cultural, economic, legal, regulatory, social, and technological).

1. Consumer protection

a. Do consumers in the sharing economy have any protections and rights, or do they assume the risk for any defective or unsuitable goods and/or services that they purchase (i.e., buyer beware)?

b. Can consumers sharing economy work arrangements be considered an employer when they contract goods and/or services?

2. Economic Growth

a. What is the sharing economy? What economic activities does it encompass? Is there another term that better captures these activities?

b. What would happen if stakeholders in the sharing economy were subject to the same regulatory and administrative obligations as those in the traditional economy?

c. What labour market factors (e.g., labour force participation, precarity and unemployment) is the sharing economy impacting?

8 d. the sharing economy creating new jobs or displacing old ones? Can these non-standard jobs ever be good jobs?

e. As the sharing economy grows, what cultural, legal, regulatory and social aspects are inevitable/irreversible?

3. Equity

a. Does the sharing economy create any barriers or obstacles for individuals from disadvantaged groups seeking to participate in non- standard work arrangements? If yes, then how can stakeholders make opportunities more accessible, equitable and inclusive?

4. Labour

a. Who are the stakeholders in a sharing economy employment arrangement and what are each of their responsibilities, risks and opportunities?

b. Do employment, labour and work regulations apply to non-standard work arrangements in the sharing economy? If not, should they be reformed?

c. How can stakeholders in the sharing economy organize to represent their collective interests?

5. Social Security

a. Should social security in the sharing economy be transformed in response to the rise in non-standard work arrangements?

6. Tax Compliance

a. What are stakeholder’s responsibilities in the sharing economy when it comes to deducting and remitting contributions, premiums and taxes?

7. Training

a. How can stakeholders in the sharing economy improve training so that workers in non-standard work arrangements can develop transferable skills and meaningful experiences?

9 These questions and seven priority areas were used to develop four panel discussions for the conference. The following is a brief summary of some of the emerging ideas:

Traditional industries are being disrupted for a variety of reasons and one is as a result of the changes that the sharing economy is bringing to the labour market. The sharing economy has influences a rise in non-standard work arrangements, which do not reflect the traditional relationship between employers and employees. Most employment, labour, and work regulations in traditional industries were predicated on a standard employer– employee relationship, which does not fully capture today’s non- standard work arrangements. Therefore, responses from stakeholders may require new forms of organizations or procedures in order to reduce disputes and resolve conflicts between stakeholders in sharing economy work arrangements.

While the sharing economy may create affordable, convenient and flexible virtual markets for consumers, it may also be operating outside of various economic stabilizers (e.g., employment legislation, labour market regulations, vital tax structures, insurance coverage, city planning standards, and social benefits). This challenges stakeholders to re-prioritize economic stabilizers as they relate to 1. A broad range of employment, labour, and work regulations, 2. regulatory and administrative obligations, and 3. mandatory workplace training, which may no longer cover the growing number of non-standard work arrangements.

Decades ago, stakeholders came together and agreed to establish work protections and rights; responsibilities; and mandatory training, emphasizing the belief that these three elements were of universal social value, vital to creating a world where most people are able to lead a life of real value. Today, many may argue that the global success of the sharing economy and its intermediary platforms places a greater emphasis on entrepreneurship, innovation, and technology over social values and government priorities. Recognizing that work is a hugely important function of economic growth, stakeholders should ask themselves what kind of society they want to live in?

10 The goal of this report is to briefly capture and distil the insights of the speakers at the conference in order to present broader perspectives on this critical discussion. It will incorporate the following sections:

• Sharing Economy 101: This section interrogates the sharing economy, as it applies to stakeholders in employment relationships, by examining and providing a brief understanding of some of the terms, history, statistics, and challenges.

• Responsibilities, Risks, and Responses: This section discusses how non-standard work arrangements in the sharing economy can affect government priorities. It also outlines opportunities and risks for stakeholders, and identifies domestic and international responses to collective organization.

11

Sharing Economy 101

Key Terms

For the purposes of this report, it is important to establish a few definitions that will frame the discussions moving forward. These terms include:

1. Employer 2. Employee 3. Independent Contractor 4. Dependent Contractor 5. Digital Application 6. Intermediary Platform 7. Consumer 8. Sharing Economy 9. Gig Economy

Employer:

As defined by the ESA, 2000 an employer is an “owner, proprietor, manager, superintendent, overseer, receiver or trustee of an activity, business work, trade, occupation, profession, project or undertaking who has control or direction of, or is directly or indirectly responsible for, the employment of a person in it, and includes a person who was an employer.”19

In Ontario, employers of employees are responsible for the regulatory and administrative obligations of 1. complying with Ontario’s broad range of employment, labour and work regulations, 2. deducting and remitting contributions, premiums and taxes through their payroll functions, and 3. providing mandatory workplace training.

Employers of independent contractors are not responsible for any of these activities.

12 Employee: In Ontario, workers who are classified as independent contractors 1. are not able to An employee is a person who is hired for a access their employment, labour and work wage, salary, fee or payment to perform protections and rights through a broad work for an employer. The ESA, 2000 range of regulations as said regulations only defines an employee as, apply to employers and employees; 2. are required to personally remit and deduct 1. “a person, including an officer of a taxes and premiums, and may voluntarily corporation, who performs work for subscribe to optional contribution an employer for wages; programs, and 3. do not receive mandatory 2. a person who supplies services to an workplace training. employer for wages; 3. a person who receives training from There is no applicable legislation relating to a person who is an employer…; termination rights for independent 4. a person who is a homeworker; and contractors; however, notice would be 5. includes a person who was an required to the extent to which the employee.”20 independent contractor actually looks like an employee. This involves the concept of a In Ontario, workers who are classified as "dependent contractor".22 employees 1. are able to access their employment, labour and work protections Dependent Contractor and rights through a broad range of regulations, 2. are not required to A dependent contractor is a worker who is personally remit and deduct contributions, not an employee, but who may be deemed premiums and taxes, and 3. receive by the court to work exclusively for one legislated mandatory workplace training company (i.e., for an income), thus putting (e.g., Workplace Hazardous Materials them in a position of economic vulnerability. Information System). In this case, the court would protect that worker by deeming them to be a Independent Contractor dependent contractor, and therefore entitled to reasonable notice of An independent contractor can be a termination.23 person, business or corporation that provides goods and/or services to another Digital Application: entity under terms specified in a contract or 21 verbal agreement. Unlike an employee, an A collection of web-based tools and independent contractor does not work services that can be used to present regularly for an employer, but works when content, for advertising, marketing, and required and is usually paid on a freelance communication; including desktop, mobile, basis. social and email software, (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram).

13 Intermediary Platform:

An agent or agency who uses a digital application to mediate and facilitate an exchange or contract between themselves and service providers, and/or between consumers and service providers, (e.g., Uber, Airbnb, TaskRabbit).24

14 Intermediary Platform: may be subject to the regulatory and administrative obligations previously An agent or agency who uses a digital mentioned. application to mediate and facilitate an exchange or contract between themselves Sharing Economy: and service providers, and/or between consumers and service providers, (e.g., A term that is being used to describe the Uber, Airbnb, TaskRabbit).25 broad set of economic activities where individuals are using digital applications In Ontario, intermediary platforms can act provided by intermediary platforms to as 1. employers of employees (e.g., Uber create opportunities for others to buy, rent hires employees to manage its operations), and / or trade goods and services. or 2. as agencies that facilitate an exchange or contract between consumers and service Typically, it is characterized as an economic providers (e.g., through the Uber digital system that: application, Uber is able to facilitate a contract between drivers and consumers). • Expands Market Potential: Creates virtual marketplaces that enable the When intermediary platforms act as emergence of new services and new employers of employees, they are subject to streams of revenue/income for the regulatory and administrative individuals, boosting overall economic obligations previously mentioned. When activity and capital growth. intermediary platforms facilitate an exchange or contract between independent • Emphasizes the Value of Access contractors and consumers, the Without Ownership: Expands independent contractors are subject to the opportunities for individuals to regulatory and administrative obligations monetize their underutilized assets previously mentioned. (e.g., car, home, skills), leading to a reduced need for a broader ownership Consumer: of those assets.27

An individual that acquires goods or • Draws from Decentralized Networks: services for direct use or ownership rather Draws from a decentralized population than for resale or use in production and of individuals to form a network of manufacturing.26 When a consumer interacts consumers and workers, rather than with an employee (i.e., through an from a centralized network controlled employer) they are acquiring goods or by industries. services. However, when a consumer interacts with an independent contractor • Blurs the Lines Between Employment (i.e., who has no employer) they are Classifications: Blurs the lines between contracting goods or services. In this categories of stakeholders in instance, the consumer may be considered employment arrangements. For the independent contractor’s employer, and example, the difference between 1.

15 employees and independent /dependent contractors, and between 2. employers and intermediary platforms.

• Overlaps Personal and Professional: Monetizes personal activities (e.g., lending someone money, giving someone a ride, hosting guests in your home), transforming them into commercialized economic activities.

Gig Economy

The gig economy is a term that describes an environment in which non-standard work arrangements are common, and organizations contract with independent contractors for short-term engagements. The distinction between a gig economy and sharing economy is that a gig economy can encompass work that has nothing to do with digital applications or intermediary platforms, while the sharing economy exists within the virtual world. For example, a worker who holds several part-time jobs – possibly offering driving services through a digital application, working at a coffee shop, and playing in a band – is participating in the gig economy but not necessarily in the sharing economy. They would be considered as participating in the sharing economy if any of these gigs were facilitated by a digital application provided by an intermediary platform.

16 “Dialogue surrounding the gift economy centers around exchange that is goal oriented toward establishing community and social ideals, and not simply about bartering for commercial value; social vs. commercial as a facilitator for exchange. “

17 History

The sharing economy is surrounded by debates and myths. This section examines its history, development, and rise in prominence.

One of the major debates centers on the use of the term ‘sharing economy’. It is not a universally accepted term to describe this new paradigm in the working world. There is much debate surrounding the choice of title and definition, with many individuals insisting that using the term ‘sharing’ is intensely misleading, and is in fact misdirecting vocabulary to describe what is actually just commercial exchange. Consider the common analogy involving ‘cookies’. If an individual bakes cookies and leaves them out at the office for anyone to enjoy, that is ‘sharing’; however, if that individual bakes cookies and then sells them at the office this is no longer considered ‘sharing’. So why then, are we calling this paradigm the sharing economy, when the stakeholders participating in it may be involved in commercial exchange? When we misuse the term sharing, we may be losing a good verb. “This can be likened to the sentiments that echo that we lost a good adjective when social media platforms emerged, and a good noun when Facebook converted friend into a verb”.28

Where did the term ‘sharing economy’ come from and how did it get so popular?

Some early economic ideals like that of the gift economy, form a base from which the term sharing economy emerged. Dialogue surrounding the gift economy centers around exchange that is goal oriented toward establishing community and social ideals, and not simply around bartering for commercial value; social vs. commercial as a facilitator for exchange. 29 This kind of reference may be problematic as some may argue that the use of the term sharing economy is inappropriate as it does not reflect the ideals of the gift economy. Does the sharing economy of today actually fall into the category of a gift economy?

In reality, there may be a spectrum of peer-to-peer intermediary platforms in the sharing economy that exist across multiple sectors of the economy30; and they can sit “on a continuum between gift economies and market [commercial] economies, with some cases at both ends of the spectrum, and many more in between.”31

What is the range of activities within the sharing economy?

These activities are present in a number of sectors, including Accommodation, Finance, Service and Transportation. Below are a number of examples of intermediary platforms that range from the social/giving side with Couchsurfing, Kickstarter, Trade School, and Carma-Carpooling, and move toward the commercial/market side with One Fine Stay, Angel List, TaskRabbit, and ZipCar. There is also a spectrum of platforms that may fit between gifting and commerce. These examples demonstrate that it is not clear-cut if the sharing economy can be considered as part of the gift economy.

18 1. ACCOMODATION:

a. Couchsurfing: A service b. Airbnb: Airbnb is community c. One Fine Stay: Connects that connects users to a marketplace for people to list, people to 2500+ luxury global community of 10 discover, and book unique vacation rental million people in more accommodations around the apartments in London, than 200,000 cities, world. Airbnb connects people in New York, Paris, Los where they can find a more than 34,000 cities and 191 Angeles and Rome. 34 place to stay or share countries. 33 their home and hometown with travelers, at no cost. 32

2. FINANCE:

a. Kickstarter: Kickstarter helps b. Kiva: Kiva connects people c. Angel List: A U.S. website artists, musicians, filmmakers, through lending to for startups, angel designers, and other creators alleviate poverty. 100% of investors, and job-seekers find the resources and every dollar lent on Kiva looking to work at support they need to make goes to funding loans. Kiva startups.37 their ideas a reality. To date, covers costs primarily tens of thousands of creative through optional projects have come to life donations, as well as with the support of the through support from Kickstarter community.35 grants and sponsors. 36

19 3. SERVICE:

a. Trade School: Trade School is b. TimesFree: A babysitting co- c. TaskRabbit: An online and a non-traditional learning op, where communities set up mobile marketplace that community that runs on on their own using the app. matches freelance labor with barter. People offer to teach a The co-op functions using a local demand, allowing class about something they virtual currency, where each consumers to find immediate know. They decide on a list of participant is issued a set of help with everyday tasks, barter items they're interested tokens, which they earn by including cleaning, moving, in receiving. Students sign up babysitting for others in their delivery and handyman for their class by agreeing to community and spend on work.40 bring something from their getting sitters from that same list.38 community.39

4. TRANSPORTATION:

a. Carma Carpooling: This b. Uber: Uber is a ride- c. ZipCar: ZipCar allows drivers platform lets users build a hailing and payment from around the world to carpool in cities around the service that allows riders search for a nearby company world. A carpooling rather to choose your vehicle owned car, to rent for the than ridesharing app, it type to get around town. day.43 connects riders and drivers 42 headed in the same direction. Riders pay $.20 per mile, which means drivers don’t make a profit, but it does help offset costs.41

20 What forces enabled the emergence of the sharing economy on such a grand scale?

While the sharing economy is not new, the scale to which it has grown and evolved in recent years is worth examining. Global revenues from intermediary platforms were $15 billion in 2015, and this figure is projected to climb to $335 billion by 2025.44

The commercial Internet has been around since the mid 1990’s; however, the sharing economy has only emerged as a global movement recently. So why did the sharing economy take so long to become so big?

There are 5 forces that enabled the growth of the sharing economy, which were not present in the mid 1990’s. These include the evolution and merging of the following digital catalysts:

1. the commercial internet; 2. wireless broadband (Wi-Fi) networks; 3. mass-market smartphones; and 4. online trust and reputation systems; and 5. global social networking sites.45

To better understand how these 5 forces enabled the growth of the sharing economy, it is useful to: 1. briefly examine the development of the commercial Internet, and 2. the differences between what some consider to be ‘precursors’ of the sharing economy (e.g., Amazon, eBay, Alibaba, Craigslist, and Kozmo) and today’s intermediary platforms.

21 Development of the commercial Internet:

Today, the commercial Internet is viewed as a vital resource and function of everyday life; however, in the mid-1990’s, when the Internet began to emerge, this was not the case. At the outset, “some Internet enthusiasts like Howard Rheingold were staking out the “virtual frontier” of the Internet; others were warning people that the Internet was a potential minefield of illicit affairs, pornography, and (of course) fraudulent activities.”46 Gradually, most of these assumptions abated, and by the 21st century online commerce was becoming very common. In retrospect, it may be hard to believe that many people viewed its emergence with real hesitation, fear and even outrage; but this also explains why the sharing economy could not emerge or succeed sooner than it did.

‘Precursors’ of the sharing economy:

Precursors of the sharing economy may include the following 3 businesses:

• Amazon: An American electronic commerce and cloud computing company, founded in 1994, that started as an online bookstore, but later expanded its product offerings (e.g., electronics, video and audio downloads /streaming, apparel, etc…).47 By 2004, Amazon had generated almost $7 billion in revenue.48

• eBay: An American multinational corporation and e-commerce company, founded in 1995, providing consumer-to-consumer and business-to-consumer sales services via the Internet. Today it is a multibillion-dollar business with operations localized in over 30 countries.49

• Alibaba: A Chinese e-commerce company, founded in 1999, that provides consumer-to- consumer, business-to-consumer, and business-to-business sales services via web portals. In 2012, two of Alibaba's portals handled 1.1 trillion yuan ($170 billion) in sales. At the end of December 2015 its stock cap was about $212 billion.50

These businesses broadly resemble platforms in the sharing economy as they focus on peer-to- peer exchanges; but there are also 2 differentiators, including the type of exchanges and location/proximity. First, while these businesses focus on peer-to-peer exchanges they are primarily dedicated toward retail exchange; unlike the sharing economy, which covers additional sectors like accommodation, finance, service, and transportation. As well, these businesses carry no restriction based on proximity 51 other than for shipping costs. In contrast, proximity and location is key within the sharing economy, since many of its platforms are service based and operate most successfully in densely populated urban areas where participants are located in close proximity to each other.

These businesses emerged in an era before digital forces like Wi-Fi networks, mass-market smartphones, and global social networking sites were central to daily life and work. While these

22 catalysts were not essential to the success of these businesses, they are vital to the function of intermediary platforms in the sharing economy.

Another catalyst that is essential to these businesses and the intermediary platforms in the sharing economy is the presence of online trust and reputation systems. As online commerce businesses grew, this necessitated the need for certain measures to engender trust and ensure accountability within these exchanges. Through the incorporation of review and recommendation forums, these businesses introduced accountability measures to a thriving sector of electronic commerce. 52

Another precursor to the sharing economy is:

• Craigslist: A classified advertisements website with sections devoted to jobs, housing, personals, for sale, items wanted, services, community, gigs, résumés, and discussion forums. It began as an email distribution list to friends but became a web-based service in 1996 and expanded into other classified categories. It started expanding to other U.S. cities in 2000, and now covers 70 countries.53

Although Craigslist is engaged in the exchange of peer-to-peer services, and in that respect it resembles the sharing economy, a large differentiator is its net worth. Craigslist’s “estimated net worth was around $400 million, as of 2010,”54 whereas sharing economy revenues from intermediary platforms came it at $15 billion in 2015, and this number is still growing.55

Why couldn’t Craigslist continue to grow to a similar level of prominence and profitability as the sharing economy? The inherent security and risk within Craigslist exchanges may play a role here. This is largely a result of the fact that Craigslist does not encompass any form of checks or balances and service providers and users have no mechanism for accountability, which leaves the door open for abuse. Knowing this, individuals “may be comfortable hiring someone to move a few boxes of books from [their] home to [their] office or to paint [their] kitchen, but as new peer-to-peer services appear, finding services on Craigslist seems increasingly perilous.”56

While digital forces like Wi-Fi networks, mass-market smartphone, and global social networking sites had not yet arrived, online trust and reputation systems were already quite popular as demonstrated by Amazon, eBay, and Alibaba in the mid-to-late 1990’s. Craigslist, however, never incorporated these accountability measures into its model and this may explain its level of success compared to the sharing economy. Building upon these online trust and reputation systems, intermediary platforms in the sharing economy can include background checks of service providers and users of their digital applications. This may minimize risk in sharing economy exchanges, which has been an enabling force for its success.

23 “ These businesses emerged in an era before digital forces like Wi-Fi networks, mass-market smartphones, and global social networking sites were central to daily life and work. While these catalysts were not essential to the success of these businesses, they are vital to the function of intermediary platforms in the sharing economy.”

24 A final precursor to the sharing economy is:

• Kozmo: An online company that promised free one- hour delivery of a variety of items from video games, dvds, magazines, groceries, and even coffee and ice cream. It was founded in March 1998 and went out of business by April 2001.

In many ways Kozmo may have been ahead of its time, and it strongly resembles a model that could be an intermediary platform in the sharing economy today. The large differentiator here is, like many other businesses that emerged during the dot.com bubble of the mid-90’s,57 Kozmo could not prosper and ended up filing for bankruptcy. This is unlike the experience of platforms like it in the sharing economy today.

Businesses like Kozmo did not survive back in the 1990’s, but arguably they could thrive today. This is due to a variety of reasons, but chief among them is the fact that mass- market smartphones, Wi-Fi networks, and global social networking sites were not yet in existence. Without access to these forces which, among other features, grant instantaneous access to a vast network of potential customers, businesses like Kozmo may have had difficulty generating population scale success and widespread popularity, which may have led to their failure.

Through this discussion examining the rise of the Internet and precursor models to the sharing economy it becomes evident how key digital forces came together to enable the sharing economy to emerge at such an extensive scale.58

25 Statistics

What does participation in the sharing economy look like?

Several studies have been conducted looking at the scope and impact of the sharing economy, which examine overall usage, sectors of economic activity, locations, and profiles of consumers and workers.

Overall usage in the sharing economy:

• 72% of American adults have used at least one shared and on-demand service. • 28% of Americans say they have not used any major shared or on-demand platforms, and many are wholly unfamiliar with the tools and vocabulary of the new digital economy.59 • 40% of Ontarians are consumers in the sharing economy.60

The sectors of economic activity in the sharing economy:

• Transportation: 15% of Americans have used ride-hailing apps like Uber or Lyft, but twice as many have never heard of these apps before. • Accommodation: 11% of Americans have used home-sharing platforms like Airbnb or VRBO, but roughly half have never heard of home-sharing sites • Retail: 29% of women and 15% of men have used shared and on-demand platforms, to buy handmade or artisanal goods online.61

Where consumers live:

• 27% of Americans indicate that they live in an [urban] area where these services are offered, but have not yet tried ride-hailing themselves.62 • 12% of rural residents have used four or more of these services, roughly half the rate for those in urban areas, where this number is at at 25%.63

26 The demographic composition of North American consumers in the sharing economy:

• 51% of consumers are women; 49 % are male. • 48% are aged 18-34. • 27% are married. • 36% have children under the age of 18.64

The demographic composition of North American workers in the sharing economy:

• 72.7% of workers are male; 26.9% are female; 0.3% are other. • 57% are white / Caucasian; 11.8% are Hispanic; 11% are black / African American; 9.2% are other; 9.1% are Asian; 1.5% are Pacific Islander. • 38.7% are 18 - 24 years old; 28.8% are 25 - 34 years old; 16.3% are 35 - 44 years old; 11.0% are 45 - 54 years old; 4.3% are 55 - 64 years old; and 0.9% are 65 years or older. • 65.7% are single (never married); 24.2% are married; 6.9% are divorced; 2.2% are separated; 1.0% is widowed. • 6.6% are high school graduates (including equivalencies); 42.9% have some college, or no higher education; 9.9% have an associate’s degree; 29.1% have a bachelor’s degree; 10% have a graduate or professional degree; 0.4% have a PhD

27 Challenges

The dialogue surrounding the sharing economy sometimes may overlook the needs, concerns, and implications for the sharing economy workforce. One of these concerns surrounds the precarious nature of this kind of employment. Based on the classification of these workers as independent contractors and not employees, many are left with little to no employment, labour, and work protections and rights.

Critics of the sharing economy are speaking out with their concerns. They argue that intermediary platforms are breaking the law by creating business models that are largely based on evading taxes and regulations by denying that they are in fact employers, and the individuals whose labour they profit from are their employees.65 They also imply that “the use of online platforms to broker work should not insulate businesses from employer status, nor do the artificial labels these businesses attach to their workers define the employment relationship.”66

Critics also question the dialogue claiming that sharing economy workers are earning higher salaries than they would if they were participating in standard work arrangements. While some sources claim that sharing economy workers are often making $25 an hour, and working 40 hours a week,67 others critics insist that these workers are making well-below the minimum wage, and they are not doing this work full- time.68 69 70

28 It is important to note that because of the as likely to report poorer mental rise in non-standard employment health…are almost 55% more likely to arrangements, sharing economy workers report they are often depressed as a may be at an increased risk in several areas. result of work.”73 Some of these risks include: These 4 risks can all contribute to a cycle of 1. Earning lower wages: poverty, with workers in non-standard work • In 2015, workers in standard arrangements being 2-3 times more likely to employment arrangements earned experience higher rates of poverty than an average of $24/hour, whereas workers in standard employment.74 workers in non-standard work arrangements earned an average of Aggregate statistics measuring trends in the $15/ hour. labour market seem to indicate that income inequality and precarious employment may 2. Receiving little to no workplace benefits: be on the rise across all sectors of the • “In 2011 most workers in standard economy. Further indication of this trend is employment [arrangements] had noted by: medical insurance (74.3%), dental coverage (75.7%), and life or • The Ministry of Labour’s Inspection disability insurance (68.1%), or a blitz – which focused on precarious pension plan (53.8%). In comparison, employment – found that 78% of less than one-quarter of workers in workplaces were in violation of the non-standard [work arrangements] ESA in the summer of 2015.75 had job benefits such as medical insurance (23.0%) or dental coverage As well, (22.8%), while only 17.5% were covered by life and/or disability • The Toronto Star found that 22% of insurance or had an employer Ontario workers are not fully pension plan (16.6%).”71 protected by employment laws because of exemptions, and 77% of 3. Having shorter and unstable job tenures: precarious workers do not get • In 2015, workers in standard benefits through their jobs.76 employment arrangements had average job tenure of 79 months, Unfortunately, all of these numbers indicate whereas workers in non-standard that precarious employment is increasingly work arrangements had average job becoming more common, and there tenure of 32 months.72 appears to be no sign of this trend slowing down. These discussions have highlighted 4. Adverse health impacts: many of the challenges that may lie ahead. • “Workers in precarious employment This will help inform the best possible are more likely [than those in secure responses moving forward, and will also employment] to report their general ensure that there is a focus on the many health is [not] good… are almost twice different stakeholders’ interests.

29 Responsibilities, Risks, and Responses

In their haste to develop affordable, convenient and flexible virtual markets for on-demand goods and services, intermediary platforms appear to have prioritized the values of entrepreneurship, innovation, and technology over government priorities such as:

1. consumer protection,77 2. economic growth,78 3. equity,79 80 4. labour,81 5. social security,82 83 6. tax compliance,84 and 7. training.85

The following seven sections examine these government priorities in an attempt to:

• discuss how employment, labour and work in the sharing economy can affect government priorities; • outline opportunities and risks for stakeholders in sharing economy work arrangements; and • identify domestic and international responses to organizing the sharing economy that seek to balance multiple stakeholders’ interests.

30 1. Consumer Protection

Based on the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1990’s (OHSA) broad definition of an employer, a consumer of goods and services could be considered as being the employer in some sharing economy work arrangements.86 Regulations like the OHSA, 1990 apply to broader work arrangements between employers (including employers of independent contractors – like consumers) and employees (including independent contractors).

This is not the case with regulations like the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) and the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (LRA) which only apply to employment arrangements between employers and employees – and not to consumers.

The government has recognized the opportunity to bring forward a bill that clarifies and sets out the fundamental rights for all consumers.87 As stakeholders work towards providing consumer protections, they should consider what such a bill would mean for the sharing economy and work arrangement that are facilitated by intermediary platforms between consumers and independent contractors.

If a consumer of goods and services can be considered as being the employer in some sharing economy work arrangements, then this could create risks for them as consumers under OHSA, 1990 and mean that they would be responsible for: 1.) bearing the greatest responsibility for the health and safety of their independent contractors; 2.) taking every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of their independent contractors; and 3.) providing information, instruction and supervision to their independent contractors.

However, these responsibilities may not pose a risk for consumers in all sharing economy work arrangements as the OSHA , 1990 has some exclusions and does not apply to “work performed by the owner or occupant… in or about a private residence or the lands and appurtenances used in connection therewith.”88

As well, when intermediary platforms classify their workers as independent contractors this limits their liability89 by shifting it onto consumers who could be sued for not meeting their regulatory and administrative obligations.

The majority of lawsuits related to the sharing economy are filed by consumers or by workers against intermediary platforms. In 2015, 50 lawsuits were filed against Uber in U.S. federal courts; 17 of these were filed by workers, and more than a dozen were filed by consumers.90 However, some lawsuits related to the sharing economy are filed by consumers against workers. An individual who was arrested and later fired after a viral video showed him attacking an Uber driver is now suing that driver, not Uber, for $5 million.91

31 “ In their haste to develop affordable, convenient and flexible virtual markets for on-demand goods and services, intermediary platforms appear to have prioritized the values of entrepreneurship, innovation, and technology over government priorities such as:

1.consumer protection, 2.economic growth, 3.equity, 4.labour, 5.social security, 6.tax compliance, and 7.training. “

32 2. Economic Growth

Regional Expansion

As stakeholders attempt to attract jobs into communities that are still recovering from the 2008 global recession92, they could consider the sharing economy’s role in advancing economic growth across multiple regions.

While intermediary platforms have opened up new spaces for work arrangements to expand into, these spaces have mostly been confined to densely populated urban areas93 and not to suburban or rural regions,94 which could greatly benefit from these economic activities.95

This presents an opportunity for stakeholders to reach unengaged communities who could benefit from having convenient access to the sharing economy as a potential additional source of revenue/income. If entrepreneurs and workers who live in these areas do not currently have access to the education and/or resources required to participate in the sharing economy, then stakeholders could respond by providing these offerings through already available infrastructure (e.g., community centres, employment offices, local libraries and / or university campuses).

33 Regulatory and Administrative Obligations

Intermediary platforms have called for reductions in regulatory and administrative obligations that hamper their ability to grow. As governments attempt to address these requests, there is an opportunity for stakeholders to recognize that reducing said obligations from intermediary platforms would simply shift the responsibility of complying with them onto workers.96 When intermediary platforms interpret tests of employment status97 around classifying their workers as independent contractors they are effectively able to avoid three regulatory and administrative obligations, including:

1. Complying with Ontario’s broad range of employment, labour and work regulations, including:

• Disability Support Program Act, 1997 – governs the Ontario Disability Support Program which provides income and employment supports to persons with disabilities;98

• Employer Health Tax Act, 1990 – governs the Employer Health Tax, a payroll tax paid on returns to employees and former employees99, used to partially fund the Ontario Health Insurance Plan;

• Employment Insurance Act, 1996 – governs the Employment Insurance scheme which provides workers with benefits who lose their jobs, cannot work because of sickness, take time off to be with new born children / care for ill family members, and are parents of critically ill children;100

• Employment Standards Act, 2000 – sets out minimum standards of work (e.g., hours, minimum wages, overtime pay, public holidays, paid vacation, termination pay, and severance pay);101

• Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1990 - provides a general right of access to privacy information held by public sector institutions, and protects the privacy of individuals;102

• Human Rights Code, 1990 – prohibits actions that discriminate against people based on a protected ground in a protected social area, including a wide range of employment situations;103

• Labour Relations Act, 1995 – aids collective bargaining between employers and trade unions;104

• Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1990 – guarantees a minimum level of protection for the health and safety of workers by imposing duties and responsibilities on all workplace parties;105

• Pay Equity Act, 1990 – address the undervaluation of work historically performed by women;106

• Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 – governs Workers’ Compensation schemes, which are sources of no-fault loss of income payments, supplementary health benefits, and return to work vocational training for workers who are injured or contract a disease during employment.107

The majority of these regulations apply to employment arrangements between employers and employees. As a result of the ambiguous definitions applied by boards and courts when interpreting who an employer is and who an employee is, these regulations essentially become irrelevant and provide little to no protections and rights to stakeholders when digital applications classify themselves as intermediary platforms and their workers as independent contractors.

34 2. Deducting and remitting contributions, premiums and taxes:

• Contributions (e.g., Canada Pension Plan (CPP) contributions). Employees are required to make their Canada Pension Plan contribution up to an annual maximum of $2,544.30, and employers are required to make their CPP contribution up to an annual maximum of $2,544.30; When intermediary platforms classify their workers as independent contractors they are required to make CPP contributions up to an annual maximum of $5,088.60108.

• Premiums (e.g., Employment Insurance (EI) and Workers’ Compensation premiums). Employees are required to pay an EI premium up to an annual maximum of $955.04109, and employers are required to pay an EI premium up to an annual maximum of $1,337.06.110 When intermediary platforms classify their workers as independent contractors they are not required to pay an EI premium. However, independent contractors can pay an EI premium on a voluntarily-basis up to an annual maximum of $955.04.111 The EI premiums that independent contractors pay do not make them eligible for regular benefits (e.g., for job loss); instead they will only receive special benefits if they need time off because of sickness / to be with a new born / to care for an ill family member or a critically ill child. Employees are not required to pay a Workers’ Compensation (WC) premium as this is the responsibility of employers.112 When intermediary platforms classify their workers as Independent contractors they are not required to pay a WC premium. However, independent contractors can pay a WC premium on a voluntary-basis113.

• Taxes (federal and provincial income tax, sales tax on employee taxable benefits, and Employer Health Tax). Employees are not required to collect and remit sales taxes, or pay an Ontario Health Tax as this is the responsibility of employers.114 Independent contractors who earn at least $30,000 annually must collect and remit sales taxes, and independent contractors who earn at least $20,000 annually must pay an Ontario Health Premium.115

35 3. Providing mandatory workplace training (e.g., Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities, and Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System). Traditionally, these activities have been the responsibility of employers, as they have been held accountable for complying with related regulations through inspections, orders and penalties. When intermediary platforms classify their workers as independent contractors, no one in the sharing economy work arrangement is responsible for providing mandatory workplace training.

Reducing regulatory and administrative obligations for intermediary platforms may be unnecessary as there are other responses. Some intermediary platforms have already demonstrated their ability to compete despite assuming these obligations. This means that it could be possible for an intermediary platform to be successful while still complying with their obligations. Three examples that demonstrate this point are made by:

1. Téo is a digital application based ride hailing and payment service available in Montreal. Téo classifies its workers as employees, who all earn $15.00/hour, work eight-hour shifts, receive benefits, and are eligible for worker’s compensation.116 This is in contrast to competitors like Uber, which classifies its workers as independent contractors who purportedly make $5.71/hour after expenses and taxes117 and receive no benefits.

2. Juno is a digital application based ride hailing and payment service available across the United States. Juno currently classifies its workers as independent contractors but it believes in a driver-first approach, which includes 1. taking a lower commission from workers for fares (Juno takes a 10% commission, compared to its competitors which take 20% - 25%), 2. providing workers with resources like phones, 3. offering workers equity in the company, and 4. promising to eventually hire some workers as employees with benefits118.

3. Hello Alfred is a digital application based on-demand errand coordinator and payment service available across the United States. Hello Alfred classifies its workers as employees, which allows it to maintain greater control over its brand and workers performance, while simultaneously alleviating any worries management may have about worker misclassification lawsuits119. This is in contrast to competitors like Task Rabbit, which classifies its workers as independent contractors120.

36 3. Equity

As governments attempt to build diverse, equitable and inclusive communities121 that improve disadvantaged groups’ economic independence and security122, stakeholders should consider prohibiting actions that may discriminate against workers based on a protected ground in a protected social area.

Systemic barriers may unintentionally create the risk of excluding potential workers, such as persons living in poverty (this group is largely composed of aboriginal persons123, persons with disabilities124, visible minorities125 and women126), from participating in the sharing economy. This is because of barriers that may include:

§ Economic barriers: the financial insecurity of low wages / insufficient pay; not having access to benefits, insurance, protections and rights through work arrangements; not living in close proximity to an urban area; not owning a smart device with a data plan; not owning something of value to exchange for capital;

§ Educational barriers: not having a skill of value to exchange for capital; lack of English language proficiency; not understanding the differences in risks and responsibilities, and protections and rights available to independent contractors; and

§ Social barriers: concerns of digital discrimination when you have to provide your name and image for others to review before they decide to hire you127; lack of professional development; risks of professional isolation128.

37 4. Labour

As governments consider labour reforms that reflect the realities of the sharing economy, such as the rise of non-standard employment and the reduction in the prevalence of employer benefits and training129, stakeholders should consider addressing the risk of workers having little to no protections and rights based on how they are classified as employees or independent contractors.

Current regulations like the ESA, 2000 and the LRA, 1995 apply to employment arrangements between employers and employees. As a result of the non-exhaustive definitions applied by boards and courts when interpreting who an employer is and who an employee is, these regulations fundamentally become irrelevant and provide little to no protections and rights when intermediary platforms classify their workers as independent contractors.

Responses that may provide workers with protections and rights include:

§ Independent contractors. Creating provisions for independent contractors in regulations, while leaving the option open for further regulations to be passed to exempt or create a different standard that would apply to particular groups130. § Dependent contractors. Creating provisions for dependent contractors in regulations, while leaving the option open for further regulations to be passed to exempt particular groups or to create a different standard that would apply to particular groups. A dependent contractor “refers to an economic relationship in which the contractor depends mainly or entirely on a single employer or client… in some Canadian jurisdictions, a worker must earn 80% or more of their income from a single source” to qualify for dependent contractor status131. The use of this third category to classify workers would allow intermediary platforms to offer non-standard work arrangements to workers who desire these options while at the same time providing said workers with some degree of civil, employment, health, and labour protections and rights. § Interpretation. Ensuring the broadest possible definition of employers and employees is used when boards and courts analyze common law tests and key considerations / factors to interpret who an employer is and who an employee.132 § Collective bargaining. Extending collective bargaining rights by sector to allow an applicant (e.g., someone who demonstrates that they are the most representative of the workers in their sector) to receive certificates on fixed-term / renewable licenses that would allow them to bargain with intermediary platforms on behalf of all workers in that sector. The applicant and intermediary platform would then make a scale agreement that would define the minimum terms and conditions for the provision of these workers’ services and other related matters; individual workers would then be free to negotiate personal services contracts above the minimums established in the scale agreement.133 § Sectoral bargaining. Introducing sectorial bargaining that would extend the benefits employees receive through labour negotiations between their employers and trade unions outside of their workplaces and to all workers who perform similar work within said sector.134

38 Stakeholders have already begun to adopt some of these responses in an attempt to provide workers with protections and rights. These include:

§ Associations. As the LRA, 1995 doesn’t extend the right to unionize to independent contractors, individuals within these professions have found alternative means to achieve collective representation. One example is the Toronto Construction Association, a professional association that represents ~300,000 local construction industry practitioners. By paying dues to the association, members receive access to group savings, networking opportunities, work opportunities, and educational training among other benefits.135 A second example is Unifor’s Community Chapters, which allow independent contractors to organize themselves and receive some of the benefits of a union. By paying dues that go back into the community chapter – and not to the union – independent contractors can come together and collectively access services like dental and health plans, group home and auto insurance, and political representation.136 § Coalitions. In response to concerns such as a lack of worker protections, discriminatory practices, and losses in government revenues,137 coalitions of neighbors, community activists and elected officials – such as ShareBetter – have begun to form to raise awareness of the risks intermediary platforms may be causing in their communities and around the world.138 § Co-operatives. Instead of accepting their classification as independent contractors, or waiting for board and court rulings to determine if they are employees, some workers have begun to organize their own virtual collectives to provide on-demand services to consumers. Green Taxi is a digital application based taxi hailing and payment service in Denver, Colorado that hopes to launch soon with a model based on being worker owned and also unionized.139 § Community Groups. The Urban Worker Project is a new initiative to give stronger voice to independent contractors by: building campaigns and taking political action on issues; communicating about the issues facing contract, freelance and self-employed workers in the new economy; and building community by hosting events and finding ways to help provide services that workers need.140 § Governments. The Ontario Ministry of Labour released a Changing Workplaces Review Interim Report which sought recommendations for legislative changes to the ESA, 2000 and the LRA, 1995 which includes recommendations around worker classification issues.141

39 “As a result of the non-exhaustive definitions applied by boards and courts when interpreting who an employer is and who an employee is, these regulations fundamentally become irrelevant and provide little to no protections and rights when intermediary platforms classify their workers as independent contractors. “

40 5. Social Security

Retirement Income

As governments build strong and secure retirement income systems, stakeholders must consider the risk that the sharing economy may create by placing the heavier obligation of making contributions to this system almost exclusively on workers.

A strong and secure retirement income system has traditionally been built on three sources: 1. Employers contributing to mandatory CPP payments and voluntary Registered Pension Plans; 2. Governments making transfer payments to Guaranteed Income Supplement and Old Age Security plans; and 3. Employees contributing to mandatory CPP payments, voluntary Registered Pension Plans, and personal savings.

Regarding employer and employee CPP contributions, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) collects an annual maximum CPP contribution from employers of $2,544.30 and an annual maximum contribution from employees of $2,544.30. In this traditional model, both the employer and employee share the risks.

On the other hand, when interacting with work arrangements between intermediary platforms and independent contractors the CRA collects the entire annual maximum contribution from independent contractors of $5,088.60. Consequently, the independent contractor assumes all of the risk.

41 Social Assistance

As governments transform social assistance to promote greater independence for workers142 (i.e., improving incomes, encouraging work, enhancing access to core supports, and in leading the poverty reduction strategy143) to enable persons to move toward employment and income security, stakeholder responses can consider that:

§ Some workers may want to participate in the sharing economy but at the same time they may not want to assume greater levels of risk and responsibility. In February 2016 the Ontario government committed in its budget to design a pilot project to see if “a basic income could build on the success of minimum wage policies… by providing more consistent and predictable support in the context of today’s dynamic labour market144.” Developing a universal basic income that would reduce inequality and irradiate poverty by providing every citizen / family – regardless of employment status – with a guaranteed, middle- class income to spend each year could encourage more workers to voluntarily participate in the sharing economy as it could reduce the level of risk and responsibility they would have to assume.

§ Linking social benefits to traditional employment contracts excludes an increasing population of workers from being covered by and accessing said benefits. Historically, benefits like health insurance, retirement savings, and sick and family leaves were tied to employment arrangements between employers and employees145. Elizabeth Warren, the United States Senator for Massachusetts, recently proposed three strategies to ensure that all workers – no matter when they work, where they work, and who they work for – have some basic protections and be able to build some economic security for themselves and their families. These three strategies included:

1. Providing portable benefits for all workers; 2. Extending the right to organize a union or other form of collective voice and protect everyone from retaliation or discrimination for exercising those rights; and 3. Easing the paperwork burden and responsibility for administering these benefits from employers by allowing unions or other groups to prove them to workers at a fair price146.

42 6. Tax Compliance

As governments ensure taxes are collected efficiently and that minimal revenue is lost, stakeholders must consider approaches that facilitate the opportunity for the greatest possible administrative and financial economies of scale to be achieved.

Traditionally, regulatory obligations around taxes have been the responsibility of employers as they have been able to coordinate them through their centralized payroll functions. In interacting with employment arrangements between employers and employees the CRA collects taxes (e.g., federal and provincial income tax and sales tax on employee taxable benefits) from employers. Additionally, the Ministry of Finance collects taxes (e.g., Employer Health Tax147) from employers. In this traditional model, one employer would coordinate these obligations for numerous employees, which resulted in administrative and financial economies of scale.

On the other hand, in interacting with work arrangements between intermediary platforms and independent contractors the CRA collects taxes from independent contractors (e.g., federal and provincial income tax, and sales tax on earnings over $30,000 annually148). The CRA also collects an Ontario Health Premium from independent contractors if they earn at least $20,000 annually. When intermediary platforms classify their workers as independent contractors these activities become the responsibility of workers to accurately track and coordinate through their tax returns. Under this model, this group of numerous workers must coordinate these obligations independently, which could result in inefficiencies.

One response that clarifies which stakeholder in a sharing economy exchange should coordinate tax obligations, can be found in Ontario. In collaboration with the CRA, Airbnb – a digital application based home sharing and payment service that enables people to find, list, then rent vacation homes for a processing fee – sent out an email during a recent tax season to remind property renters of their tax obligations. At that time Airbnb sent out 14,000 emails to property renters to remind them of their tax obligations; 50% of those emails were opened; 300 property owners clicked on the link in that email which provided them with more information149. However, in other countries like France, Airbnb is responsible for collecting and remitting necessary taxes to governments150.

43 7. Training

As governments ensure that timely and relevant labour market information is available to support people as they make decisions about education, training and hiring, stakeholders could consider opportunities to:

§ Offer free resources in community centres, employment offices and / or local libraries that could provide job seekers with 1.) financial literacy education, 2.) information on their employment, labour and work protections and rights, and 3.) guidance on what they may be gaining / giving up should they decide to pursue careers where they would be classified as independent contractors.

§ Invest in research that would provide stakeholders with real time data to develop regulations and plans that reflect current labour market demographics and macro-economic factors (e.g., cultural, economic, legal, regulatory, social, and technological).151

44

Conclusion

The global employment landscape is changing and it is becoming increasingly precarious for the many individuals who are finding themselves in non-standard work arrangements. Standard employment used to refer to full-time, long-term, nine-to-five careers at one company with benefits / incentives and a broad range of protections and rights guaranteed by various employment, labour and work regulations and plans. However, today’s non-standard work arrangements appear to provide the workers who engage in them with little to no protections and rights. Therefore, if previous generations held one ‘standard’ job, and the current generation is holding multiple non-standard jobs, how many and what kind of jobs will the next generation be expected to hold?

The Changing Workplaces Review Interim Report acknowledges a “need for reform of employment standards and labour relations legislation, …especially to provide protection to vulnerable workers and those in precarious work situations.”152 Different jurisdictions and levels of governments have produced a variety of responses to the sharing economy as it relates to the future of work. How is that Toronto and Mississauga, though neighboring municipalities, both developed different regulations for the intermediary platform, Uber?153.

These variances in responses by stakeholders may be related to overall value systems. Taking into account the challenges presented by rising precarity, stakeholders should consider the larger question; whether the societal values that drove the need for establishing current employment, labour and work regulations still suit these non-standard work arrangements? This focus is going to be vitally important for all stakeholders involved in order to ensure that integral values are not overlooked or disregarded.

With the knowledge that change is inevitable, and that every industry imaginable has the potential to be reborn, it is prudent to consider what industries have yet to be transformed. 154 Realizing that the values of — entrepreneurship, innovation, and technology – can exist alongside the values of – consumer protection, economic growth, equity, labour, social security, tax compliance, and training – is going to be hugely important moving forward. If stakeholders can come together in collaborative, ethical, innovative, proactive and sustainable ways, it is possible to develop contemporary, productive, and socially conscious solutions to these challenges.

There are a multitude of questions that still need to be answered. Notable among them is: What legacy of employment, labour, and work are we choosing to leave behind for future generations?

45 References

1 Kochan, T. (2016). Shaping the Future of Work. What Future Worker, Business, Government, and Education Leaders Need To Do for All To Prosper. Business Expert Press. Pp. 01. 22016). Submission to the Changing Workplaces Review on the Interim Report. Urban Worker Project. http://bit.ly/2ep2M1d 3 (2014). The sharing economy is all about connecting demand to spare capacity or spare assets. PricewaterhouseCoopers. http://pwc.to/2dGMUbT 4 Holmes, A. & McGuinty, L., (2015). Harnessing the Power of the Sharing Economy: Next Steps for Ontario. Ontario Chamber of Commerce. http://bit.ly/1MKOSQc 5 Katz, L., & Krueger, A. (2016, March 29). The Rise and Nature of Alternative Work Arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015. http://bit.ly/2e1dDjj 6 (2016, August 05). Labour Force Survey, July 2016. Statistics Canada. Component of catalogue no. 11-001-X. http://bit.ly/2dfYOqi 7 (2016, January 08). Self-employment, historical summary. Statistics Canada. CANSIM, table 282-0012 and Catalogue no. 89F0133XIE. http://bit.ly/1NYBOnC 8 Gellatly, M. (2015, March 05). Still Living on the Edge: Building Decent Jobs from the Ground Up. Workers’ Action Centre. http://bit.ly/1NzV9vs 9 Pearce, R. (2014, May 06). Study finds benefits in flexible work program at Fortune 500 company. The Globe and Mail. http://bit.ly/QlQJ4n 10 Clark, C. E. (2016, April 23). Working 2 or More Jobs – Is This the New Normal? ToughNickel. http://bit.ly/2es2vrp 11 Leong, M. (2016, September 16). Rise of the moonlighters: Why more Canadians are taking on side jobs and hot to make it work for you. Financial Post. http://bit.ly/2csCYwK 12 Horowitz, S. (2013, April 10). Welcome to the Micro-Gig: No Job Is Too Small. The Atlantic. http://theatln.tc/2e3Bbyw 13 Employee or Independent Contractor. Thompson Rivers University. http://bit.ly/2cr9zWQ 14 Mojtehedzadeh, S. (2016, January 20). Inspection blitz finds three quarters of bosses breaking law. The Toronto Star. http://on.thestar.com/2e1b8s2 15 Mojtehedzadeh, S. (2016, July 27). Workplace violations widespread in Ontario, government report says. The Toronto Star. http://on.thestar.com/2axidn2 16 Holmes, A. & McGuinty, L., (2015). Harnessing the Power of the Sharing Economy: Next Steps for Ontario. Ontario Chamber of Commerce. http://bit.ly/1MKOSQc 17 (2014, July 03). Building Ontario Up: Speech from the Throne. Office of the Premier. http://bit.ly/2cGGUxE 18 Heskett, J. L., Jones, O. T., Loveman, G. W., Sasser, W. E., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008). Putting the Service-Profit Chain to Work. Harvard Business Review. http://bit.ly/1qSm7n7 19 Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 http://bit.ly/2dEFR0Y 20 Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 http://bit.ly/2dEFR0Y 21 Independent contractor. The Free Dictionary by Fairlex. http://bit.ly/2ermubt 22 Schein, A. I. (2014, August 26). Canada: When Is A Worker A Dependent Contractor? Minden Gross LLP. http://bit.ly/2d8dzbd 23 Schein, A. I. (2014, August 26). Canada: When Is A Worker A Dependent Contractor? Minden Gross LLP. http://bit.ly/2d8dzbd 24 Rajwani, A. (2016, June 03). Welcoming Remarks. Welcoming remarks presented at the Centre for Labour Management Relation’s conference on “The Sharing Economy and the Future of Work”, Toronto, ON. http://bit.ly/2dGNItz 25 Rajwani, A. (2016, June 03). Welcoming Remarks. Welcoming remarks presented at the Centre for Labour Management Relation’s conference on “The Sharing Economy and the Future of Work”, Toronto, ON. http://bit.ly/2dGNItz 26 Consumer. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. http://bit.ly/2dEGxn2 27 Sundararajan A. (2016, May). The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism. The MIT Press. Cambridge, MA. Pp. 29-30. 28 Sundararajan A. (2016, May). The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism. The MIT Press. Cambridge, MA. Pp. 27. 29 Sundararajan A. (2016, May). The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism. The MIT Press. Cambridge, MA. Pp. 35. 30 Chan, C., Desrochers, M.-E., Gee, E. & Monafu, D. (2016, February 05). Back To The Future: The Sharing Economy – A Report for DCMPI. Privy Council Office, Government of Canada. http://bit.ly/2e1gybP 31 Sundararajan A. (2016, May). The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism. The MIT Press. Cambridge, MA. Pp. 38.

46

32 About Us. Couchsurfing International, Inc. http://bit.ly/1Nl7ist 33 About Us. Airbnb, Inc. http://bit.ly/2d3tix2 34 About Us. onefinestay. http://bit.ly/2dGR6Z0 35 Hello. Kickstarter. http://kck.st/2e1fCE4 36 About Us. Kiva. http://bit.ly/1M5hSPH 37 Home. AngelList. http://bit.ly/1tI5FMV 38 About. Trade School. http://bit.ly/2dg0X5l 39 Home. TimesFree, Inc. http://bit.ly/2dg1yDO 40 Home. Taskrabbit, Inc. http://bit.ly/1avI6XK 41 Our Mission. Carma. http://bit.ly/2eqzmRO 42 Home. Uber Technologies Inc. http://ubr.to/2durDB7 43 Home. Zipcar, Inc. http://bit.ly/2eu9gts 44 (2014). The sharing economy is all about connecting demand to spare capacity or spare assets. PricewaterhouseCoopers. http://pwc.to/2dGMUbT 45 Sundararajan A. (2016, May). The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism. The MIT Press. Cambridge, MA. Pp. 47.48. 46 Sundararajan A. (2016, May). The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism. The MIT Press. Cambridge, MA. Pp. 47-48. 47 Amazon.com. Wikipedia. http://bit.ly/1uiQ9oG 48 Net sales revenue from Amazon from 2004 to 2015 (in billion U.S. dollars). Statista. http://bit.ly/2dvX09f 49 Home. eBay Inc. http://bit.ly/1iR26hG 50 Home. Alibaba.com. http://bit.ly/2asXiBz 51 Sundararajan A. (2016, May). The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism. The MIT Press. Cambridge, MA. Pp. 48-49. 52 Sundaresan, N. (2007, June 11). Online Trust and Reputation Systems. Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. San Diego, California http://bit.ly/2duquJw 53 Toronto. craiglist. http://bit.ly/1LBMVWw 54 Boulton, T. (2013, September 13). Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Craig from Craigslist. Gizmodo. http://bit.ly/2dHhIqi 55 (2014). The sharing economy is all about connecting demand to spare capacity or spare assets. PricewaterhouseCoopers. http://pwc.to/2dGMUbT 56 Sundararajan A. (2016, May). The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism. The MIT Press. Cambridge, MA. Pp. 50. 57 Cotcom Bubble. Investopedia. http://bit.ly/2f09yea 58 Sundararajan A. (2016, May). The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism. The MIT Press. Cambridge, MA. Pp. 50. 59 Smith, A. (2016, May 29). Shared, Collaborative and On Demand: The New Digital Economy. Pew Research Centre. http://pewrsr.ch/1TWje2a 60 Holmes, A. & McGuinty, L., (2015). Harnessing the Power of the Sharing Economy: Next Steps for Ontario. Ontario Chamber of Commerce. http://bit.ly/1MKOSQc 61 Smith, A. (2016, May 29). Shared, Collaborative and On Demand: The New Digital Economy. Pew Research Centre. http://pewrsr.ch/1TWje2a 62 Smith, A. (2016, May 29). Shared, Collaborative and On Demand: The New Digital Economy. Pew Research Centre. http://pewrsr.ch/1TWje2a 63 Smith, A. (2016, May 29). Shared, Collaborative and On Demand: The New Digital Economy. Pew Research Centre. http://pewrsr.ch/1TWje2a 64 Smith, A. (2016, May 29). Shared, Collaborative and On Demand: The New Digital Economy. Pew Research Centre. http://pewrsr.ch/1TWje2a 65 Leberstein, S. & Smith, R. (2015, September). Rights on Demand: Ensuring Workplace Standards and Worker Security In the On- Demand Economy. National Employment Law Project. http://bit.ly/2di1oMf 66 Leberstein, S. & Smith, R. (2015, September). Rights on Demand: Ensuring Workplace Standards and Worker Security In the On- Demand Economy. National Employment Law Project. http://bit.ly/2di1oMf 67 Goetz, S. (2015, September 16). If you think you’ll get rich driving UberX in Toronto, think again. Metro News. http://bit.ly/1OhfGJL 68 Steinmetz, K. (2016, January 06). Exclusive: See How Big the Gig Economy Really Is. Time. http://ti.me/1Z5U0RZ 69 Callaway, A. 2016, January 01. How the “sharing economy” has turned San Francisco into a dystopia for the working class. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. http://bit.ly/1Z5BfU2

47

70 Sherman, E. (2015, August 04). Uber, TaskRabbit And Sharing Economy Giveth to Workers, But Also Taketh Away. Forbes. http://bit.ly/2dup5Ts 71 Mitchell, M. & Murray, J. (2016, July 17). Changing Workplaces Review Special Advisors’ Interim Report; Chapter 3- Changing Pressures and Trends. Ontario Ministry of Labour. http://bit.ly/2e1iaN7 72 Mitchell, M. & Murray, J. (2016, July 17). Changing Workplaces Review Special Advisors’ Interim Report; Chapter 3- Changing Pressures and Trends. Ontario Ministry of Labour. http://bit.ly/2e1iaN7 73 Lewchuk, W., Lafléche, M., Procyk, S., Cook, C., Dyson, D., Goldring, L., Lior, K., Meisner, A., Shields, J., Tambureno, A., Viducis, P. (2015, May). The Precarity Penalty: The impact of employment precocity on individuals, households and communities - and what to do about it. Poverty and Employment precocity in Southern Ontario. http://bit.ly/1UeVoF9 74 Mitchell, M. & Murray, J. (2016, July 17). Changing Workplaces Review Special Advisors’ Interim Report; Chapter 3- Changing Pressures and Trends. Ontario Ministry of Labour. http://bit.ly/2e1iaN7 75 Mojtehedzadeh, S. (2016, January 20). Inspection blitz finds three quarters of bosses breaking law. The Toronto Star. http://on.thestar.com/2e1b8s2 76 Mojtehedzadeh, S. (2016, July 27). Workplace violations widespread in Ontario, government report says. The Toronto Star. http://on.thestar.com/2axidn2 77 Wynne, K. (2016, January 29). 2014 Mandate letter: Government and Consumer Services. Government of Ontario. http://bit.ly/2bZAWYN 78 Wynne, K. (2016, January 29). 2014 Mandate letter: Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure. Government of Ontario. http://bit.ly/2cgMgvi 79 Wynne, K. (2016, January 29). 2014 Mandate letter: Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. Government of Ontario. http://bit.ly/2cftRlb 80 Wynne, K. (2016, January 29). 2014 Mandate letter: Women’s Directorate. Government of Ontario. http://bit.ly/2cd2ea2 81 Wynne, K. (2016, January 29). 2014 Mandate letter: Labour. Government of Ontario. http://bit.ly/2cwGc4a 82 Wynne, K. (2016, January 29). 2014 Mandate letter: Community and Social Services. Government of Ontario. http://bit.ly/2bY7vS3 83 Wynne, K. (2016, January 29). 2014 Mandate letter: Treasury Board Secretariat. Government of Ontario. http://bit.ly/23eGMqU 84 Wynne, K. (2016, January 29). 2014 Mandate letter: Finance. Government of Ontario. http://bit.ly/1Wu9ks1 85 Wynne, K. (2016, January 29). 2014 Mandate letter: Training, Colleges and Universities. Government of Ontario. http://bit.ly/2cfx5ou 86 Wojcik, M. (2016, August 08). The gig economy and the occupational health and safety act. PowerPoint presented at the Centre for Labour Management Relation’s conference on “The Gig Economy and Your Rights & Protections”, Toronto, ON. http://bit.ly/2blMEsk 87 Wynne, K. (2016, January 29). 2014 Mandate letter: Government and Consumer Services. Government of Ontario. http://bit.ly/2bZAWYN 88 Wojcik, M. (2016, August 08). The gig economy and the occupational health and safety act. PowerPoint presented at the Centre for Labour Management Relation’s conference on “The Gig Economy and Your Rights & Protections”, Toronto, ON. http://bit.ly/2blMEsk 89 Can You Sue an Uber Driver If You’re Injured? Haber & Associates Lawyers. http://bit.ly/2cjw3bE 90 Brown, K. (2016, January 25). Uber is facing a staggering number of lawsuits. Fusion. http://fus.in/1ShcJK5 91 Mangan, D. (2016, January 15). Ex-Taco Bell exec now suing Uber driver for $5 million. CNBC. http://cnb.cx/1RqInG8 92 Wynne, K. (2016, January 29). 2014 Mandate letter: Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure. Government of Ontario. http://bit.ly/2cgMgvi 93 Thompson, D. (2016, September 06). The Next Industrial Revolution. The Atlantic. http://theatln.tc/2chxBDM 94 Hemmadi, M. (2016, May 04). As Uber expands, Canada’s homegrown sharing economy struggles. Canadian Business. http://bit.ly/2cwBPpH 95 Hemmadi, M. (2016, May 04). As Uber expands, Canada’s homegrown sharing economy struggles. Canadian Business. http://bit.ly/2cwBPpH 96 Baker, Dean. (2015, September 29). The Opportunities and Risks of the Sharing Economy. Presented at “The Disrupter Series: How the Sharing Economy Creates Jobs, Benefits Consumers, and Raises Policy Questions.” http://bit.ly/2cbTiDo 97 Employee or Independent Contractor. Thompson Rivers University. http://bit.ly/2cr9zWQ 98 Ontario Disability Support Program. Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services. http://bit.ly/1jYVyiV 99 Employer Health Tax. Ontario Ministry of Finance. http://bit.ly/1kYF8Ro 100 Rohde, D. (2016, August 08). The gig economy and employment insurance. PowerPoint presented at the Centre for Labour Management Relation’s conference on “The Gig Economy and Your Rights & Protections”, Toronto, ON. http://bit.ly/2blMEsk 101 Mandryk, J. (2016, August 08). The gig economy and the employment standards act. PowerPoint presented at the Centre for Labour Management Relation’s conference on “The Gig Economy and Your Rights & Protections”, Toronto, ON. http://bit.ly/2blMEsk

48

102 Ostrowski, S . (2016, August 08). The gig economy and the personal information protection and electronic documents act & the freedom of information and protection of privacy act. Speaking notes presented at the Centre for Labour Management Relation’s conference on “The Gig Economy and Your Rights & Protections”, Toronto, ON. http://bit.ly/2blMEsk 103 Chau, K. (2016, August 08). The gig economy and the ontario human rights code. PowerPoint and speaking notes presented at the Centre for Labour Management Relation’s conference on “The Gig Economy and Your Rights & Protections”, Toronto, ON. http://bit.ly/2blMEsk 104 Gottheil, L. (2016, August 08). The gig economy and the labour relations act. PowerPoint presented at the Centre for Labour Management Relation’s conference on “The Gig Economy and Your Rights & Protections”, Toronto, ON. http://bit.ly/2blMEsk 105 Wojcik, M. (2016, August 08). The gig economy and the occupational health and safety act. PowerPoint presented at the Centre for Labour Management Relation’s conference on “The Gig Economy and Your Rights & Protections”, Toronto, ON. http://bit.ly/2blMEsk 106 Heyninck, E. (2016, August 08). The gig economy and the pay equity act. PowerPoint presented at the Centre for Labour Management Relation’s conference on “The Gig Economy and Your Rights & Protections”, Toronto, ON. http://bit.ly/2blMEsk 107 Giroux, M. (2016, August 08). The gig economy and workers' compensation. Speaking notes presented at the Centre for Labour Management Relation’s conference on “The Gig Economy and Your Rights & Protections”, Toronto, ON. http://bit.ly/2blMEsk 108 CPP & EI Deductions. Payworks. http://bit.ly/2bZuVvq 109 (2016, January 28). Employment Insurance – important notice about maximum insurable earnings for 2016. Government of Canada. http://bit.ly/2cLxYIP 110 (2016, April 06). Who Has to Pay Employment Insurance Premiums? TaxTips.ca. http://bit.ly/2cjDDTY 111 (2016, March 16). EI special benefits for self-employed people. Government of Canada. http://bit.ly/2cjDBeV 112 (2011, September). Employment law in Canada: Provincially regulated employers. McMillan LLP. http://bit.ly/2crdJ0U 113 (2016, April 01). Optional Insurance. WSIB Ontario. http://bit.ly/2cftyGW 114 Employer Health Tax. Ontario Ministry of Finance. http://bit.ly/1kYF8Ro 115 Ontario Health Premium. Ontario Ministry of Finance. http://bit.ly/1wzxNUb 116 Contenta, S. (2016, May 22). Meet the Montrealer who gave Uber a jolt. The Toronto Star. http://on.thestar.com/1U7kKkV 117 Goetz, S. (2015, September 16). If you think you’ll get rich driving UberX in Toronto, think again. Metro News. http://bit.ly/1OhfGJL 118 Huston, C. (2016, March 14). This startup thinks it knows the secret to beating Uber. Market Watch. http://on.mktw.net/1RUx7jb 119 White, G. (2015, December 09). When Will Labor Law Catch Up With the Gig Economy? The Atlantic. http://theatln.tc/1lvmCbd 120 TaskRabbit Support. (2016, September 06). Am I a TaskRabbit employee? TaskRabbit. http://bit.ly/2cyrYBg 121 Wynne, K. (2016, January 29). 2014 Mandate letter: Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. Government of Ontario. http://bit.ly/2cftRlb 122 Wynne, K. (2016, January 29). 2014 Mandate letter: Women’s Directorate. Government of Ontario. http://bit.ly/2cd2ea2 123 Kirkup, K. (2016, May 17). 60% of First Nation children on reserve live in poverty, institute says. The Canadian Press. http://bit.ly/1OxxzAr 124 As a Matter of Fact: Poverty and Disability in Canada. Council of Canadians with Disabilities. http://bit.ly/2cfw93N 125 (2013, August 16). Snapshot of racialized Poverty in Canada. Government of Canada. http://bit.ly/1LlVAg8 126 The Facts About Women and Poverty. Canada Women’s Foundation. http://bit.ly/2ben9Ko 127 Deruy, E. (2015, November 02). Asian Hosts Earn Less Than Whites on Airbnb. The Atlantic. http://theatln.tc/2bZyOAg 128 Knight, M. (2016, June 03). Equity and the Sharing Economy. Presented at the Centre for Labour Management Relation’s conference on “The Sharing Economy and the Future of Work”, Toronto, ON. http://bit.ly/2cd2VAa 129 Wynne, K. (2016, January 29). 2014 Mandate letter: Labour. Government of Ontario. http://bit.ly/2cwGc4a 130 Phillips, E. (2016, August 08). The gig economy and... worker classification. Speaking notes presented at the Centre for Labour Management Relation’s conference on “The Gig Economy and Your Rights & Protections”, Toronto, ON. http://bit.ly/2blMEsk 131 Sachs, B. (2015, June 22). A New Category of Worker for the On-Demand Economy? OnLabour. http://bit.ly/2dmGhp3 132 Heyninck, E. (2016, August 08). The gig economy and the pay equity act. PowerPoint presented at the Centre for Labour Management Relation’s conference on “The Gig Economy and Your Rights & Protections”, Toronto, ON. http://bit.ly/2blMEsk 133 Gottheil, L. (2016, August 08). The gig economy and the labour relations act. PowerPoint presented at the Centre for Labour Management Relation’s conference on “The Gig Economy and Your Rights & Protections”, Toronto, ON. http://bit.ly/2blMEsk 134 Gottheil, L. (2016, August 08). The gig economy and the labour relations act. PowerPoint presented at the Centre for Labour Management Relation’s conference on “The Gig Economy and Your Rights & Protections”, Toronto, ON. http://bit.ly/2blMEsk 135 Our History. The Toronto Construction Association. http://bit.ly/2cpHOiF 136 Community Chapters. Unifor. http://bit.ly/2c5R1xp 137 Pimentel, L. (2016, June 03). The Sharing Economy and the Future of Work: Home Sharing. PowerPoint presented at the Centre for Labour Management Relation’s conference on “The Sharing Economy and the Future of Work”, Toronto, ON. 138 About Us. ShareBetter. http://bit.ly/2dmIVLc 139 Hansen, M. (2015, April 10). What if Uber Were a Unionized, Worker-Owned Co-Op? These Denver Cabbies Are Making It Happen. Yes! Magazine. http://bit.ly/1FOsEIz 140 Work has changed. Let’s make it work for us. Urban Worker Project. http://bit.ly/2cA16hE

49 141 Mitchell, M. & Murray, J. (2016, July 17). Changing Workplaces Review Special Advisors’ Interim Report. Ontario Ministry of Labour. http://bit.ly/2amQfd1 142 Wynne, K. (2016, January 29). 2014 Mandate letter: Community and Social Services. Government of Ontario. http://bit.ly/2bY7vS3 143 Wynne, K. (2016, January 29). 2014 Mandate letter: Treasury Board Secretariat. Government of Ontario. http://bit.ly/23eGMqU 144 Seale, A. (2016, March 16). Guaranteed annual income: What you need to know about Ontario’s proposed program. Yahoo! Canada Finance. http://yhoo.it/1pr9Ag0 145 (2015, December 23). Time to negotiate a social compact 2.0. Speak Up For Work. http://bit.ly/2cmGUB9 146 Kochan, T. (2016, May 23). Good gig new employment proposals for contract workers could make it better. Speak Up For Work. http://bit.ly/2cqUq7T 147 Employment regulations: hiring. Canada Business Ontario. http://bit.ly/2cpEiEX 148 (2013, February 26). Engaging an independent contractor? It’s more complicated than you think! PricewaterhouseCoopers. http://pwc.to/2cbVB9h 149 Gee, E. (2016, June 03). Opening remarks. Speaking notes presented at the Centre for Labour Management Relation’s conference on “The Sharing Economy and the Future of Work. Toronto, ON. 150 Lu, V. (2016, February 19). Ontario vows to work with Airbnb to collect taxes. The Toronto Star. http://on.thestar.com/2bHgH2D 151 Heyninck, E. (2016, August 08). The gig economy and the pay equity act. PowerPoint presented at the Centre for Labour Management Relation’s conference on “The Gig Economy and Your Rights & Protections”, Toronto, ON. http://bit.ly/2blMEsk 152 Mitchell, M. & Murray, J. (2016, July 17). Changing Workplaces Review Special Advisors’ Interim Report; Chapter 3- Changing Pressures and Trends. Ontario Ministry of Labour. http://bit.ly/2e1iaN7 153 Grewal, S. (2016, May 18). Mississauga gives Uber one week to shut down. The Toronto Star. http://on.thestar.com/2e9ijDl 154 Sloan, R. (2015, November 06). Why I Quit Ordering from Uber-for-food Start-ups. The Atlantic. http://theatln.tc/1HhlBwA

50

THE TED ROGERS SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT'S CENTRE FOR LABOUR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS AT RYERSON UNIVERSITY

PROMOTES COLLABORATIVE, ETHICAL, INNOVATIVE, PROACTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE BEST PRACTICES

FOR LABOUR AND MANAGEMENT TO WORK BETTER TOGETHER IN A WAY THAT RESULTS IN GREATER PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFITABILITY FOR BUSINESSES, IMPROVED JOB AND INCOME SECURITY FOR WORKERS, AND DECREASED INEQUALITY AND INJUSTICE FOR ALL OF SOCIETY.