The emergence of the platform economy remains a phenomenon significant in its influence over traditional businesses and economic models, maintaining a potentially disruptive nature. Its impact includes but is not limited to employment, production, and social protection domains. Issues associated with the platform economy by its laborers involve inadequate working conditions, wages, fundamental human rights, health insurance, and social protection. More importantly, the newly emerged employment relationship lacks the presence of tight regulations, thus being unable to provide social protection, one of the fundamental human rights, as the legal standing of these workers is indistinguishable. The Ministry of Labour, one of Thailand’s governing bodies responsible for this issue of worker exploitation, has yet to address the problem. There is an ongoing debate among scholars over this issue, comprised of two viewpoints: the relationship of employer-employee is explicit, while some argue more of an employer-contractor status, or semi-employer and semi-partner–all of which have different advantages (Drahokoupil & Paisna, 2019, p. 5). These variations in formal status entail significance in their influence over labor protection laws. The former, under Thai law, will consider the workers under labor protection law; the latter implies the lack thereof, where the majority of gig workers fall. However, riders fall in between these two statuses, hence, raising the issue in their employment relationship.
Among the platform-orientated businesses in the early 2010s, food delivery services and transportation services experienced rapid growth. One thing these businesses have in common is their extensive efforts to develop their digital platforms to facilitate the input of the order with their output–the customers and the delivery person, respectively. In addition to determining the price for the service, these platforms act as the middleman for the reception of the customers’ ratings.
In Thailand, this transportation, along with delivery services, has gained popularity starting from the 2010s. Now, new players are entering this newly established platform market Further expansions are expected due to the change in consumer behaviors, leading to more demand for their services. Highly developed infrastructures such as its application, network connectivity, and smartphones have allowed its success. Primarily due to the implications of COVID-19, more and more businesses have adopted this digitalization of their platforms as they face certain COVID-19-related restrictions. Preliminary research concluded that such growth implies changes in employment and social protection:
Service providers from delivery and transportation platforms are conditioned with semi-formal and precarious work. Their earnings depend on the demand for their services, time, and the platform’s algorithm—all contributing to an unstable income stream.
Although these platform operators seemingly provide their workers with health and life insurance, they still need to provide their workers with social protection.
These workers fall behind their platforms in negotiating power, as these platforms facilitate the transactions, matching the consumers with the workers, hence having control over the worker’s ability to work.
Social protection and its subsequent approach remain an issue to be actively discussed in multiple countries, with it attracting consistent traction, partly due to increased stakeholders and an inadequate system supporting said cause (European Parliament, 2017). A remodel in the legal frameworks overlooking both the short-term and long-term implications should be considered (European Parliament, 2017). In Thailand, such discussion is beginning to appear in parliament, and an array of political parties are beginning to acknowledge the issue's prevalence.
The researchers believe that a successful formulation of regulations requires in-depth knowledge and understanding of their implications. Currently, studies covering such topics are limited, with ones from the worker’s perspective almost non-existent.
Gig workers, riders included, represent a rapidly expanding labor population both nationally and globally. However, the profession currently grapples with the ambiguity surrounding employment relationships. Relevant governmental labor regulatory bodies find the legal relationship between riders and platform companies to fall outside the conventional employer-employee dynamic. This perception significantly affects workers' rights and access to social protection. Riders are subjected to income instability due to the low wages, bearing the operation costs and risks with little bargaining power and basic labor rights protections.
The COVID-19 pandemic significantly contributed to the expansion of the rider profession. This is supported by two primary factors: 1) the economic situation has led to job layoffs across various industries, and 2) government-imposed COVID-19-related measures, such as lockdowns and restaurant dining restrictions, have impacted businesses across all sectors. These measures have forced many businesses, especially those in the service sector, to cease operations. In contrast, platform businesses have flourished due to their capacity to meet public demand for goods delivery services. Joining the gig industry may be the only option for workers who were laid off.
Evidently, the primary motivations that drive individuals to engage in the rider profession on various platforms can provide significant insights into this issue. The survey results conducted by the researchers at Chulalongkorn University are as follows. The three primary reasons include the freedom that comes with jobs on these platforms, making up 38.9% of responses; the desire to earn extra income, making up 17.5%; and unemployment due to the COVID-19 pandemic, at 16.8%. This data shows a clear correlation between the growth of the rider profession and the current COVID-19 situation. This includes people losing jobs in other sectors and the need to supplement the lost income amidst the economic downturn. Consequently, it becomes imperative to critically evaluate the work conditions and labor rights associated with the rapidly expanding profession of gig work, considering it represents an emerging and rapidly growing labor demographic.
Upon analysis of the survey data, demographic details reveal that among the 435 nationwide participants, the majority, 92.6%, were male, leaving a small fraction, 7.1%, female. Age distribution indicates a substantial proportion, 46.9%, of the sample falls within the early (18-29 years old) and middle (30-44 years old), 42.5%, working-age groups, with only 10.3% of respondents were within the late working-age group (45-59 years old). This preponderance of early and middle-aged individuals is particularly noteworthy. Historically, these age groups dominate the labor force and have a higher propensity for employment. However, there has been a discernible shift, with more individuals in these categories engaging in rider occupations.
Furthermore, the academic achievements of this group are intriguing. Notably, many respondents had a high level of education: 35.4% had completed high school or held vocational certificates, 19.5% had obtained a bachelor's degree, and 19.4% had completed lower secondary education. It is compelling that a substantial number of individuals holding a bachelor's degree—a qualification generally associated with specialized, higher-skilled occupations—are occupying the rider roles. The current landscape suggests a potential decline in opportunities for degree holders, juxtaposed with increasing demand in the platform business sector, which does not necessitate a high educational level. This brings to light a significant concern: early working-age individuals are entering the labor market via gig occupations, potentially at the expense of career paths that may offer opportunities to develop professional skills and future advancement in their fields. In effect, this group concedes time in self-development and may fall into roles that do not significantly enhance their professional skills. The lack of a well-defined career path could undermine their ability to leverage work experience for future value or pay increments.
Beyond the issue of exceeding standard work hours, the conditions under which riders operate, defined by the extended duration of their shifts and their working environment, have made this occupation increasingly susceptible to work-related accidents. Riders spend their working hours constantly on the road, needing to promptly meet consumer demands, given that their scoring on the platform impacts future job opportunities. The ongoing necessity to check the maps and messages from consumers on their smartphones, coupled with unfamiliar routes and varying road conditions, creates a set of contributing factors for occupational accidents. Empirical research suggests that over 33.5% of riders nationwide have experienced workplace accidents, a statistically significant figure. Further investigation into the incidence of occupational accidents among riders, through a combination of quantitative and qualitative interviews, revealed that of the riders who have experienced workplace accidents, 44% sustained minor injuries (were still able to attend to themselves), such as abrasions; a further 40% sustained serious injuries (were unable to attend to themselves), such as broken limbs or loss of consciousness; tragically, 12% succumbed to their injuries either at the accident scene or subsequently at the hospital.
Consequently, more than 96% of riders who have experienced workplace accidents have sustained varying degrees of physical harm, with some injuries severe enough to result in fatalities, constituting a remarkably high proportion. Thus, platform companies must consider and address riders’ safety. When accidents occur, most riders, 54%, need to take a break from work and heal for more than one week; some, 24%, require healing for 1-7 days, and others, 22%, recuperate in less than a day. This last category typically represents riders who have had minor accidents and can return to work promptly after a brief recovery period. Nevertheless, those requiring several days of recovery constitute a significant proportion, at 78%. Such periods of inactivity directly impact the riders' income. Within the surveyed sample group, all riders reported declining earnings due to their inability to work. Consequently, occupational accidents exert a twofold impact on riders: 1) physical harm and 2) loss of income.
Platform companies should assume a proportionate level of responsibility, as riders constitute a critical component of their growth. Empirical data indicates that 54% of riders who have encountered accidents receive financial aid from their respective platform affiliations, while a significant proportion, 46%, remain unassisted. This implies that nearly half of these riders need assistance, predominantly due to their accident circumstances not conforming to the predefined terms and conditions of the platform companies. For instance, riders who encounter accidents post-delivery are often deemed off-duty as per the interpretation of these platforms. Moreover, the assistance extended is contingent upon the rider's performance ranking within the platform. Several platforms categorize their riders into distinct tiers, reflecting their tenure and commitment. Riders who rank higher, implying more substantial service provision, gain access to accident insurance, whereas those at lower tiers may either lack equivalent protection or receive less assistance.
Consequently, it is crucial to recognize that these conditional stipulations implemented by platform companies for rider protection should not be misinterpreted as welfare benefits. Instead, they are performance-based incentives, propelling riders to augment their work commitment. Platform companies also employ these conditionalities strategically in their marketing campaigns, aiming to attract potential workforce to enroll as riders.
The subsequent point meriting consideration pertains to the appropriateness of the insurance provisions put forth by the platform companies. Affiliated insurance firms frequently come attached with specific conditions despite the provision of accident insurance. The compensation serves as an addition to the obligatory insurance that riders are mandated to possess under the Act on Protection for Motor Vehicle Accident Victims. This statutory insurance encompasses medical expenses up to 30,000 THB in instances of injury, and in the case of death, the indemnification amounts to 35,000 THB. In reality, however, the medical costs for continued treatment following a severe accident often surpass both the statutory insurance coverage and the conditional insurance offered by platform companies. As a result, most riders are compelled to resort to their own funds to meet the extra costs. The intrinsic risk in the occupation, coupled with an insufficiency of comprehensive social insurance, exacerbates this issue. It leads to a situation where a segment of riders who have experienced accidents have to solicit donations from their colleagues in the same profession to cover their medical expenditures. Furthermore, the occurrence of an accident necessitates riders to take multiple days off work for recovery, directly impacting their earnings due to their incapacity to work. Notably, a majority of platform companies do not offer compensation to offset this loss of income during the riders’ recovery; as for the minorities of firms that provide the compensation, the compensation is confined to a certain period of days.
In addition to navigating through demanding work environments and grappling with the risks posed by on-road accidents, riders are often subjected to numerous operational complications that amplify the precarious nature of their occupation. These complications arise from the primary tool of their trade, the delivery platform, and interactions with other stakeholders, including customers, restaurants, and platform service providers. Firstly, complications originating from the platform are often associated with task acceptance, as delivery riders depend primarily on the platform as a conduit for securing work assignments. As such, operational issues within the platform directly impact job acquirements. The most pervasive of these issues is application malfunctioning, encompassing application freezing, lagging, or crashing, reported by an overwhelming 51.1% of riders. These application glitches often serve as significant impediments that preclude riders from performing their duties. The second source of complications pertains to the inaccuracies inherent within the platform's map and GPS systems. Expressly, the inaccurate pinpointing of pickup and delivery locations incurs inefficiencies by compelling riders to expend additional time and fuel, consequently leading to lower remuneration than warranted, reported by approximately 10.5% of the respondents.
Furthermore, 8.0% of riders have reported issues pertaining to miscalculations of distances within the platform's application, which are often underestimated compared to the actual distances traveled. This discrepancy leads to a misrepresentation in service charges per distance traveled. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that a minority of riders, totaling 17.5%, reported no issues pertaining to the platform's operational efficacy. Despite being a relatively small proportion, it still merits acknowledgment when juxtaposed with the higher proportion of riders who have reported experiencing issues.
Conflicts between delivery riders and customers predominantly entail communication problems, constituting approximately 23.5% of the reported disputes. Such issues include customers not answering phone calls or responding to text messages and challenges in communication, which ultimately generate significant operational inefficiencies. The subsequent prevalent issue pertains to customers deliberately misplacing their location markers to minimize delivery charges. They often inaccurately position these markers closer than the actual delivery distance, forcing the riders to bear additional fuel costs and receive remuneration less than the due amount; this represents about 19.9% of the encountered difficulties. Additionally, a fraction of the disputes, approximately 12.4%, is attributed to customers expressing hostility towards riders and intimidating them during the performance evaluations.
Disagreements between delivery riders and merchants predominantly concern extended waiting times for food preparation, making up as much as 52.0% of the reported issues. In particular, delivery riders frequently experience delays of over 40 minutes. Other relatively frequent complications involve discrepancies between the prepared food and the customers' orders, constituting approximately 9.6% of the conflicts, and instances where riders are unjustly passed over in the queue, accounting for about 7.7% of the disputes. Predominantly, merchants prioritize serving in-person customers before addressing delivery orders. Furthermore, about 4.1% of the conflicts are associated with the ill-treatment of riders by the merchants. The primary challenge that riders encounter with merchants pertains to the excessively prolonged food preparation times, which adversely impact their earning potential by restricting their ability to accept additional orders.
The last matter involves the conflict between delivery riders and platform service providers. Given that riders predominantly operate through these platforms, the service providers are responsible for addressing issues and conflicts that transpire between riders, the platform, customers, and merchants. The most prevalent problem riders face with service providers pertains to the challenges in establishing contact with them, amounting to as much as 45.5% of the responses. Subsequently, delayed assistance comprises about 20.7% of complaints, leading to riders losing valuable time and missing opportunities for additional jobs due to protracted wait times for resolving issues with platform service providers. Interestingly, 26.3% of riders have not encountered any problems with the platform service providers.
It is evident, as aforementioned, that the myriad challenges originating from the four factors invariably impact the earnings of delivery riders. These issues not only limit their job opportunities but also provide inadequate compensation in the light of various circumstances, such as incorrect customer location pins or Global Positioning System (GPS) anomalies within the application. Cumulatively, these workplace conditions and challenges underscore the inherent inequities that pervade the occupation of delivery riders. Two significant issues merit closer examination, with the first concerning income stability from the fluctuating nature of job allocation, stemming from an unstable system, ultimately resulting in inconsistent job availability for riders on a day-to-day basis. These occurrences thereby lead to unstable income. The factors influencing job allocation remain ambiguous, mainly due to the opaque nature of the algorithms employed by each delivery platform, which can result in unequal job distribution among individuals.
Furthermore, the remuneration that riders receive tends to be relatively low. Initially, the profession of a delivery rider was highly remunerated, primarily because the platform companies sought to attract a large workforce to their burgeoning business. However, over time, as these platform businesses expanded and even profited in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, they progressively reduced their remuneration, including wages. This trend is evident from the rising tide of recent rider protests across various platforms. Moreover, the work hours of riders often exceed the stipulated norms as per labor law, further underscoring the precarious nature of riders' earnings. The low pay necessitates working extended hours to ensure a sufficient income. Complicating this issue is the fact that a significant number of riders are also the primary earners in their families, thereby bearing the financial responsibility for numerous dependents. Consequently, riders grapple with income insecurity. This is primarily due to two factors: the erratic job allocation system of the platform and the inadequacy of their wages.
The second issue pertains to access to welfare and social security. Given the inherent occupational hazards that delivery riders face due to their constant exposure to traffic-related risks, it is disconcerting to observe platform companies' absence of explicit health insurance provisions to safeguard these gig workers. Furthermore, these platforms' compensatory clauses lack clarity and impartiality, presenting a significant loophole that such companies exploit to sidestep accountability for accidents involving delivery riders. Indeed, it is noteworthy that 60.9% of delivery riders nationwide deem the platform’s terms and conditions inappropriate due to the absence of explicit health insurance or social security coverage. For example, 60.9% of riders nationwide believe that the platform's terms and conditions are inadequate due to the absence of straightforward health insurance or social security considering the state's limited health insurance and social security that riders can access—Universal Coverage Scheme and Article 40 of the Social Security Act. In addition, provisions exist under Article 33 and Article 39 for those riders who held a regular job position and those who have voluntarily exited their regular employment but continue to contribute to social security. Most delivery riders, 68.8%, would access state welfare through the former Universal Coverage Scheme, as it represents a foundational health insurance plan to which all Thai citizens are entitled. In contrast, a mere 3.5% are enrolled in the social security scheme under Article 40, which, despite offering some benefits that can alleviate the occupational vulnerability of independent workers, remains insufficient; hence, its relevance is often overlooked by most riders.
The diminutive proportion of riders subscribing to Article 40 of the Social Security Act can be ascribed to two predominant reasons. Firstly, the understanding and awareness concerning social security and welfare in Thailand are not adequately widespread, resulting in the majority of the populace disregarding these aspects. Secondly, the advantages of enrolling as an insured individual under Article 40 are perceived as inferior compared to the benefits under other articles. Furthermore, state-administered medical welfare often experiences delays, leading many to perceive such enrollment as inefficient and subsequently opt for private insurance. Of the entire cohort of respondents, 51.6% affirm that the state's insurance coverage still needs to be more comprehensive. This perception is more pronounced in Bangkok, with a substantial 64.4% sharing this view, a stark contrast to other provinces where 78.4% believe the state insurance coverage is sufficient. These disparate numbers reflect the varying attitudes toward state insurance in different regions, with more favorable views in Bangkok than in other provinces.
Most riders cannot access state welfare and social security and lack labor protection laws, such as those relating to working hours and remuneration. Therefore, it is imperative for the state and platform-based companies to undertake a more proactive role in establishing a comprehensive and reliable insurance scheme.
In the context of employment relations, a survey reveals that the majority of riders, 51.7%, would prefer to be independent workers, followed by 21.4% of respondents wanting to be independent workers with clearly defined legal protections, which aligns with the autonomous view of the rider profession of "being one's own boss," a view shared by 38.9% of respondents. Therefore, most individuals engaged in the rider profession desire to maintain their working status as independent workers. Regardless of employment status, all worker groups should be entitled to appropriate social security insurance. Considering the data derived from research aiming to investigate the status and needs of the majority of riders, platform companies should cater to the riders' needs in the following ways:
Regarding access to services and public health, platform companies should provide riders with health and accident insurance, a view affirmed by 50.9% of respondents, without making the insurance a type of incentive compensation requiring riders to work more. The right to a safe working environment is fundamental and should be standard practice for businesses of all kinds.
In terms of income stability, platform companies should consider increasing wages for riders, with 34.9% of respondents urging for it, and 22.6% believe the companies should guarantee a minimum income and set a reasonable number of daily runs without factoring in the division of work areas. This is because the operating cost remains similar across the different regions.
In terms of unemployment insurance for the working-age population, the platform companies should develop a fair job allocation system; that is, all riders should be allocated jobs fairly.
In terms of income security for the elderly, 21.4% believe platform companies should reconsider their compensation model for long-term employed riders and senior workers.
In the domain of governmental oversight, there arises a necessity to formulate policies or enact legislation aimed at systematically regulating labor within platform-driven industries, thereby ensuring alignment with existing labor protection statutes. It is incumbent upon the state to delineate the parameters of employment relationships, ensuring compatibility with the evolving nature of contemporary work modalities. The multifaceted landscape of modern employment often transcends the confines of conventional definitions, engendering a need for legal protection for various labor segments. Consequently, the state should revise the existing legal frameworks comprehensively. Outdated legislation, unresponsive to the dynamic transformations in employment patterns and work processes, inadvertently allows for loopholes to be abused by these corporations to circumvent labor protections and manipulate the legal intricacies of employer-employee relationships. Such practices may culminate in the unwarranted transference of the platforms’ duties onto its workers, counter to the principles of governance that seek to ensure impartiality across all stakeholders without preferential treatment.
References
Drahokoupil, J., & Piasna, A. (2019). Work in the platform economy: Deliveroo riders in Belgium and the SMart arrangement. Brussels: European Trade Union Institute (ETUI).
European Parliament. (2017). The Social Protection of Workers in the Platform Economy. The European Parliament.References
Comments