Gig workers struck work this Christmas and on New Year’s eve protesting against automated systems used by the platforms to penalize delivery workers and reduce their ratings when delays occur, and are asking for comprehensive social security including health insurance and pensions. Gig workers are demanding that they be treated as workers at least and that their rights not be curbed by conveniently being called “partners”. The day our yardstick for development becomes 10 minute delivery, we should know that it’s a morbid story masquerading as “Amrit Kaal”. We are producing billionaires at one end and precarity on the other. So, the gig workers on strike demanded that this morbid tale of 10 minutes delivery be stopped as it is putting them under undue pressure.
How long are we okay with the brazen display of opulence at one end while the other India struggles to beat the heat and traffic to deliver in 10 minutes at our doorstep? How long are we okay with algorithms squeezing them while not even acknowledging them as workers? How long are we going to tolerate gamification of labour while denying them decent jobs.
Our latest State of Finance in India Report in fact covers in depth the various concerns around the digital footprint on finance and economy. It shows how when the leash of technology or digitisation remain largely in the hands of the market, it will always squeeze labour. Read full report here: https://tinyurl.com/SOFI24-25
Capital has from its very outset found ways of capturing market using unfair means. Without regulation, that is always the inherent tendency of the so called “free market”, i.e., free to loot, free to exploit and free to intimidate. In the 19th century British steamers crowded out indigenous river transport by both hook and crook. British firms would drastically lower fares and freight rates to unprofitable levels to starve out competitors, raising them again once the rival was forced out of business. When that won’t work, they would use threats, intimidations and pressures by other means. That’s how the Brits gained monopoly over the rivers. A lot has changed since then. But the basic imperative of capital remains the same. One of the chapters in the report interrogates the role of venture capital in fostering an ecosystem of precarity for labour.
Sabina Dewan in her chapter (find full chapter in this issue of FM) shows how the financing model of the gig economy is fundamentally anti-labour because it is driven not by employment stability or decent work, but by speculative capital seeking outsized returns. Most gig platforms are financed by venture capital and private equity investors who knowingly invest in a large number of start-ups with the expectation that the vast majority will fail. With failure rates for technology start-ups in India estimated at 90ā95 per cent within five years, labour insecurity is not an unintended consequence but a built-in feature of this model. Workersāespecially gig workersāare drawn into platforms without being informed of the high probability of collapse, exposing them to sudden job loss and income disruption.
To attract capital, platforms are incentivised to pursue rapid market expansion through “loss-leading” strategies, offering deep discounts to consumers and incentives to workers even while operating at significant losses. So many of the platform giants are ready to run with losses for years and in the meantime crowd out competition. This distorts existing markets, forces service providers to migrate onto platforms, and allows dominant players to emerge. Once market power is consolidated, platforms raise commissions, suppress wages, and unilaterally dictate terms of work. The resulting concentration strengthens employer power while weakening labourās bargaining position.
If we do not confront this fundamental asymmetry in the system, simply giving tips and ratings will not address the crisis and the precarity that the workers are exposed to.
