6
Opinion C omm e nt a r y
Amin Guidara Columnist The premier of Quebec, Philippe Couillard, has announced he was “serious” about implementing an unconditional basic income for all Quebec residents. This universal basic income, inspired by countries such as Finland, would replace all of the government’s current aid in revenue, such as welfare and tax credits. The Quebec Minister of Employment and Social Solidarity, François Blais, a proponent of this measure, said that it would be possible to initiate this reform in a span of 20 to 25 years. Universal basic income is a measure that all governments should consider as a potential solution to extreme poverty. But in this scary era of austerity, this aspiration to universal basic income is paradoxical.
off the board
Noah Sutton Photo Editor The ride-sharing service Uber has exploded in popularity since it first launched internationally in 2014. Almost immediately, Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre said ‘UberX’—the app’s flagship service that summons an ordinary vehicle, rather than a cab—would operate illegally in Montreal. Despite this, Uber exists in Montreal. But contention is brewing amongst licensed taxi drivers who argue that the lack of regulations on UberX creates unfair competition. Taxi drivers have staged protests and in one instance even egged Uber’s Montreal office. The sharing economy that Uber represents places labour in a precarious position. As Uber continues to expand, its growth depends on the drivers who vol-
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Basic income tightens the belts of the most vulnerable It would take at least 20 years to implement basic income, but the government has, in less than two years, carried out severe budget cuts in several social programs. One such austerity measure is Bill 70, which can reduce welfare cheques if applicants refuse to enlist in programs to find a job or get more training. While it is easy to say that universal basic income is a ‘serious’ option, it seems like Couillard wants to make citizens forget about the harsh reality he has inflicted upon Quebecers. Thinking seriously about universal income does not help the many Quebecers who, at this very moment, have a considerably diminished quality of life due to the politics of austerity. Although basic income might reduce basic inequalities in day-to-day life such as housing, transport, and food, it cannot replace social programs. During these 20 years before the implementation of a basic income scheme—while the province continues its austerity measures—standards of living will continue to diminish. First-time welfare applicants, who could have psychological problems, will have more difficulty getting enough money to survive due to Bill 70. Drug addicts will be left
to themselves because financial assistance for rehabilitation has decreased from $750 to $200 a month, one of the biggest detox centres in Quebec, the Mélaric Centre, has closed, and 43 of the center’s patients have no other choice but to return to prison, even if it costs more for the government to jail them than assist them. Fields that are traditionally dominated by women, such as in teaching and nursing, will suffer a freeze in salaries. In that line of thought, Françoise David, spokesperson of Quebec Solidaire, said that “the government of Quebec has inflicted upon hundreds of thousands of female workers longer working hours and decreased salaries.” Basic income has its flaws as a policy. It is not the solution to all social problems. It only helps the most basic needs, such as food and housing. While this is an important achievement as currently one in six Canadian children face hunger every year, improving basic needs fulfillment does not solve other variables of socioeconomic inequality. Even with basic income, budget cuts in kindergartens due to austerity will affect kids in their lives later on. Basic income will not provide kids and teenagers who need the
assistance of specialists, such as speech therapists and psychologists, to succeed. For example, a basic income scheme wouldn’t address the needs of autistic children, who only receive four hours of covered behavioural intervention instead of the necessary twenty. Small and medium-sized enterprises would become less financially stable as tax credits are cut as well. Workers who suffer a work-related accident or disease would still have less available compensation due to budget cuts in the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CSST). The universal basic income is not the solution if there are no social programs in health and education. Yet the real victims of these times of austerity—doctors and corporations—would be safe under a basic income scheme. Health and Social Services’ Minister Gaétan Barrette has offered a raise of “42 per cent for specialists and 34 per cent for general practitioners.” Bombardier received a bailout of “$1.3 billion no questions asked” to save the C-Series division that employs around 2,000 employees. These employees would be better off with a government-paid sabbatical year while finding anoth-
er job, instead of supporting an unsustainable line of airplanes. After receiving the bailout, Bombardier has just announced the layoff of 2,400 employees in Quebec. In the end, the bailout did not even secure the jobs of Quebecer employees. Even if universal basic income is a serious proposition, it cannot replace all social services that have been damaged by tremendous budget cuts. This ‘seriousness’ seems like a poisoned chalice; it looks good but it cannot solve everything, especially in health and education. The government’s obsession with a zero-deficit budget, which is the cause of so many cuts in social programs, looks to be more ideological than an actual economic necessity for Quebec. According to economist Pierre Fortin, austerity measures “could considerably damage economic growth, social stability and public administration’s effectiveness.” All in all, austerity measures are irresponsible in the economic and social sense. The government of Quebec needs to put a stop to austerity before seeking to resolve social inequalities through basic income. The timeline for its implementation is too long, and its results too ambiguous.
a way to make extra cash with low startup costs. Sites such as eBay, Craigslist, and Kijiji allow people to sell items and make money on something they otherwise might not have sold. Uber is different. In 2006, 50,110 people across Canada reported driving a cab as their primary source of income. Close to 40 per cent of Uber drivers have no other source of income. Uber doesn’t just attract potential drivers who are eager to work harder to supplement their income—it actively undercuts traditional taxi drivers and erodes the few protections awarded to those drivers in the first place. While Uber’s lower fares create a competitive edge against traditional taxi services, arguably to the benefit of consumers, this model is harmful to drivers for both Uber and traditional taxi services. In September 2014, Uber drivers argued that, “You can’t make a living working only for Uber.” This protest highlighted the core of what enables the service’s low pricing: The lack of collective bargaining power for its drivers. Recently, the US Chamber of Commerce, a pro-business lobbying group unaffiliated with the US Government, sued Seattle for allowing Uber and Lyft drivers to unionize. A similar class-action lawsuit was launched by Uber and Lyft driv-
ers who are seeking classification as full-time employees rather than independent contractors. Drivers argue their work deserves the basic protections awarded to employees such as a minimum wage, while Uber has argued the diversity of Uber drivers makes their classification as independent contractor necessary. As traditional taxi drivers are squeezed out, more and more drivers are forced to move to Uber where they are stripped of their protections and considered increasingly expendable. So what’s to be done? A few have gone so far as to reimagine the future of Uber as a workers’ cooperative, in which workers who already own all the capital required to run the company control their own wages and collect the profits. But in the present, companies that expand precarious piecemeal work must be met with matching regulations to ensure the protection of their workers by recognizing them as employees, allowing their unionization, and providing benefits that full-time workers are guaranteed in other industries. As Uber continues to undercut traditional taxi companies and those drivers are forced to join Uber, this number will surely rise leaving many drivers without any basic protections.
Uber drivers require more protections untarily use the app to match them with a person in need of a ride. But as California’s Labor Commission indicated, Uber’s involvement is beyond simple logistics. Ridesharing drivers do not share anything; they sell their labour to Uber, who in turn, refuses to provide any stability for their position in order to keep fares low. Uber’s continued misrepresentation of the status of its drivers keeps their workforce easily expendable, without the basic provisions of the law. The most important first step is recognizing drivers as employees and granting them the collective bargaining rights so they may effectively negotiate with their employer. Uber argues that drivers do not work for the company, but are more like partners operating independently of Uber. This model is by no means unique to Uber. The sharing economy rests on the idea that technology can act as a facilitator between people who have needs and people who can fulfill those needs. For Uber, the app brings drivers to people who need a ride. The term “sharing” implies that this transaction is somehow charitable or even personal, but as the Harvard Business Review opined, the companies in the sharing economy generate purely economic exchanges with “utilitarian, rather than so-
cial, value.” By this definition, the company supplying the technology simply facilitates an otherwise unlikely transaction between two people. Uber’s insistence on the autonomy of its drivers directly draws on this definition. Flexible hours, being your own boss, and the ability for anyone with a car to become a driver all create the false image that Uber drivers are more business partners than employees. But Uber exercises much more control over its ‘partners’ than vice versa. Drivers take on enormous and often understated liabilities and costs. They must pay for the maintenance of their vehicle, for gas, and for insurance, while at the same time Uber management sets their rates and terms of labour, including the right to deactivate drivers for a multitude of reasons beyond poor performance. In October 2014, Uber deactivated a driver’s account after he made “hateful statements regarding Uber through social media.” The hate speech cited was an article the driver tweeted out questioning the safety of Uber. Driving for Uber is more than simply using an app to facilitate an exchange. There is a power relationship between the driver and the company. The sharing economy appeals to certain demographics, such as those who are already employed, as