The woes of dynamic pricing and pay

As members of the general public, we are definitely most aware of the impact of dynamic pricing when it comes to purchasing something, often tickets. Whilst at the till at the local supermarket we know everyone is paying the same for their box of Shreddies (well, depending on any loyalty card discount or vouchers), we instinctively know that it is not a good idea to ask the person sitting next to us on a flight how much their ticket cost. After all, starting our holiday gloating at the great price we got or feeling frustrated they got a better deal is not a good look!

There is a risk with dynamic pricing, and we’ve seen it recently with the furore over Oasis concert tickets, that the consumer is left in a vulnerable position with no real recourse to holding a provider to account for the service they receive. What does value for money look like when different people have paid different amounts? Can you really assert your rights without transparency?

Yet this whole debate is taken to another level when you hear from workers whose very income is being impacted by dynamic pay. As a consumer I ultimately have a choice whether to go ahead with my purchase. I have the privilege of receiving a stable monthly income so can calculate whether I want to pay that much.

The terrible reality for some people in our nation is that their income is dictated by opaque algorithmic calculations which is leaving them struggling to earn a living even when working full-time hours. It is creating intense stress and insecure working conditions for thousands of people.

At a recent TUC webinar I attended I heard from an Uber driver who showed us how journeys he does today are paying less than they were a decade ago. A trip he used to receive £10 for he now only receives £7.35 for. As an experienced driver he knows which journeys to avoid accepting, that result in less than minimum wage after costs to run his vehicle are taken into account. Even so he works seven days a week. Newer drivers are less equipped and in an even more precarious position.

More shocking still was the horrifying gap between what a customer pays for that taxi ride and what the driver actually received. He showed us how he only received just above £5 for a journey that the customer had paid £12 for. I wonder how many customers are aware what a cut Uber is taking from their fare.

I do not believe that a business that is good for customers has to be bad for employees. Indeed, if any aspect of that customer service is direct with the workers, it is surely in a business’s interest to value its people because valued employees and workers will provide a better customer service.

Undercutting other suppliers at the expense of workers may at first appeal to customers because their product or service is suddenly cheaper, but there is always a reason behind this and I would encourage conscious consumers to dig into the why.

Why is something so much cheaper elsewhere? Often it is entirely explainable – such as a no-frills airline compared to the others. But if we don’t assess it, we risk enabling industries which are eroding worker rights, both here in the UK and overseas.

I am grateful the TUC is shining a light on this issue in their human price of dynamic pay report and the Good Business Charter emphatically supports their call to ban dynamic pay. There are sufficient stresses and strains to modern day life without the added stress of unpredictable hours coupled with unpredictable pay.

Written by Jenny Herrera
CEO, Good Business Charter
19 May, 2026