Outsourcing Risk to Privatize Gain?
My dad often indulges in lengthy conversations with delivery workers, auto drivers and shop owners. He refers to this exercise as building a rapport; I, personally, think it more as satiating his need to know everything. Last week, the both of us were waiting for an Amazon (grocery) delivery near our building gate (on account of society protocols to curb the spread of cases) when he struck up a conversation with the delivery boy on his arrival. I filtered out nearly all of it, but one bit stuck – the man’s reply when asked whether he was afraid of working during the pandemic. He said, “Bahut, sir. Lekin darr is baat ka zyada hai ki corona se pehle bhuk se mar jayenge.” (Tremendously, sir. But the fear of dying of hunger overrides that of the virus).
The term “gig economy” was fabricated in 2009 to allude to the increasing number of people who were pursuing “a bunch of free-floating projects, consultancies, and part-time bits and pieces while they transacted in a digital marketplace.” However, the locution which was initially perceived to be a redefinition of white collar jobs, now refers to unskilled or semi-skilled work – such as driving (Uber, Ola), delivering items or food (Amazon, Zomato, Swiggy, Postmates, etc.) or running simple errands (TaskRabbit in the USA). A vibrant gig economy for ‘knowledge workers’ has not transpired as yet, and unversed work is something that is evidently pronounced in India.
That these workers are financially vulnerable to the gig platforms is not a startling revelation and has been a subject of confabulation for a while, but their plight seems to have worsened by the coronavirus. Their daily earnings have drastically dipped during the lockdown period, and with the prices of necessities on the rise, staying at home isn’t an option. According to an online survey conducted by UC Santa Cruz, more than half of the gig workers working for Uber, Lyft and GrubHub have lost 75-100% of their income. Back home, as well, most workers are grappling to make do with their reduced salaries. A scholium to bear in mind at this point is the unrefuted fact that for the vast populous of these workers, this isn’t a “gig”; it’s a full-time job. They are heavily reliant on their wages to support their families.
Gig firms have found the pandemic an opportune moment to expand their operations, raise capital, and enter into new domains, such as delivering groceries and other goods. This has been made possible not so much by technology but more by the availability of this at-risk labour force. These companies who have continued to remain operational are enforcing conditions of work but are outsourcing responsibility for the risks that delivery workers endure to consumers, by asking them to contribute financially to support workers by framing it as an appeal to compassion. What makes this possible are the conditions of the gig economy: a form of work that has no recognisable employer or employee. However, it is evident that the personnel work in conditions and under regulations determined and specified by the platforms. These include having to a wear a uniform bearing the signage and logo of the company or use the delivery bags that the company mandates, with financial penalties imposed on workers who fail to comply. More significantly, workers have to adhere to price and incentive structures determined by the platform. Thus, while the gig economy may be termed ‘flexible’, it is anything but. In the current times, measures such as temperature checks, wearing safety gears and provisions for cashless deliveries have gained essentiality. There is no doubt that these are imperative, yet finds claims with certitude that gig platforms shirk responsibility for providing workers with basic welfare & safety. One could make the argument that in stagnant times as these, the very fact that these people have jobs outweighs the risks associated with them, but this would hold true if only the workers had a ‘safety net’ to fall back on, by way of aid from these platforms. By referring to their personnel as their (delivery) “partners” and “independent contractors” and by fashioning themselves as “aggregators”, firms extend capitalism and effectively exempt themselves from ‘employer regulations’.
This practice has made itself especially known in the current times. Minimum wages, severance packages, paid leave among other aids were actuated taking into account the predicament of workers. Gig personnel cannot avail any of the above. In a world in lockdown, the (almost) shutdown in the gig economy has meant that platforms are under no obligation to provide financial remuneration to drivers or delivery professionals for the loss in pay they suffer. Insurance for instance, is only available if workers test positive, but there is little incentive to be tested at all. Apart from the increasing social stigma around Covid-19, the cost of testing is high, and it also means loss of work for a day, if not more. Initially as the virus came to light, major gig platforms pledged maximum succour to their workers. But with the coronavirus showing no signs of weaning, these ministrations were soon forgotten. Shortfall in income has meant longer working hours, and with the bare minimum protection gear/guidelines provided, the workers continuously put themselves – and by extension, their families – in danger. None of the platforms are supplying their workforce with sufficient protective material – no provisions for sanitizers, gloves, suits, etc. Gig workers are among the hardest hit economically by the coronavirus pandemic, according to a new survey. AppJobs – an online platform to compare app-based jobs around the world – said that almost 70% of gig workers were not satisfied with the support provided by the company they work for.
Image: AppJobs based on their survey.
There has always been a disproportionate division of risk in the gig economy. It has taken a pandemic for this to be understood. The question that must be answered is if gig platforms are just that – a platform – and not employers, do they have the right to enforce mandatory practices? And more importantly, considering that gig firms will always keep the upper hand & act (if not declare themselves) as employers, shouldn’t they be made legally bound to be responsible for the basic welfare and safety of their personnel? What is the actual value of this work? Looking at life post COVID-19, it would do us good to consider the question of gig workers to the legal and political terrain of rights rather than leaving them to fend for themselves. The halting of work and the looming recession should certainly not become the grounds to justify terrible forms of work that currently exist. If “equal stakeholders” share existential risk unequally, perhaps, it is time to rethink gig economy.
Pranati Trivedi
References:
Comments