The chaos around the platform economy never seems to cease. Recently, an urban services company was again rocked with protests from its ‘partners’. These partners are workers who had paid a considerable sum to get trained and on-boarded, only to find themselves indiscriminately blocked from participating as an economic actor.
The substantial power exercised by the owners of an application with an ambiguous relationship with the actual contributors to their revenue stream demands a cautious engagement with them. Last year, a policy brief by NITI Aayog estimated that the number of workers in the gig economy will grow three-fold in the decade ending 2030. More specifically, there could be 2.35 crore such workers by 2029-30. It would be around 4 per cent of the total workforce by then, a significant jump from a little more than 1 per cent in 2019-20. Further, the report has also identified that the concentration of gig workers is deepening in low-skilled and high-skilled jobs.
A report by BCG (2020) suggests that the possibility of higher wages, for there is no ceiling on potential income, and flexible work scheduling are why workers are hooked to gig work. However, the same report reveals that 78 per cent of gig workers earn less than ₹20,000 a month, compared to just 50 per cent of non-gig workers in similar roles. In fact, many workers are not even assured of a day’s work. The report reveals that 61 per cent of gig workers work less than eight hours a day. On the other hand, researchers reveal that ride-sharing workers sometimes have to stretch 16 hours a day to earn a decent income. If the expansion of the gig workforce remains true to the trend projected by NITI Aayog, the consequences seem far from encouraging. Thanks to diminishing hours of work and pay, insecurity could forever grip the workers. That 29 per cent of these workers have not completed matriculation will only make matters worse.
Such insecurity is already manifesting as precarious behaviour. Researchers Nicola Christie and Heather Ward of the University College London revealed through a study that 47 per cent of delivery workers strongly agreed that the time pressure of gig work makes them often exceed the speed limit. No wonder a sizeable number of them (42 per cent) had experienced a collision where their vehicle was damaged. This can limit their participation and earning. Further, the app-based work makes them inattentive on roads which can spell disaster for commuters.
Capital investment
In India, workers have to make major capital investments to work on a platform. There is sufficient research to suggest that this leaves them in a debt trap which makes them chained to the platform. Flexibility, thus, is a myth. No wonder, in some intellectual circles, this type of work is labelled as ‘forced entrepreneurship’ or ‘bogus self-employment’. Therefore, it is important that the government takes active note of the hardships encountered by gig workers. To begin with, they must be recognised by all the labour codes.
Currently, only the Code on Social Security assures the gig workers of benefits such as provident funds, accident benefits, etc. However, this only makes the workers subservient to the platform. Real empowerment can only happen if workers can form unions, collectively bargain, and command a minimum wage. Appropriate changes in the other labour codes must be made to enable this. Finally, while the race to become the next unicorn has gripped start-ups, founders may take a leaf from the entrepreneurial pioneers of modern India, such as JN Tata, Jamnalal Bajaj, GD Birla, Brijmohan Lall Munjal, etc. The rich legacy they have left behind in dealing with workers could serve as a beacon of light in the industrial relation scenario of India.
The writer is Associate Professor, IIM Kozhikode