How Airbnb and Uber Are Changing the Nature of Work

The traditional 9-to-5 workplace is morphing into a project-oriented, place-neutral, DIY free-for-all.

Add to Briefcase
Fawn Johnson
Nov. 13, 2014, 7:48 a.m.

Sandra Lev­ine had 27 ten­ants in her spare apart­ment this sum­mer. Most stayed for two or three nights. Some stayed only one night. One blessed guest stayed for 10 days, which gave her a long break from wash­ing the sheets and clean­ing the bath­room. “It turned out to be a pretty good sum­mer job,” says Lev­ine, a preschool teach­er in Bo­ston. “There were a few weeks when we had people every night. That was really busy.”

It was luc­rat­ive, too. She charged three times what she would have for a monthly rent­al.

Lev­ine and her hus­band, Sam, ran their rent­al busi­ness through Airb­nb, a web­site that en­ables people to rent out their spare rooms, apart­ments, or even whole houses to trav­el­ers look­ing for an al­tern­at­ive to a hotel. The per­vas­ive­ness of Wi-Fi and smart­phone apps now al­lows in­di­vidu­als to sell com­mod­it­ies like spare rooms or trans­port­a­tion that pre­vi­ously were re­leg­ated to li­censed pro­fes­sion­als. For some, Airb­nb and the ride-shar­ing ser­vice Uber are moon­light­ing pro­jects that sup­ple­ment more-tra­di­tion­al in­comes. For oth­ers, these new DIY ser­vices are full-time gigs.

Airb­nb provides a neut­ral in­ter­face for man­aging mon­et­ary ex­changes, but the ac­tu­al pro­vi­sion of goods and ser­vices to the ten­ants is en­tirely up to the hosts. Lev­ine ini­tially hired a clean­ing per­son to ready the apart­ment for renters, but she even­tu­ally wound up do­ing it her­self. That saved money, but it also meant her sched­ule was er­rat­ic. On a few oc­ca­sions, she had to re­arrange her day’s plans be­cause of a last-minute book­ing. Once, her hus­band for­got to black out a week­end when they were out of town, so she had to ca­jole her col­lege-age daugh­ter to ready the apart­ment when a book­ing came in.

Lev­ine isn’t an Airb­nb host any­more, re­cently opt­ing for a long-term ten­ant, but she still doesn’t think of her­self as a tra­di­tion­al work­er. “I work a few days a week till 1:30, one day a week un­til 4. I’m not 9 to 5, and I’m cer­tainly not 8 to 7, like a lot of people.”

She is more nor­mal than she thinks. Or rather, she is em­blem­at­ic of the new nor­mal. 

Lev­ine’s ex­per­i­ence il­lus­trates some of the biggest ques­tions about the Amer­ic­an work ex­per­i­ence today. What ex­actly is work? When does it start? When does it stop? Who con­trols it? Is it sup­posed to cov­er all liv­ing ex­penses? What if it doesn’t? Is it sup­posed to make me rich? What does my work say about me?

In some in­dus­tries, even the phys­ic­al of­fice is be­com­ing an­ti­quated, just like one-job ca­reers and pen­sion plans (re­mem­ber those?). It can be hard to know when someone is “at work” or not. Soon that ques­tion may be ir­rel­ev­ant. When Lev­ine is clean­ing her apart­ment for her next Airb­nb guest, she is work­ing even though her primary em­ploy­er con­siders her “off.” If she re­sponds to a text re­quest­ing a room re­ser­va­tion while strolling along the Charles River, she’s both on and off at the same time.

Work hap­pens every­where and at all times. Hu­man re­sources pro­fes­sion­als have moved away from the term “work-life bal­ance,” be­cause it im­plies that there is a dir­ect di­vide between work and life, and that work activ­it­ies take away from life activ­it­ies — and vice versa. “We call it work-life fit, work-life in­teg­ra­tion, work-life merge,” says Lisa Horn, con­gres­sion­al af­fairs dir­ect­or for the So­ci­ety for Hu­man Re­source Man­age­ment.

Man­aged com­pet­ently, this new idea of the work­place of­fers great­er freedoms for both the em­ploy­er and the work­er, and it can be a boon to pro­ductiv­ity. But ana­lysts agree that it hasn’t been fully in­teg­rated in­to work cul­ture, and that can cre­ate ten­sion. “Work in­tens­ity has rat­cheted up. Work­ers are sup­posed to be avail­able — or at least ac­cess­ible — all the time, wheth­er they’re at home or not. And yet we have this really out­dated idea of 9 to 5,” says Phyl­lis Moen, a so­ci­ology pro­fess­or at the Uni­versity of Min­nesota who spe­cial­izes in work­place flex­ib­il­ity. “Some feel they have to put in face time. People would ask, ‘When do you leave dur­ing the day?’ And they would say, ‘After my su­per­visor leaves.’ “

The in­crease in wo­men in the work­force has been the most im­port­ant change in em­ploy­ment over the last two gen­er­a­tions, ac­cord­ing to work­place ana­lysts, and it has placed a new premi­um on flex­ib­il­ity. The term means something dif­fer­ent to each work­er and each em­ploy­er, but so­ci­olo­gists say it can be boiled down to one es­sen­tial com­pon­ent — a work­er’s abil­ity to con­trol her sched­ule to ac­com­mod­ate needs out­side of work.

Many of­fice cul­tures haven’t moved past the as­sump­tion that for every work­er there is an­oth­er per­son at home (usu­ally a wo­man) who is tak­ing care of the do­mest­ic as­pect of the fam­ily’s life. But this Cleav­er-like mod­el hasn’t been the case for two gen­er­a­tions. In 1970, two-fifths of mar­ried wo­men were in the work­force and nearly three-fifths of single wo­men (57 per­cent) were em­ployed, ac­cord­ing to the Census Bur­eau. By 2010, em­ploy­ment of mar­ried wo­men had jumped to nearly two-thirds (61 per­cent), es­sen­tially on par with single wo­men’s work rates (63 per­cent).

It’s hard to over­state how much an em­ploy­ee’s con­trol over his sched­ule, even if it’s a small amount of lee­way, changes the work ex­per­i­ence. Al­most three-quar­ters of adult work­ers (73 per­cent) said flex­ib­il­ity is “one of the most im­port­ant factors they con­sider” when look­ing for a new job, ac­cord­ing to a sur­vey com­mis­sioned last year by the em­ploy­ment firm Mom Corps. (Oth­er sur­veys put that fig­ure as high as 87 per­cent.) Nearly half of the re­spond­ents in the Mom Corps sur­vey (45 per­cent) said they would even be will­ing to re­lin­quish some of their salar­ies for more flex­ib­il­ity.

Yet the sur­vey also showed that some cul­tur­al bar­ri­ers haven’t been fully dis­mantled. Al­most half of the re­spond­ents (47 per­cent) said it would hurt their chances for ad­vance­ment if they asked for more flex­ib­il­ity.

Horn says many em­ploy­ers want to try new ways of man­aging work­ers that are less fo­cused on hours spent in a cu­bicle, but they are hampered by out­dated labor laws. “Our work­place laws have not evolved. We talk about sched­ules and ri­gid schedul­ing,” Horn says. “What dic­tated that, be­lieve it or not, dates back to the 1938 Fair Labor Stand­ards Act.”

Mean­while, a new level of un­cer­tainty per­meates the work­force. “We’re see­ing an em­ploy­ment rate that is just a little bit bet­ter than it was in the depths of the Great Re­ces­sion. We are see­ing quit rates that are not very high still. We are see­ing people say­ing in sur­veys that they’re feel­ing eco­nom­ic­ally in­sec­ure. They are less likely to re­port that they are part of the middle class,” says Heath­er Boushey, chief eco­nom­ist at the Wash­ing­ton Cen­ter for Equit­able Growth.

Em­ploy­ees now are less in­clined to “un­plug” for fear of be­ing seen as un­pro­duct­ive and let go. And they may not be wrong. Man­agers are be­ing asked to ac­com­plish more with few­er em­ploy­ees. Pro­duc­tion and ser­vice work­ers find them­selves clam­or­ing with their co-work­ers for more hours as their man­agers try to sched­ule the ex­act amount labor needed — and no more — to ac­com­mod­ate their pro­duc­tion or sales needs. Store man­agers are afraid to post sched­ules too far in ad­vance in case the sales pat­terns shift without warn­ing.

“You’ve got your Black­Berry, walk­ing around your store, and you’re look­ing at your sales ra­tios right then,” says Susan Lam­bert, a Uni­versity of Chica­go pro­fess­or who stud­ies hourly work. “Front-line man­agers are really held ac­count­able for stay­ing with­in hours. They get in trouble for even us­ing a few hours more than what they’ve been as­signed.”

Just-in-time man­age­ment makes for pre­cari­ous work sched­ules. Two-fifths of young work­ers in non­salar­ied jobs (41 per­cent) and nearly half in part-time jobs (47 per­cent) say they learn their work sched­ules less than a week in ad­vance, ac­cord­ing to re­search re­cently pub­lished by Lam­bert. That can wreak hav­oc with their lives, par­tic­u­larly if they are jug­gling school, second jobs, or child care.

Re­tail work­places also tend to fluc­tu­ate wildly in terms of em­ploy­ees’ time on the job, which makes per­son­al budget­ing dif­fi­cult. Ac­cord­ing to Lam­bert’s re­search, 90 per­cent of food-ser­vice work­ers and 87 per­cent of re­tail work­ers had hours vary widely with­in a month, many work­ing half their usu­al hours in a giv­en week.

“There are not enough jobs at the bot­tom. It’s harder for them to have any lever­age be­cause em­ploy­ers can just hire someone else,” says Dav­id Grusky, a Stan­ford Uni­versity pro­fess­or who fo­cuses on eco­nom­ic in­equity.

Grusky is con­cerned that new in­nov­a­tions in work — from tele­com­mut­ing to on-site child-care cen­ters to pro­ductiv­ity-ori­ented pay­ment sys­tems — risk leav­ing lower-level work­ers be­hind. “When we talk about work re­design, we al­ways think about the high­er end,” he says.

Horn says hu­man re­sources man­agers in the man­u­fac­tur­ing and ser­vice sec­tors, who use a lot of hourly work­ers, struggle with how to provide flex­ib­il­ity. She ad­vises them that flex­ib­il­ity looks dif­fer­ent in their in­dus­tries, but it is still doable. “For an hourly work­er, in par­tic­u­lar, a little bit of flex­ib­il­ity goes a really long way. For them, flex­ib­il­ity may come in the form of step­ping off the pro­duc­tion line at 3 p.m. every day to make a phone call to make sure their kids got home,” she says.

Ac­cord­ing to Horn, for­ward-think­ing em­ploy­ers are as con­cerned as anti-poverty ad­voc­ates about the un­in­ten­ded im­pact of schedul­ing mod­ern­iz­a­tions on their work­ers. Sev­er­al of SHRM’s 2014 award win­ners for work­place in­nov­a­tion won re­cog­ni­tion be­cause they set up pro­grams to com­bat over­work. “How do you turn off and avoid burnout,” she says. “Send the strong mes­sage, ‘It’s OK. You are on va­ca­tion. You do not need to be sit­ting in on the con­fer­ence call.’ “

So­ci­olo­gists say the true nature of work is tre­mend­ously dif­fi­cult to as­sess with any sci­entif­ic clar­ity. Lam­bert, for ex­ample, is frus­trated that her re­search on pre­cari­ous work schedul­ing is lim­ited to work­ers ages 26 to 32. That’s the only data out there; it wasn’t un­til 2011 that a census sur­vey of youth in­cluded a ques­tion about schedul­ing.

Even without hard­core sci­entif­ic proof, however, it is ap­par­ent that work will be­come more pro­ject-ori­ented and mul­ti­fa­ceted over the next gen­er­a­tion. Mil­len­ni­als can ex­pect to have sev­er­al ca­reers, per­haps even at the same time. Re­tir­ees will con­tin­ue to re­in­vent them­selves with second ca­reers. Some work­ers, with the help of Web in­ven­tions like Airb­nb or Uber, can strike it out on their own. These changes are in­ev­it­able and even wel­come, says Moen, as long as work­ers aren’t left out in the cold.

“It’s go­ing to be pro­ject work. We have to fig­ure out how to have pro­tec­tions around that so when people are out of work, they get some kind of re­mu­ner­a­tion,” she says. That’s a lofty goal, but not an im­possible one, con­sid­er­ing that it is on the fore­front of both em­ploy­ers’ and em­ploy­ees’ minds as they struggle to ad­apt to the new eco­nomy.

Contributions by Stephanie Stamm

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.