‘Gig economy’ fails to change job market

The promise of the “gig economy,” as it’s known, has been that it would provide benefits for both workers and employers. The rise of services like Uber, where drivers are on call at any time but can also sign off whenever they need to, means that workers can earn money on their own schedules while otherwise living their lives as they choose. Aside from ride sharing, gig economy businesses include delivery services, home repair, personal assistance and almost anything else that can work to someone’s convenience.

But for now, in Connecticut and beyond, the hype far outweighs the reality.

According to a report this month from the state Department of Labor, the gig economy is having almost no measurable effect on the overall labor markets, either in Connecticut or nationally. The percentage of workers in the state categorized as self-employed has remained remarkably steady in the past two decades, with the only noticeable change coming during the last recession. National headlines to the contrary, temporary workers remain a small segment of the labor force.

“Many believe that the economy, and particularly the labor markets, are being transformed because of the ability to order everything from a ride to a home repair via a smartphone app,” Patrick J. Flaherty, assistant director of research at the Labor Department, said in the report. “The data do not show a clear picture.”

This adds up to positive news for workers.

The gig economy, after all, is not new — freelancers, part-timers and temporary workers have been key to many business’ cost-savings plans for years. Workers are cheaper when you don’t pay them benefits. What’s relatively new is the effort to convince workers that this arrangement is to their gain.

It’s true that the flexibility offered by some gig economy jobs can offer workers a measure of work-life balance they couldn’t otherwise achieve. But the losses, in terms of job security, health care, retirement savings and any other benefits offered many fulltime workers nearly always outweigh the gains.

Despite the PR push aimed at promoting less-secure jobs, people who work for a living aren’t falling for it. “Even if there is a rise in nontraditional work,” Flaherty wrote, “a further question is how much of this is voluntary and how many ‘gig’ workers would prefer to have traditional payroll jobs.”

The answer is likely most of them. People who need a paycheck — which is to say, almost everyone — need it to arrive on schedule, with a set amount showing up every two weeks.

Dealing with a dry spell, where the amount of money coming in could be half or less what is usually is, cannot be compensated by periods where work opportunities are too plentiful to take advantage of. The result is pay insecurity and constant questions about how the bills will be paid.

The gig economy has its place. Taking the place of full-time work is not it.

Workers are cheaper when you don’t pay them benefits. What’s relatively new is the effort to convince workers that this arrangement is to their gain.