IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/woemps/v36y2022i2p290-309.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Business or Pleasure? A Comparison of Migrant and Non-Migrant Uber Drivers in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Peter James Holtum

    (University of Queensland, Australia)

  • Elnaz Irannezhad

    (University of Queensland, Australia)

  • Greg Marston

    (University of Queensland, Australia)

  • Renuka Mahadevan

    (University of Queensland, Australia)

Abstract

Despite evidence of sub-standard working conditions and low rates of pay, drivers working on the Uber platform report varying levels of job-satisfaction. In order to better understand driver experience most research conducted to date differentiates driver experience by driver investment (time) on the platform. While this approach offers insight into driver motivations, it obfuscates key socio-political aspects of the globalised labour market; namely the precarity of many migrant workers. We present findings from a mixed methods study into migrant and non-migrant drivers on the Uber platform in Queensland, Australia. Specifically, our data illustrates key differences between migrants and non-migrants’ motivations to drive, their dependency on the platform, and their sense of autonomy and agency. Our findings suggest that migrant drivers experience greater levels of job insecurity, specifically around factors of job tenure, agency, and personal safety.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter James Holtum & Elnaz Irannezhad & Greg Marston & Renuka Mahadevan, 2022. "Business or Pleasure? A Comparison of Migrant and Non-Migrant Uber Drivers in Australia," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 36(2), pages 290-309, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:woemps:v:36:y:2022:i:2:p:290-309
    DOI: 10.1177/09500170211034741
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09500170211034741
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/09500170211034741?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Stewart & Jim Stanford, 2017. "Regulating work in the gig economy: What are the options?," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 28(3), pages 420-437, September.
    2. Iain Campbell & Robin Price, 2016. "Precarious work and precarious workers: Towards an improved conceptualisation," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 27(3), pages 314-332, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Juliet B Schor & Christopher Tirrell & Steven Peter Vallas, 2024. "Consent and Contestation: How Platform Workers Reckon with the Risks of Gig Labor," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 38(5), pages 1423-1444, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jim Stanford, 2017. "The resurgence of gig work: Historical and theoretical perspectives," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 28(3), pages 382-401, September.
    2. Farah Naz & Dieter Bögenhold, 2018. "A contested terrain: Re/conceptualising the well-being of homeworkers," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 29(3), pages 328-345, September.
    3. Victor Wong & Tat Chor Au-Yeung, 2019. "Autonomous precarity or precarious autonomy? Dilemmas of young workers in Hong Kong," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 30(2), pages 241-261, June.
    4. Mohamed Mousa & Walid Chaouali & Monowar Mahmood, 2023. "The Inclusion of Gig Employees and their Career Satisfaction: Do Individual and Collaborative Job Crafting Play a Role?," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 1055-1068, September.
    5. John Burgess & Julia Connell, 2020. "New technology and work: Exploring the challenges," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 31(3), pages 310-323, September.
    6. Alex Veen & Tom Barratt & Caleb Goods, 2020. "Platform-Capital’s ‘App-etite’ for Control: A Labour Process Analysis of Food-Delivery Work in Australia," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 34(3), pages 388-406, June.
    7. Santana, Monica & Cobo, Manuel J., 2020. "What is the future of work? A science mapping analysis," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 846-862.
    8. Isabel Dias & Alexandra Lopes & José Azevedo & Ana Sofia Maia & João Santos Baptista, 2022. "Cleaning in Times of Pandemic: Perceptions of COVID-19 Risks among Workers in Facility Services," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, June.
    9. Paul Dalziel, 2019. "Wellbeing economics in public policy: A distinctive Australasian contribution?," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 30(4), pages 478-497, December.
    10. Tom Barratt & Caleb Goods & Alex Veen, 2020. "‘I’m my own boss…’: Active intermediation and ‘entrepreneurial’ worker agency in the Australian gig-economy," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 52(8), pages 1643-1661, November.
    11. Behl, Abhishek & Jayawardena, Nirma & Ishizaka, Alessio & Gupta, Manish & Shankar, Amit, 2022. "Gamification and gigification: A multidimensional theoretical approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1378-1393.
    12. Daniel Belanche & Luis V. Casaló & Carlos Flavián & Alfredo Pérez-Rueda, 2021. "The role of customers in the gig economy: how perceptions of working conditions and service quality influence the use and recommendation of food delivery services," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 15(1), pages 45-75, March.
    13. Ryan Lorraine & MacMahon Juliet & O’Sullivan Michelle & Turner Thomas & Lavelle Jonathan & Murphy Caroline & O’Brien Mike & Gunnigle Patrick, 2019. "The Same but Different: Regulating Zero Hours Work in Two Liberal Market Economies," The Irish Journal of Management, Sciendo, vol. 38(1), pages 3-15, December.
    14. García-Pérez, Carmelo & Prieto-Alaiz, Mercedes & Simón, Hipólito, 2020. "Multidimensional measurement of precarious employment using hedonic weights: Evidence from Spain," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 348-359.
    15. Zoe Hitzig & Benjamin Niswonger, 2022. "Optimal Defaults, Limited Enforcement and the Regulation of Contracts," Papers 2203.01233, arXiv.org, revised May 2022.
    16. Haroon Bhorat & Ravi Kanbur & Benjamin Stanwix & Amy Thornton, 2021. "Measuring Multi‐Dimensional Labour Law Violation with an Application to South Africa," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 59(3), pages 928-961, September.
    17. Martins, Antje & Riordan, Tyler & Dolnicar, Sara, 2020. "A post-COVID-19 model of tourism and hospitality workforce resilience," SocArXiv 4quga, Center for Open Science.
    18. Bilgrami, A. & Cutler, H. & Sinha, K., 2021. "Do standardised workplace health and safety laws and increased enforcement activities reduce the probability of receiving workers' compensation?," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 21/08, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    19. CELI, Giuseppe & VITI, Domenico, 2018. "Land Use, Internal Mobility And External Immigration In Italy," Annals of Spiru Haret University, Economic Series, Universitatea Spiru Haret, vol. 18(3), pages 23-43.
    20. Adermon, Adrian & Hensvik, Lena, 2022. "Gig-jobs: Stepping stones or dead ends?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).

    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:sae:woemps:v:36:y:2022:i:2:p:290-309. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/ .

    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.