IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/indrel/v49y2018i5-6p459-472.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Taylorooism: when network technology meets corporate power

Author

Listed:
  • Ewan McGaughey

Abstract

Despite the glitzy rhetoric of techno‐utopia, the ‘gig economy’ presents no new issue for labour rights. Yet an unusually aggressive mode of business has developed: a kind of ‘technological management’ or ‘Taylorooism’. Its basis is the misrepresentation of employment status in the search for profit without responsibility and is seen in companies using apps like Uber, CitySprint or Deliveroo. In the early 20th century, ‘Taylorism’ professed to have found principles of ‘scientific management’, but this merely concealed an authoritarian rejection of the right to organise and contempt for the dignity of staff. In the early 21st century, Taylorooism professes that its use of network technology and apps means efficiency in matching suppliers and customers of services, but this merely conceals the evasion of legal duties and contempt for employees and their rights. This article unpacks the response of the UK and other EU countries to this business practice. It outlines a government report, coincidentally named the Taylor Review (July 2017) that proposed the deepest cuts to employment rights for 30 years. It explains why the Review was corrupted by one of its member's conflicts of interests and must be regarded as a squandered opportunity. The real issue is the misrepresentation by tech corporations of the employment status of their staff. In Aslam v Uber BV, the Employment Tribunal found as fact that Uber is ‘an excellent illustration … of “armies of lawyers” contriving documents … which simply misrepresent the true rights and obligations on both sides’. With new Supreme Court case law, tech firms may be risking liability for fraud.

Suggested Citation

  • Ewan McGaughey, 2018. "Taylorooism: when network technology meets corporate power," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5-6), pages 459-472, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:indrel:v:49:y:2018:i:5-6:p:459-472
    DOI: 10.1111/irj.12228
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12228
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/irj.12228?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael David Maffie, 2020. "Are we ‘sharing’ or ‘gig‐ing’? A classification system for online platforms," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(6), pages 536-555, November.
    2. McDaid, Emma & Andon, Paul & Free, Clinton, 2023. "Algorithmic management and the politics of demand: Control and resistance at Uber," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:indrel:v:49:y:2018:i:5-6:p:459-472. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0019-8692 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.