The history of domestic servants in Australia offers a provocative challenge to the prophets of the digital gig economy. Like home-based service workers today, 19th-and 20th-century domestic servants worked without the protection of minimum wages or hours, unions or independent arbitration and endured perpetually porous boundaries between their work and non-working time, low status and pay. This article argues that digital platforms are instruments of a fundamental shift in the governance of home-based service work, from a system of ‘dyadic’ to one of ‘structural’ domination. Intermediaries played virtually no role in the operation of the former system, but they play a fundamental role in the latter, as aggregators of data about workers’ responsiveness and speed that enable market-based disciplinary mechanisms to operate without reference to public law and across a much larger spatial context than was previously possible. Short-termism and the fungibility of workers are pre-eminent features of the gig economy model, processes which are inherently corrosive to quality caring relationships that demand an atmosphere of trust and non-instrumentality. The historical analysis that is advanced gives rise to a number of implications for the regulation of digital platforms, union responses and industry planning in the future.
AloisiA (2016) Commoditized workers: Case study research on labour law issues arising from a set of ‘on-demand/gig economy platforms’. Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal37(3): 653–690.
2.
AndersonB (2000) Doing the Dirty Work? The Global Politics of Domestic Labour, London: Zed Books.
Briggs C Meagher G and Healy K (2007) Becoming an Industry: The Struggle of Social and Community Workers for Award Coverage, 1976-2001. Journal of Industrial Relations 49(4): 497–521.
Charlesworth S and Malone J (2017) Re-imagining decent work for home care workers in Australia. Labour & Industry, published online 8 November 2017. Available at: www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10301763.2017.1400420 (accessed 15 April 2018).
9.
Cox R (2006) The Servant Problem: Paid Domestic Employment in a Global Economy. London, New York: I.B. Tauris.
10.
CoxR (2013) House/work: Home as a space of work and consumption. Geography Compass7(12): 821–831.
De StefanoV (2016) The rise of the ‘just-in-time workforce’: On-demand work, crowdwork, and labor protection in the ‘gig economy’. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal37(3): 471–504.
13.
DelapL (2011) Knowing Their Place: Domestic Service in Twentieth-century Britain, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
DotyP (2017) Private pay home care: New models of access and service delivery. Public Policy & Aging Report27: 111–120.
15.
FinkinM (2016) Beclouded work in historical perspective. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal37(3): 578–603, 605.
16.
FoucaultM (2008) The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979, London: Palgrave.
17.
FriedmanG (2014) Workers without employers: Shadow corporations and the rise of the gig economy. Review of Keynesian Economics2(2): 171–188.
18.
GibsonD (1998) Aged Care: Old Policies, New Problems, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HamiltonP (2017) Intimate strangers: Multisensorial memories of working in the home. In: DamousiJHamiltonP (eds) A Cultural History of Sound, Memory & the Senses, New York: Routledge, pp. 194–212.
21.
HamiltonPHigmanBW (2003) Servants of empire: The British training of domestics for Australia, 1926–31. Social History28(1): 67–82.
22.
HarrisSKruegerA (2015) A proposal for modernizing labor laws for twenty-first century work: the ‘independent worker’. The Hamilton Project (Policy Brief 2015), Washington DC: Brookings Institution.
23.
HaskinsV (2009) From the centre to the city: Modernity, mobility and mixed-descent Aboriginal domestic workers from central Australia. Women’s History Review18(1): 155–175.
24.
HigmanBW (2002) Domestic Service in Australia, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
JoyceP (2003) The Rule of Freedom: Liberalism and the Modern City, London: Verso.
27.
Kaine S, Oliver D and Josserand E (2017) Precarity in the gig economy: The experience of rideshare drivers. Paper presented at the Association of Industrial Relations Academics in Australia and New Zealand (AIRAANZ) Conference, 8–10 February, QT Canberra Hotel, Acton, Canberra.
28.
KittayEF (1999) Love’s Labor: Essays on Women, Equality and Dependency, New York: Routledge.
29.
Laslett (1977) Characteristics of the Western family considered over time. Journal of Family History2(2): 89–115.
30.
McCannDMurrayJ (2010) The Legal Regulation of Working Time in Domestic Work, Geneva: International Labour Organisation.
31.
MacdonaldFBenthamEMaloneJ (2018) Wage theft, underpayment and unpaid work in marketised social care. Labour Relations Review29(1): 80–96.
Minifie J (2016) Peer-to-peer pressure: Policy for the sharing economy. Report no. 2016-7, 13 April, Melbourne: Grattan Institute.
35.
O’DonnellMitchellR (2001) Employment agencies: The regulation of public and private employment agencies in Australia: An historical perspective. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal23: 7–44.
36.
QuinlanM (2004) Australia, 1788–1902: A working man’s paradise? In: CravenDHayP (eds) Masters, Servants and Magistrates in Britain and the Empire, 1562–1955., Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, pp. 219–250.
37.
RahmanKS (2017) Democracy against domination: Contesting economic power in progressive and neorepublican political theory. Contemporary Political Theory16(1): 41–64.
38.
Riley J (2017) Brand new ‘Sharing’ or plain old ‘Sweating’? A proposal for regulating the New ‘Gig Economy’. In: Levy R O'Brien M, et al. (eds) New Directions for Law in Australia. Australia: ANU Press, pp. 59–70.
39.
RoseN (1996) The death of the social? Re-figuring the territory of government. Economy and Society25(3): 327–356.
40.
RussellP (2009) ‘Unhomely moments’: Civilising domestic worlds in colonial Australia. History of the Family14: 327–339.
