Albert Cañigueral Bagó is fascinated by technology, platforms and the world of work. How did the sharing and gig economy develop? And what impact does technology have on workers now and in the future? This is what Martijn Arets discusses with him in The Gig Work Podcast of the WageIndicator Foundation.
The platform economy has undergone a considerable (r)evolution in 12 years. I myself have been exploring platforms and their impact on people and society since 2011. I was not alone: during my quest, I met several other explorers. One of my travelling companions is Albert Cañigueral Bagó. In 2011, he started the first Spanish blog on the sharing economy. Not much later, he came into contact with the organisation Ouishare, an international partnership of freelancers. “For me, the sharing economy was personally interesting because I don’t value property much,” he says. “I have a rented house, very little stuff. In addition, I saw many benefits for society and the environment. At Ouishare, I found like-minded people.”
Ouishare: a mix of visions
I first encountered Cañigueral in 2013, during the famous ‘Ouishare Fest’. This was a festival at Parc de la Fayette in Paris where 1,500 entrepreneurs, professionals and activists gathered to discuss the development of the sharing economy. “The special thing was that we brought together all the different perspectives,” Cañigueral says. “We at Ouishare were activists, we loved open source. For us, the success of big companies like Uber and AirBnb was disappointing. Still, we managed to have good conversations with these tech entrepreneurs about the future of sharing.”
This was also necessary, he says. “In Spain, delivery platforms Deliveroo and Glovo had just started and that led to conflicts immediately,” he says. “Logical. After all, the inventor of the boat is also the inventor of the sunken ship. The negative effects of platforms can never be completely avoided, but if we work together we can ensure that the positive effects prevail.”
Utopias for the world of work
When it comes to platform work, the biggest problem is the skewed power relationship between the platform and the platform workers, he says. A few years ago, he wrote a book on macroeconomic trends and their impact on labour: El trabajo ya no es lo que era (‘Work is not what it used to be’). In it, he explains, among other things, how the industrial revolution is transitioning into the digital revolution. “During the previous revolution we were children, now we are parents,” he says. “Now we also have to behave like adults. That means facing the facts and taking responsibility: we cannot ignore developments, we have to respond to them in a smart way.”
We work differently in the digital age and platform work fits in with that, he explains. “The idea that a job always has to be 40 hours a week is outdated. Part-time, flexible or freelance work sometimes fits better with all the other pursuits in modern life, for example volunteering or taking care of our family.”
We are still in the middle of the transition, he says. His book contains seven utopian situations for the future of work and technology. “We can use these visions to approach a future where the positive effects of technology outweigh the negative.”
Collective action and cooperation
Previously, unions, for instance, protected workers from employers. Such collectives made for a less skewed balance of power. In a fragmented world, collaborations are more important than ever, Cañigueral stresses. “Platforms provide structured access to fragmented and often invisible work,” he explains. “But if the conditions in doing so are not clear or if you cannot influence them, you feel like a slave to the platform.”
Therefore, he says, new collectives are needed. As an example, he mentions the Worker Info Exchange, a non-profit organisation that helps platform workers gain insight into the data collected about them during their work. Read more in this interview with founder James Farrar.
That does not necessarily mean the end of existing unions, says Cañigueral. “Some will disappear, others will reinvent themselves. Collaborating with new initiatives is incredibly valuable. If they are willing to learn from each other and set up collective actions, it ultimately delivers more for working people.”
WorkerTech: collective facilities for those not in an employment relation
Platform workers lack collective services in addition to representation. As freelancers, they have to find their own ways to cope with retirement, disability and illness. So-called ‘WorkerTech’ are solutions to this. They are collective services especially for Glovo delivery drivers, Uber drivers or Fiverr freelancers, for example. Interestingly, WorkerTech is usually not reserved for one type of platform worker. Often such initiatives are open to freelancers working through various platforms.
For example, Pulpo.Life, a Latin American startup that arranges health insurance for platform workers and freelancers. Another example is Nippy, an Argentinian startup that offers all kinds of services for freelancers: from bank accounts to insurance. Cañigueral: “These kinds of initiatives prove that a permanent contract is not the only way to provide decent working conditions and collective services to workers.
Cañigueral does not see WorkerTech as competing with public social security, but complementing it. “The government can learn from such initiatives. For example, such startups know better how to use data to respond to individual needs. But that requires mature politics.”
Analysis
Catching up and looking back with this good friend on the development of the platform economy gave me new insights. We both started our research journey in the sharing economy and later turned the focus to the job and platform economy and the future of work. The impact of technology on people, organisation and society was the common thread.
Cañigueral explains that we are in the midst of a major change. In my opinion, platforms are a logical testing ground for technologies that will eventually impact the entire labour market. Just look at WorkerTech, which was born out of a platform economy need but also offers many benefits for other workers. Increasingly, WorkerTech is also available to all workers: self-employed, employees or them working in the informal market. The reason these kinds of startups fit the needs of modern working people so well is because they can develop and adapt faster than existing institutions.
Finally, we discussed how social security can be shaped. It will be interesting to explore how we can ‘re-bundle’ these kinds of securities so that they do not only suit permanent salaried employees, but are of use to all kinds of workers.
Indeed, in the Western world, many securities are linked to the permanent contract, but this is not the case at all in many parts of the world. Moreover, in many countries the informal labour market is large: in Latin America, some 56 per cent of people work in the informal market. At other places in the world this percentage is even (much) higher. Currently, they are invisible to all institutions and have no protection at all. Platform work, as a gathering place, can give structure to this fragmented group of informal workers, bring them together and give them access to the securities and protection of WorkTech. So, especially in the non-Western world, this can be a substantial improvement.
Delivery riders connected to platform Glovo do not all get employment contracts, but are covered by the ‘Couriers Pledge’ in 21countries. With this, the company promises delivery workers safety, community, equality and a fair income. Why, how does it work and what does a platform worker get out of it? Martijn Arets travelled to Barcelona and spoke to Glovo spokesperson Magalí Gurman.
This edition not a collection of articles on the platform economy, but a blog and podcast episode around Glovo’s ‘Couriers Pledge’: a delivery platform operating in 24 countries. Have fun reading and listening!
The main discussion about delivery via platforms is about whether such a platform should employ the couriers. After all, in many Western countries, things like safety and fair pay are linked to an employment contract. But this is far from common everywhere. Therefore, platforms are looking for ways to offer riders better conditions regardless of their employment status. One such platform company is Glovo. For The Gig Work Podcast from the WageIndicator Foundation, I travelled to Barcelona and sat down with Magalí Gurman, Institutional affairs & government relations at Glovo.
From customer to courier: keeping everyone happy
The creators of delivery service Glovo know all too well how important international differences are. The Spanish company operates in 24 countries in Southern Europe, Eastern Asia and Africa, among others. Through the Glovo app, delivery drivers bring all kinds of products to private customers: from meals to flowers and groceries. Customers order something from a restaurant or retailer via the Glovo app, the delivery drivers pick it up and bring it to the customer as soon as possible.
“So basically we have three sorts of clients: customers, retailers and delivery drivers,” Gurman says. “Each has its own app with corresponding processes, because we are providing a different service for each user.”
Local differences
In addition, operational needs differ by region, she explains. “For example, here in Barcelona it is normal for delivery drivers to ride bikes or scooters. In cold Romania, on the contrary, most couriers deliver by car. What we also see is that delivery times changes from city to city because of different reasons, like the state of the streets, and therefore, people are used to different types of services. Moreover, laws and regulations vary from country to country.”
It is up to Glovo to meet all these needs and preferences, she says. “Our goal is for all users to be satisfied, not just the end customers.”
‘Flexibility does not exclude good working conditions’
To better meet the needs of couriers, Glovo introduced a ‘Couriers Pledge’ in 2021. With this, the company aims to improve the conditions for all couriers, regardless of their working status. “Two years ago, there was much less regulation around platform workers than now,” she says. “We wanted to lead the way and show that the flexibility of the platform economy does not preclude good working conditions.”
Because there are big international differences in legislation and preferences, Glovo introduces the Pledge on a country-by-country basis each time. This starts with research into local laws and regulations and an exploration of the possibilities within the organisation. How much money and people does the platform have available in this region? Meanwhile, 21 of the 24 countries each have their own Pledge.
“With this, we want to set a standard example for the platform economy sector,” says Gurman.
Safety, community, equality and income
The Pledge rests on four pillars: safety, community, equality and fair earnings. Once a rider has delivered a certain number of products within a certain period of time, they can access these benefits. For example, couriers get safety training, helmets and parental leave. The exact conditions vary from country to country and depend on the couriers’ preferences, among other things.
Under the ‘community’ pillar, Glovo organises events to connect couriers with each other. “Sometimes we discover needs we could never have thought of ourselves. For instance, it turned out that relatively many couriers in Kenya had eye problems. We work with a company that does eye checks and we reimburse glasses if needed.”
The current Pledge is the foundation, says Gurman. “We want to be more and more responsive to what couriers need to deliver in a healthy and safe way. Satisfied couriers are also good for business. That’s why we keep researching, talking and adapting.”
Independent help
Glovo also works with two independent organisations around fair working conditions and pay for platform workers: Fairwork and the WageIndicator Foundation. “Organisations like these keep us on our toes,” says Gurman. “An organisation like Fairwork critically assesses our practices and sets our conditions against those of other platforms. This is how Fairwork helps us improve operations. Our working conditions in Africa are currently the best rated in that region.”
WageIndicator Foundation helps Glovo with the third pillar of the Pledge: payment. “This is the most important issue for couriers and at the same time the most complicated,” says Gurman. “WageIndicator helps us with data on living wages and minimum wages for comparable work. Rates vary from country to country and are constantly changing.”
Most Glovo couriers work as freelancers. Political parties and trade unions in several countries advocate giving these workers employment contracts. “An employment contract does not necessarily lead to better working conditions,” says Gurman. “What an employment contract means for working conditions varies greatly from country to country. The Pledge applies to every courier, regardless of the form of contract.”
Labour contract is not always an improvement
Gurman is right: a labour contract is by no means always better for a courier. For example, if delivery workers are employed through a middleman, they often get the most minimal protection legally possible.
Moreover, it is not always what working people want, figures from the Leeds Index of Platform Labour Protest show. In only 20% of all demonstrations do workers ask for a labour contract, analysis of nearly 2,000 protests shows. This varies greatly by country. For instance, ’employment status’ is an issue in 37.1% of protests in North America, because it brings more security there. In Africa, it was an issue in only 4.7% of protests, because a contract offers hardly any benefits there.
Analysis
I like how Glovo is trying to improve conditions for couriers. Especially when you know that working as a delivery driver is done in an informal way in many countries. So before, couriers had no protection at all.
For Glovo, it is a balancing act between what is allowed and what is possible, including financially. And it is true that an employment contract is not worth the same everywhere, but in certain (European) countries it does offer more protection. Could the Pledge be an addition there? There are also several important employment conditions not included in the Pledge. Consider transparency, explainability and accountability of automatic decision-making processes and worker representation. According to Gurman, this is now “not always legally possible”, but that is a little too easily dismissed. In my opinion, there is quite a solution to this. Where there is a will, there is a way.
So the Pledge is not yet perfect, but it is a good step in the right direction and a great example of how to take into account different wishes and circumstances in various countries in which a platform operates.
British tech expert and Uber driver James Farrar has been championing labour rights in the platform economy for eight years. Often successfully. Platform expert Martijn Arets spoke to him on behalf of the WageIndicator Foundation in The Gig Work Podcast about justice, data and the future of platform work. “Our battle has only just begun,” he said.
In the platform economy, the impact of algorithms and AI on the way we work is no longer future music, but daily practice. In platforms for very short jobs, that impact is greatest and the power relationship between the platform and workers is most unbalanced. I see it, for example, with food delivery, taxi apps and clickwork – websites on which people worldwide earn money from home with small online tasks that train artificial intelligence. Workers just have to do the task and have no say in the content, access and reward. The platform’s algorithm decides, but it is far from transparent and fair.
These algorithms are difficult for many to understand; they seem like ‘magic black boxes’. Platform operators like to keep this mystique alive. Indeed, it obscures the fact that algorithms do not just make choices, but that they are based on the wishes of platform operators. Knowledge is power and as long as workers do not understand how the platform works, they cannot change it either.
James Farrar. Photo: Martijn Arets
Former Uber driver James Farrar wants to equalise the balance of power by giving platform workers more knowledge and access to data. He does this by uniting platform workers in the Worker Info Exchange and the App Drivers and Couriers Union, a union for platform workers. By analysing drivers’ data, he won several influential court cases. For The Gig Work Podcast from the WageIndicator Foundation, I took the train to London and spoke to Farrar about his fight for justice in the platform economy.
Sharp drop in fare
Farrar drove for Uber as a driver between 2015 and 2016 and experienced how the company violated labour rights. Taxi drivers were structurally underpaid, he says. “I noticed those two years that driver pay dropped sharply. At the same time, the number of drivers increased. So that meant fewer rides and a lower price per ride.”
When he just started driving via Uber, the company did pay well. “We also got hefty bonuses when we brought in new drivers,” he says. “I remember people receiving 30 to 40 thousand pounds through those referrals alone.”
But all those extra drivers depressed fare prices. “Uber said: if the price goes down, demand goes up and then you have more work,” Farrar says. “In other words, you just have to drive more. That, of course, is completely insane. Yet we drivers believed the story and started driving more rides per day at a lower and lower tariff.”
Not an employee and not a self-employed person
Nevertheless, the first lawsuit was not directly about tariffs. Farrar was attacked in his taxi and reported it. The police asked his passenger’s name. “I had no idea, after all, the ride was booked through the app,” he says. “The cop could hardly believe that. So I called Uber: who was my passenger? They wouldn’t say, even to the police.”
After 12 weeks of silence from Uber, Farrar hired a lawyer. “Who said: ‘Uber doesn’t owe you anything because they don’t recognise you as an employee. But in my opinion, you are a worker. That’s a category between self-employed and employee, where the employer does have obligations to the worker.”
A worker’s rights in the United Kingdom (UK) include minimum wage. To claim his worker status, Farrar took Uber to court. The company came back with an army of lawyers and data. The company showed infographics about all the work Farrar had done. These included, for example, the number of rides accepted and rejected, tariffs and how many hours he had worked.
Fool around with figures
“I didn’t have any access to that data,” he says. “That was very difficult, because Uber’s lawyers could claim about my performance all they wanted. The company twisted the facts and emphasised specific data.”
According to the platform, Farrar turned down half of the rides offered. “But that said nothing about my productivity,” he says. “I was completing one-and-a-half rides per hour, more than what Uber’s guidelines expect a driver to do. And even then they said I wasn’t deserving of minimum wage.”
Farrar knows well how data and technology works. He has a background in tech and worked for German software company SAP. Since the new European privacy law (GDPR), companies have to share data with users if they request it. Before that, there was a law in the UK that was quite similar to the GDPR. It also contained the right to access your own data.
The beginnings of a union
“I demanded this right and asked fellow drivers to do the same,” Farrar says. “Uber showed that an employer cannot be trusted with data. If one party has all the knowledge, it can tell the rest what it wants.”
In retrospect, that was the beginning of the Worker Info Exchange (WIE), he says. WIE is a non-profit organisation that helps platform workers gain insight into the data collected about them as they work. “Actually, even then we were an informal union with a common goal: equal knowledge of data for all the platform operator and users.”
Later, Farrar started a full-scale union for platform workers: the App Drivers & Couriers Union (ADCU). In the podcast, he talks more about what that entailed.
Case won
In 2021, the UK Labour Court ruled that Uber drivers were indeed workers. This meant they were entitled to certain employment rights, such as minimum wage and paid holidays. In total, Uber settled over 70,000 drivers. Uber does not disclose how much it paid out in total, but according to The Guardian, the company had set aside some £465 million.
The case sets a precedent for the entire UK gig economy. “The judge made it clear that an employer cannot make up its own mind that it is working with freelancers instead of employees or workers. Not what is in the contract applies, but how the parties work together in practice is leading.”
As an added bonus, Uber was also found responsible for VAT payments on taxi rides in the UK. The platform settled for the astronomical sum of £600 million.
The battle is not over yet
According to the court, opp-taxi drivers have workers’ rights from the moment they log in until they log out. Uber disagreed and does not count waiting time between rides. “Uber still does that, nobody is taking action against that own interpretation,” Farrar says. “So I’m not out of court yet.”
James Farrar. Photo: Martijn Arets
Farrar did not receive his back salary and holiday pay until 2023: £20,000. This is because he did not want to sign a non-disclosure agreement. “My settlement is public and makes it clear that Uber broke the law. That is a major victory for me, but the fight has only just begun.”
Robo-firing
A second important case revolves around so-called robo firing: being automatically fired by the algorithm. Under the guise of safety, Uber introduced automatic facial recognition based on a system from Microsoft during the corona crisis. There were quite a few problems with that. Taxi drivers were incorrectly not recognised and therefore immediately lost their access to the app and their taxi licence.
Research shows that the system is generally 97% accurate, but for people of colour the percentage is significantly lower. For dark-skinned women, it is only 70%. Farrar: “There are a lot of people of colour working for Uber. With those percentages, you end up with tens of thousands of people a year being falsely accused.” Suddenly losing your access to work has hefty consequences, as the fixed costs of the car continue as usual.
The WEI stood up for these affected people and won most cases, often simply because Uber could not or would not share data. “It is startling how little knowledge Uber’s European staff have,” says Farrar. “For example, the head of regulation was excluded as a witness in court because he could not answer basic questions about firing via algorithms. For that, we had to video call someone in Silicon Valley.”
Conclusion and analysis
Farrar’s interview shows that equal access to data is essential. It equalised the power relationship between platforms and workers, which is important because, unfortunately, taxi and delivery platforms still have to be held accountable through lawsuits. The fact that platforms as ‘private regulator’ can easily adjust the rules of the game does not help either: after a ruling, jurisdiction just starts again from scratch. New regulation is badly needed, but Farrar’s court cases also show that existing regulation can work well. At least if they are enforced, but that unfortunately happens too rarely.
The work of Farrar and his colleagues is therefore important, not just for the platform economy. Technology is in fact affecting the labour market as a whole. Indeed, algorithms are playing an increasingly important role in the organisation of labour and the control of work.
Finally, I worry whether legislators and enforcers can keep up with developments. In any case, it is important that they are not distracted by tall stories of utopian scenarios by tech entrepreneurs, but focus on what is actually happening right now. Ask questions, be realistic and curious. Because the impact of technology and platforms is not in the cloud, but on the streets.
Want to know more? In the podcast, I talk to Farrar further about:
– Founding a union for platform workers
– The rise of the platform economy in the UK
– The future and issues surrounding algorithmic management
Super-apps like Grab and Gojek are centralising and formalising Indonesia’s informal labour market. What problems are associated with this? And what does this teach us about the gig economy worldwide? Martijn Arets explores in The Gig Work Podcast.
Working via online platforms is on the rise all over the world, but the debate on the gig economy is mostly focused on the western world. To get a more complete picture, it is good to take a look at countries with a different institutional landscape. For example, Indonesia.
This summer, I travelled through this particular island state for six weeks and ordered taxis dozens of times via Asian platforms Gojek and Grab. These ‘super-apps’ offer numerous services on a single platform: from taxi rides to meal and grocery delivery, from cleaning to financial services. They are wildly popular and you can see this on the streets. In big cities like Jakarta, Surabaya and Yogyakarta, a sea of men in green jackets on motorbikes.
What does the gig economy mean for Indonesian (platform) workers? To find out, I spoke to Suci Lestari Yuana, PhD researcher at Utrecht University and working in the Department of International Relations at the Faculty of Social and Political Science at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Informal labour as the backbone of society
Yuana has had a fascination with the platform economy and its impact on the labour market since 2015. She researched developments in both the Netherlands and Indonesia. “European colleagues see informal labour and undeclared work as inferior,” she says. “They immediately look for ways to formalise work. In Indonesia, we think very differently about the informal economy: it is not inferior, it is the backbone of society.”
In Indonesia, there are far more people in informal than formal jobs: some 65% of the population works without formal regulation, legal protection or official registration (2023). “The government is unable to create sufficient employment in the formal economy,” the researcher says. “Daily life depends on informal employment. This is true for more countries in the global south.”
From formal job to gig worker
Platforms are digitising this informal economy. Platforms like Gojek and Grab promise higher pay and more work. So the fact that the platform economy is flourishing in Indonesia is actually not that surprising. Since the rise of online work platforms, informal work has become more visible and valued.
That the informal economy is getting more structure and status is positive, but there is also a downside. “The beautiful promises of the platforms lead people with formal jobs or higher education degree to work as gig workers,” Yuana explains. “This is at the expense of the original taxi drivers and meal delivery workers, who often do not have an entry-level qualification. In short, they make the informal economy become even more competitive for the informal workers.”
Moreover, the platforms often fail to deliver on their fine promises, she says. “For example, they advertise salaries of 700 euros a month, four times the minimum in Jakarta. In practice, this is often disappointing, because this income tied to performance based bonuses, making it an unpredictable rollercoaster ride for the drivers.”
Lack of long-term vision
Yuana researches debates and conflicts related to the gig economy in Indonesia. “Discussions and protests tend to focus on short-term gains,” she says. “This is so in more other poorer countries in the southern hemisphere. Workers’ organisations in Indonesia, for example, mainly make the case for higher tariffs, but not for better working conditions.”
According to Yuana, the government does not think enough about the long term. This is not a new problem, she explains. “For example, transport via motorbike taxis is not legal, but it has been tolerated since the 1970s. There are no laws and regulations because the government actually considers this kind of taxi transport is unsafe. But enforcers do not act against it either, because there is no decent alternative public transport yet. As they said, motorbike taxi is a mode of transport in transition. But the question is, until when?”
Platform workers at the table
Changing government policy is difficult, but she and her fellow researchers are doing their best. For instance, they organise meetings and seminars on the platform economy, where they are not afraid to voice criticism. They advocate for more regulation of the platform economy to improve working conditions and give more people a fair chance to work.
According to Yuana, it is important to take into account the dramaturgy elements into the consideration of decision-making process. For example, in enacting regulation for gig economy, platform workers have to get seats during discussions that concern them. “To achieve workable laws and regulations, all voices need to be heard. The worker is still too often overlooked. Of course, we scientists know a lot about platform workers, but I don’t feel I could speak on their behalf.”
That seat at the table is increasingly available. At a Transport Ministry meeting on possible regulation of motorbike taxis, for instance, platform workers were also present.
Wishes of workers
What do platform workers want in Indonesia? Yuana researched the needs of taxi drivers and other stakeholders working through the digital apps. She discovered 19 criteria, which she will soon publish in her research paper. Only four of these are purely technical. “Most of the criteria are about positioning taxi platforms within current and future social, economic and legal conditions,” she says. “How can we ensure that customers are better protected? In what ways can we ensure that drivers have better incomes and fairer working conditions?”
Yuana sees a joint task for government, science, platform workers and platform companies to make this happen. Are you starting a platform that brings together part of the informal labour market? Then first involve the people who were already working in it,” she says. “It is not fair to lure away people who already had formal jobs with the often empty promise of a nice salary.”
More equal discussion
Yuana is also exploring how platform workers can have more influence during a discussion with the government. “First, group size matters. The better platform workers unite, the better they are heard,” she says.
Furthermore, from dramaturgy point of view, it matters which place in the room someone sits. Yuana: “If there are two rows of chairs, the people in the front row often have the most to say. These kinds of insights are valuable both for the platform workers themselves and the organisations that organise these kinds of meetings. With this, we can ensure a more equal discussion.”
Lessons from Indonesia
I learnt a lot from Yuana and my six-week trip through Indonesia. As in other countries, job platforms in Indonesia present themselves as new and different, while merely facilitating existing work through a digital platform. The name ‘Gojek’ is even derived from the existing word ‘Ojek’, meaning ‘motorbike taxi’. It is remarkable that policymakers fall for this so easily.
That job platforms are popular in countries like Indonesia is quite logical. After all, personal services such as motorbike taxis are already commonplace there. In addition, there is high unemployment, so more and more skilled people are also offering their services via the platforms. In short, there is talk of perspective. This is a topic that, in my opinion, is too often missing in discussions about the gig economy.
Strong together
Thanks to the conversation with Yuana, I look at developments in the platform economy with new eyes. The way southern countries view the informal economy is particularly interesting. In a large informal market, workers may be more resilient to the gig economy because they are already used to organising informally. This is confirmed by members of the WageIndicator team in Jakarta. They told me that meal delivery workers keep in close touch via WhatsApp groups. If something is wrong with someone, there is a swarm of green jackets around them in no time.
While I feel delivery drivers are stronger because of their solidarity, it is difficult to stand up to platforms. Apps in Indonesia are increasingly becoming ‘super-apps’ with different services. For instance, you can not only order a taxi, but also have groceries delivered, see a doctor, send packages or hire a handyman. Easy for customers, but it also means that workers are becoming increasingly dependent on the apps. Indeed, it becomes harder to build your own customer base apart from the app. That is another argument for more government regulation. In this respect, Indonesia still has quite a few steps to take.
Do you want to know where, when and how platform workers protest? The Leeds Index of Platform Labour Protest provides answers. In The Gig Work Podcast, Martijn Arets asks the initiators of this project for their key insights for science and practice.
Taxi and delivery platforms determine the working conditions, access to labour and pay of millions of workers worldwide. This frequently leads to protests by this group of workers. Reporting on such protests is mostly incomplete: news reports deal with isolated incidents and often give little background information. This is undesirable, because understanding the dynamics behind these protests, the wishes of workers and the organisation of protests are essential to finding solutions.
That is why a research team from the University of Leeds (UK) has mapped nearly 2,000 worker protests. This Leeds Index of Platform Labour Protest shows differences and similarities, for example between the platform economy and the regular labour market.
For The Gig Work Podcast from the WageIndicator Foundation, I took the train to Leeds for an interview with Vera Trappmann and Simon Joyce, two researchers behind this project.
Why an index?
Trappmann explains that the multidisciplinary team of the Leeds Index of Platform Labour Protest consisted of a group of six researchers, each with their own fascination with platform work. Besides Joyce and Trappmann, researchers Loulia Bessa, Denis Neumann, Mark Stuart and Charles Umney are also involved in the project. The researchers’ common problem was lack of understanding and overview of protests worldwide.
“We knew something about protests with us in the UK, for example, but very little about protests in, say, Italy or Argentina,” she explains. “Let alone that we could make comparisons. We wanted to do something about that. Not just for ourselves. The aim was to compile a database that would be useful for everyone involved, from activists to trade unions and policymakers.”
Collecting data
A first big challenge was data collection. For this, the researchers worked with GDELT (Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone), a joint project of parties such as Google, Yahoo and several independent programmers. This software searches for data in newspapers worldwide, collects relevant info and translates the texts. In this way, the Leeds Index of Platform Labour Protest gained access to millions of news stories about protests by platform workers.
Through the GDELT database, they can also look up specific information. For example, in which countries are workers demonstrating against Uber? The researchers have mapped motivations, appearances, people involved and duration.
“Machine learning makes data collection easier, but interpretation remains human work,” says Trappmann. “We needed a big team for that. To give you an idea: there is now information on more than 2,000 protests in the index. So that was a big job, in which we were fortunately helped by a large group of postdoctoral researchers.”
Informal occasional formations
The index has now been around for three years and is providing more and more insight, for example on what makes protests by platform workers different from old-fashioned strikes. The work done by taxi drivers and delivery drivers is not new. Protests in these professions are also not entirely new, but are more common among platform workers.
“The big difference is that drivers used to often really work as sole traders or for a small company,” Joyce explains. “Now they all work through one big platform. The fact that several workers have complaints about a common opponent leads them to seek each other out more easily to take action. These protest groups are often informal occasional formations, whereas previously they were more often initiated by a union.”
Working relationship less important than pay
In the US and Europe, there are many debates about the employment relationship of platform workers. In other words, are they employees or self-employed? That issue is far from universal, Leeds Index of Platform Labour Protest data show. Joyce: “So being an employee is not equally valuable everywhere. In Europe, for example, an employment contract means you are entitled to a minimum wage, elsewhere in the world it is not.”
The index shows that platform workers worldwide have by far the most complaints about pay. Logical, Joyce thinks. “Platforms lured drivers to their app with the promise of earning more money,” he explains. “They deliver on that promise for a while, but soon the algorithm puts pressure on rates. That’s a big problem, especially for platform workers who depend entirely on work through the app.”
Joyce also frequently spots trends that he can trace back to other developments. “For example, we saw that platform workers in South America were more concerned about health and safety issues during the corona pandemic,” says the researcher. “I am sure that in another five years we will be able to analyse much more information.”
On location platform work
Currently, the information is specifically about protests by on location platform workers, such as taxi drivers and delivery drivers. Joyce: “Although online platform workers also unite and protest, their protests are much less visible.”
Eventually, the researchers want to extend the data to more occupational groups. “We can also apply our research method to protests that are not about the platform economy,” says Trappmann. “For example, we are already working with the International Labour Organisation to map protests in the healthcare sector using our methodology.”
Furthermore, they have started a series of country-specific reporting of protests by platform workers. The researchers are also open to collaborations, for example with unions that want a report with information on a specific sector.
Trade union more often involved
Indeed, although most protests by platform workers are organised informally, the trade union is increasingly playing a role. “Our analysis shows that in 30% of cases worldwide a trade union is involved,” says Trappmann. “In half of the cases the initiative comes from that union, the other half of the time such a union later joins the group.”
Trappmann thinks this is positive. She sees all kinds of ways in which existing unions can support the new protest groups. To do that, though, they need to listen carefully to the wants, needs and ideas of those workers.
Tips for the union
“Old-fashioned strikes may work for workers, but they don’t suit platform workers,” she explains. “My tip to unions: be open to new ideas and real cooperation with these informal groups. Delve into their needs, learn from them and support where you can.”
When platform workers organise, these collaborations are often short-lived. How can a trade union movement perpetuate its relationship with platform workers? “I know of examples of unions that have hired platform workers and that works well,” she says. “That way, they secure knowledge and keep a connection with the target group.”
Conclusion
It is clear that the team behind the index is doing important work. It is incredibly valuable for all kinds of stakeholders that there is now more insight into the organisation and goals of protests and international differences. For me, the Leeds Index is a good example of how researchers can make not only scientific but also social impact.
What strikes me most is that the motivations of workers vary greatly from continent to continent. Platform workers in Asia are above average more likely to fight for higher pay (74.9%). In North America, they stand up for their status and working conditions, while in Latin America and Africa it is more often about health and safety. Platform workers in Africa also regularly protest for compensation for the materials needed to carry out the work.
Such data and insights give better insight into the forms of protest and the wishes of workers. The team behind Index is objective and also looks at the context of the various platforms. This is particularly pleasing. I will definitely accept the invitation to visit again in five years’ time; I am eager to see the developments and lessons learned.
Fairwork Project investigates and assesses working conditions for platform workers in 38 countries. And that’s not all: the organisation strives for real change and gets it done. How? That’s what Martijn Arets talked about with senior researcher and project manager Dr. Funda Ustek Spilda in The Gig Work Podcast.
Technology is increasingly influencing the world of work and the gig economy is leading the way, especially when it comes to platforms for ‘on demand’ and online work. People not only find jobs through platforms, they are also managed, rewarded, monitored and evaluated through this technology. Fairwork project studies this development and goes beyond ‘just’ research. “We are not only studying working conditions in the platform economy, we want to improve them at the same time,” says Funda Ustek Spilda, senior researcher and project manager at Fairwork. “We call that ‘action research’.”
The project is now running in 38 countries across five continents, and these studies have already yielded considerable results. Since 2018, 44 platforms have made some 156 changes to benefit workers. In addition, with more than 900 media publications, Fairwork has had considerable influence on the global debate around platform work. For The Gig Work Podcast from the WageIndicator Foundation, I travelled to Oxford to talk to Ustek Spilda about this exceptional project.
Benefits and risks
Fairwork is an academic project led by the Oxford Internet Institute and the WZB Social Science Center in Berlin. They research the working conditions of workers who find and perform jobs through online platforms. At the same time, together with the platforms and other stakeholders, they look for ways to improve these conditions.
“Digital development in the labour market has advantages, for example it creates more efficiency and new work opportunities,” says Ustek Spilda. “But there are also risks to digitalisation, especially for workers. Think low wages, dangerous working conditions and little protection.”
Investigate, collaborate, change
The research began in India and South Africa and has spread to 38 countries within five years. In each country, Fairwork works with local research teams. “We do not outsource the research, but become part of the local research team,” says Ustek Spilda. “That way we can quickly start in-depth research. After all, the local experts already know a lot about the culture, history and laws and regulations. They help apply our research framework to local realities.”
Research in any new area starts with exploration of that region’s platform economy. The experts compile a list of platforms and other relevant bodies and individuals, such as policymakers and trade unions. Then the research on working conditions for each platform begins.
Assessment based on five principles of Fairwork
Fairwork assesses working conditions based on five principles:
Fair pay
Fair conditions
Fair contracts
Fair management
Fair representation
The project believes that these are principles that all fair work should be characterised by. Irrespective of how work is classified, organised, managed, and carried out, it should adhere to principles of fair work.Each principle consists of two thresholds. Platforms are given a score out of 10. Where no verifiable evidence is available that meets a given threshold, the platform is not awarded that point.
This seems a bit strange to me, because this way the scores do not always give a complete picture. But it has advantages. In fact, Fairwork wants to initiate change in cooperation with platforms. By rewarding platforms if they cooperate in the research, they motivate companies to get started on change and have a dialogue with Fairwork on how they can improve the working conditions on their platforms.
Gig worker in Oxford. Photo credit: Martijn Arets
Minimum wage and contracts in understandable language
Although the rating system is not flawless, this method demonstrably leads to improvements. One example is that more and more platforms are giving their workers a minimum wage or living wage.
More platforms are also giving a clear contract. “Putting clear agreements on paper seems obvious, but unfortunately it is not always so yet,” says the project manager. “Moreover, contracts are often incomprehensible to workers because not all platforms translate the information to local languages.”
A new opportunity every year
The researchers assess the working conditions of platforms every year. “This is because the platform economy and platform companies are constantly evolving,” explains Ustek Spilda. “That is why we also update the principles and criteria every year. We want to make sure they reflect reality as closely as possible.”
A recent change in the assessment system revolves around risk. “On many platforms, workers have to continuously meet targets. To what extent does that lead them to risk their safety, for example by speeding? If a platform does its best to protect workers from that, it gets a better rating.”
Fairwork is making changes to the scoring system in close cooperation with all local teams, so that the criteria fit each market. “It’s a long process where we discuss with all the teams in our network,” says the project leader. “We don’t want to impose things on the national teams that don’t fit their local platform economy.”
Inclusive, objective and up-to-date
Fairwork is all about researching, listening and engaging stakeholders. According to Ustek Spilda, her team speaks to stakeholders with different backgrounds and opinions. “This is how we stay inclusive and objective. Our goal is to really understand how the platform economy is changing around the world. What values and norms are involved? How is artificial intelligence affecting workplace automation?”
If artificial intelligence becomes more influential in this process, it will also affect Fairwork’s research and assessments. “We need to keep up to make an impact,” says Ustek Spilda. “For me, making an impact is the most important thing. If I can help make the labour market a little fairer than it is, then that’s great, isn’t it?”
Gig worker in Oxford. Photo credit: Martijn Arets
Conclusion
I like how Fairwork does in-depth research by working with local teams. This method has its challenges, but I think it is the only way to implement it on such a large scale and really make an impact. The challenge is in finding a balance between scaling up by copying the concept and at the same time developing this concept further.
Also interesting is the shift from the focus on platforms to the relationship between digital technologies and working conditions. Such a broader view is inevitable, in my view, because eventually the differences between platforms and other employers and intermediaries will become irrelevant. Already, it is far from clear when an organisation falls under the definition ‘platform company’.
In addition, technology is having an increasing impact on the world of work; the platform economy is simply leading the way. So it makes sense to broaden, but also a challenge. The platform economy was a clearly framed phenomenon. This made it easier for researchers to focus on certain parties and practices. I think that is part of the success. I am curious how they will tackle this in the coming years. I will keep following it.
WageIndicator Foundation increases transparency about work and income worldwide. Martijn Arets of The Gig Work Podcast speaks to co-founder Paulien Osse about the successes, challenges and goals of this unusual organisation.
Once you are familiar with the WageIndicator Foundation, you will see its work everywhere. For almost 25 years, this foundation has been working from the conviction that all workers, employers and institutions should have access to the right information about income and rights. WageIndicator is committed to the belief that transparency leads to fairer incomes and good working conditions.
WageIndicator is an international organisation for which hundreds of people work. They all do so remotely from their native countries. They collect, analyse and share information on wages, minimum wage, living wage, living income, living tariff, labour laws, gig and platform work, collective agreements (CBAs) and much more. What started with an inclusive online Loonwijzer in the Netherlands has grown to more than 200 websites with labour market information across 208 countries. By 2021, the websites together had more than 40 million visitors.
At her home in Bussum, I meet Paulien Osse, the co-founder of this extraordinary organisation. In the latest episode of The Gig Work Podcast, she tells the story of this quirky organisation.
Salary check only for white men: ‘Could be better’
Osse is a journalist by origin. Early in her career, she wrote mostly about poetry, literature and theatre; later she found socio-economic topics more interesting. She travelled the world in search of stories, especially in Southern Africa, Latin America and Turkey. The wage gap between men and women was much wider 25 years ago than now, Osse says. “I always got less for a story or photo than male journalists,” she says. “And in the countries I visited, the inequality was even worse.”
The inspiration for Loonwijzer came from Intermediair’s existing Salary Compass in the Netherlands. “At the time, that was really only applicable to white middle-class men,” Osse says. “That could be better.”
At the time, she was working for the Dutch trade union FNV on a membership information website. She convinced the union that an inclusive salary check was a good fit for it. Together with scientist Kea Tijdens from the University of Amsterdam, she collected data and built Vrouwenloonwijzer.nl. Later it became Loonwijzer.nl, a website with work and wage information for everyone. Because the loonwijzer is only good and could grow independently, they thought it smarter to develop it further in a separate foundation outside the union.
‘Almost’ worldwide
“We now have websites in hundreds of countries,” Osse says. She is strict on the facts: WageIndicator Foundation operates ‘almost’ worldwide. Only a few countries are still missing. “Growing was not easy, as we had no money for a long time,” she says. “We were often tipped to focus on richer countries, where we would find lenders more easily. But that was exactly what we did not want, and I am glad we always stuck to that point of view. After all, even in poor countries, people need information on income and labour law.”
WageIndicator even has information on North Korea and all regions of China and Russia, she proudly explains. “We really want to be inclusive, we mean it.”
How do you build such a huge international network? Osse gets that question often and she has no golden tip. It almost came naturally, she says. “I was an international journalist so I already had a network in several countries. The university and the unions brought their own international contacts.”
‘We don’t have to see and smell each other’
People love working for WageIndicator and those who start working for the foundation once stay involved for a long time. There are nearly 300 employees working in more than 100 countries. It is a mix of full-timers, part-timers and students. There is no bureaucracy, and the input of interns is valued as much as that of veterans.
I can agree that it is a fun, quirky organisation, as I have been part of the team for over two years now. “There is a creative atmosphere,” says Osse. “Everyone loves making and working together. If you want help or information, you get a quick response.” Everyone works remotely and perhaps that is the secret, says Osse. “We don’t have to see and smell each other. As a result, maybe we tolerate and appreciate our colleagues longer.”
From minimum to living wage
WageIndicator started with information on salary, labour laws and minimum wage. But for some 80% of the world’s population, a minimum wage is not enough to live on, Osse knows. That is why, since 2014, the organisation also publishes the living wage or ‘living wage’. “That is the income someone needs to have a house, enough to eat and maybe a bicycle,” she says. “It is the minimum salary for a decent living.”
But not everyone gets a salary from a boss. That is why WageIndicator also calculates a “living income”, a living wage for entrepreneurial families who own a shop or farm, for example.
Third category: living tariff for platform workers
“Besides employees and entrepreneurs, there is another growing group of workers: gig workers or platform workers,” says Osse. “They do not work for a permanent employer, but they are not traditional entrepreneurs either. They work by the minute or by the hour, rather than by the month. With their way of working comes another kind of income: the ‘living tariff'”
Platform companies themselves came to WageIndicator asking for a living tariff, Osse says. “They want to pay decently, but didn’t know how to do it. It is also more complicated than calculating a living wage. What a minimum livable hourly rate is varies from person to person and situation to situation. It has to do with factors such as type of work, number of workable hours, pension and necessities such as a bike, laptop or computer.”
‘The joy is in the creation’
WageIndicator developed the living tariff for the Dutch market and is now developing it together with German GIZ for Indonesia, Pakistan and Kenya. “We especially want to investigate under which conditions such a rate is usable for workers and platform companies,” says Osse. We aim to publish a living tariff for 155 countries by the end of this year.”
Osse stresses that the information on living wages, income and tariffs does not necessarily stem from a mission to improve the world. “The joy is creation. We want to create something useful of good quality. If by doing so we help people on their way to fair remuneration, that’s cool.”
‘Not all platform workers are badly off’
Osse has a clear vision of the political debate on self-employed workers and platform work. “The government and unions are trying to force platform workers into a straitjacket, but that is not the solution,” she says. “Not all platforms are crooks and not all platform workers are badly off. Just really listen to them. They don’t want to be employed, they want freedom to work where, for whom and when they want. Help them with measures to match that.” She hopes the living tariff can contribute to the political debate.
I am working on this project and I expect even greater impact from this project outside than within the platform economy in the end. Platforms tend to ‘formalise’ an existing market like home cleaning and delivery. With this, this rate is also applicable to a huge group of workers who do not work through platforms. After all, for a rate, how client and contractor find each other is irrelevant.
Conclusion
WageIndicator’s story is inspiring in many ways. The foundation is all about serious business – data and income. That requires a solid structure, but it is not hierarchical or rigid. Cooperation is creative, enjoyable and there is plenty of room for initiative. The solid structure behind the scenes actually allows for experimentation.
While many organisations wait to innovate until someone else says it is allowed or pays the bill, WageIndicator works the other way round. The foundation has found a way to develop new projects in such a way that they contribute to the big picture and in turn generate new commissions and collaborations. This unusual way of working attracts the very attention of partners who fit the foundation.
WageIndicator is ambitious and down-to-earth. Everyone still works with one goal: transparency for workers, employers and policymakers worldwide. A topic that is more than relevant in the current labour market debate.
In Germany, crowdwork platforms concluded a code of conduct about 5 years ago to better serve workers. How successful is this initiative? And what can we learn from it?
In Germany, eight platforms have signed a code of conduct called the ‘Crowdsourcing Code’. This document contains agreed terms, including fair compensation for workers. The code is an initiative of Munich-based software testing platform Testbirds. This case has been mentioned in several surveys, but no one had yet bothered to really dive deep into it. So I boarded a train to Munich on behalf of the WageIndicator Foundation and spoke to Markus Steinhauser, Chief Operating Officer (COO) of crowdwork platform Testbirds and initiator of the code of conduct. In this blog, I share my insights.
How it started
The code of conduct was set up in 2015, when there was a negative perception about platforms in German politics and media. After meeting about this with other platform entrepreneurs, Markus took the initiative for a code of conduct to improve the position of platform workers. Eventually, eight platforms joined. These are all so-called ‘crowdwork’ platforms, where most of the work takes place online. The member platforms collectively serve more than two million platform workers.
The code
The code of conduct focuses specifically on crowdwork, because digital platform workers have different needs than, for example, taxi drivers or delivery workers. The code of conduct is based on a survey of workers and consultation among platforms. There are 10 principles:
Gigs correspond to laws and regulations
Clarification of legal situations
Fair payment
Motivating and good work
Respectful interactions
Clear tasks and within a reasonable time frame
Freedom and flexibility
Constructive feedback and open communication
Regulated approval process
Data protection and privacy
The crowdwork ombudsman
The ‘crowdwork ombudsman’ has also been part of the Code of Conduct since 2017. This is a body to which platform workers can turn in case of questions or conflicts with platforms. Since its establishment, this ombudsman has handled more than 100 cases.
Several voices are represented in the body:
A neutral chairman;
A representative of the German Crowdsourcing Association;
A representative of the German Trade Union Confederation (DGB);
A representative from one of the member platforms;
A platform worker registered with one of the affiliated platforms.
Trade union support
The code of conduct is also officially supported by the German Crowdsourcing Association (“Deutscher Crowdsourcing Verband”), and trade union IG Metall also joined in 2017. The union welcomes this form of self-regulation among platforms, but stresses that the government must eventually come up with regulations as well. This constructive attitude of the union is nice to see. The union movement certainly does not agree with everything the platforms do, but in this way it keeps its finger on the pulse and discovers new opportunities to support working people.
How attention wanes over time
The big challenge of such a code of conduct is how to maintain long-term motivation so that the initiative can grow. In 2015, the project had momentum and urgency, but today the attention of member platforms seems to be waning. Of the eight platforms, only two refer to the ombudsman. Only Testbirds clearly communicates the code of conduct on its website.
Hence, there is no active enforcement. Looking at the website through Waybackmachine.org over the years, nothing seems to have changed for a while. Since 2017, the principles, which are after all quite generic, have not evolved.
How it could be better
In the ideal world, the platforms would further develop the Crowdsourcing Code and actively involve workers in it. They would make the principles much more tangible and adhere to the code seriously. Those who do not would be disciplined for doing so. Platforms would work together to increase the number of affiliates: from platforms to public stakeholders.
In practice, the (mostly small) organisations are mostly concerned with the delusion of the day. Optimising the code of conduct is not part of the organisation’s core business. It is admirable how Markus has been committed to the code for eight years now while expanding his business abroad. But he cannot do it alone. For long-term success, such an initiative needs to be adopted over time by the various stakeholders. It must be worth something for platforms and unions to seriously build such an initiative. After all, trade unions also seem to be ‘guests’ when they could be equal partners.
Over time, the initiators could secure the code in a foundation with its own funding stream. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment could join. This would also strengthen the independence and reliability of the code: currently, participation is too non-committal for platforms. Such an initiative deserves much more attention and energy, so that it can grow and increase its impact.
Conclusion
The Crowdsourcing Code is a unique example that shows that it is possible to reach agreements between platforms. In addition, I like the fact that a union dares to cooperate, without approving all activities of platforms.
Although there is still a lot of potential in the initiative, I wonder whether the platforms alone will ever fully realise this. In doing so, it is important that all stakeholders take responsibility and are willing to independently underwrite the initiative. Above all, they must show ambition.
Good day! One minute you get a newsletter in your mailbox every week and the next you have to wait 3 weeks for it. As someone who loves surprises, I go for option 2 😉
Last weeks, I again participated in many events related to platforms in different roles, had the opportunity to contribute to great projects and work with professionals on almost all continents on this globe. How cool are the opportunities to work location-independent with tools to operate in international teams in an accessible way. Although, of course, it’s not about the tools, but how you collaborate and use the tools. Just as with platforms, (online) tools are facilitating and not leading. Should you think: with me it is the other way round, I would have a good discussion with yourself.
And although a lot is possible online and remote, it is also important to continue travelling (as responsibly as possible) and to speak to each other live. So that is the reason I ‘briefly’ took the train up and down to Munich in Germany this week for an interview with the person in charge of the Crowdsourcing Code: a code of conduct between 8 ‘crowdwork’ platforms in Germany. I did this for the WageIndicator’s new podcast: a podcast (and blog) on ‘global gig economy issues’. The first edition of this monthly podcast will go live in mid-April.
Enough introduction: for this edition I have again collected a number of relevant pieces for you and provided them with my interpretation and commentary. Enjoy the read and have a nice day!
The impact of algorithms and technology on the worker: the subject of part two of the European Platform Work Directive. For platforms offering ‘on demand’ jobs (taxi and delivery), the impact of the algorithm on finding, hiring and performing work is great and the worker is paid per job. Where it is often unclear exactly what the returns are.
In the early days of Uber, everyone was excited about the ‘surge pricing’ the company uses. If there is more demand than supply somewhere at a given time, prices rise. With this, demand goes down and supply goes up. At the time, many saw this as a perfect economic model of flexible pricing. The example of the hairdresser was often brought to mind: why do you pay the same for a haircut on Tuesday afternoon as on Friday evening, when demand is many times higher? Now it appears (and this is not overnight) that these ‘smart’ (or: ‘savvy’) technologies are able to root for and entice working people to do more than initially envisaged.
In the article “The house always wins: the algorithmic gamblification of work“, scientist Veena Dubal gives an interesting (and shocking) insight into the algorithms used by Uber to direct workers to be available as much as possible at the platform’s convenience. This is also because the risk of not working is at the worker’s expense: something that, in my opinion, is a very bad idea anyway.
In this article:
“In a new article, I draw on a multi-year, first-of-its-kind ethnographic study of organizing on-demand workers to examine these dramatic changes in wage calculation, coordination, and distribution: the use of granular data to produce unpredictable, variable, and personalized pay. Rooted in worker on-the-job experiences, I construct a novel framework to understand the ascent of digitalized variable pay practices, or the transferal of price discrimination from the consumer to the labor context, what I identify as algorithmic wage discrimination. As a wage-setting technique, algorithmic wage discrimination encompasses not only digitalized payment for work completed, but critically, digitalized decisions to allocate work and judge worker behavior, which are significant determinants of firm control.
Though firms have relied upon performance-based variable pay for some time, my research in the on-demand ride hail industry suggests that algorithmic wage discrimination raises a new and distinctive set of concerns. In contrast to more traditional forms of variable pay like commissions, algorithmic wage discrimination arises from (and functions akin to) to the practice of consumer price discrimination, in which individual consumers are charged as much as a firm determines they are willing to pay.
As a labor management practice, algorithmic wage discrimination allows firms to personalize and differentiate wages for workers in ways unknown to them, paying them to behave in ways that the firm desires, perhaps for as little as the system determines that they may be willing to accept. Given the information asymmetry between workers and the firm, companies can calculate the exact wage rates necessary to incentivize desired behaviors, while workers can only guess as to why they make what they do.”
You don’t have to be an activist to understand that such techniques are far from desirable. This piece includes the experiences of some drivers:
“Domingo, the longtime driver whose experience began this post, felt like over time, he was being tricked into working longer and longer, for less and less. As he saw it, Uber was not keeping its side of the bargain. He had worked hard to reach his quest and attain his $100 bonus, but he found that the algorithm was using that fact against him.”
I think it is important to let platforms take more responsibility in explaining their processes and having this validated by a trusted third party. The fact that platforms like Uber frame complexity as an added value for the worker is evident from this quote:
“If you joined Uber years ago, you will have joined when prices were quite simple. We set prices based on time and distance and then surge helped increase the price when demand was highest. Uber has come a long way since then, and we now have advanced technology that uses years of data and learning to find a competitive price for the time of day, location and distance of the trip.”
When someone takes pride in adding complexity, it should lead to suspicion by default. Because complexity can also be used to hide things. I wonder if upcoming European regulations will lead to less complexity and unclear processes for the worker. It should be a key issue for policymakers anyway.
Starting your own platform: where do you start and what is the route to take? That’s a question you can safely leave to the team at Sharetribe. Sharetribe offers a simple and straightforward tool for putting together your own ‘marketplace’ without any expertise in programming. I have known the company myself for about ten years, and even with the ‘build your own platform’ programme at the The Hague University of Applied Sciences, students with no prior knowledge easily built their own platform via Sharetribe.
Sharetribe invests a lot in content to help their clients successfully launch their own platform. They also have a stake in this: they only make money when their customers are successful. This has resulted in an impressive collection of valuable content. Last week, they added something new to this: an online video course:
This ten-step video course takes you through your marketplace journey all the way from idea to scaling your business. Each step is packed with the latest marketplace facts, actionable advice, and relevant case studies.
In an hour and a half, you will learn a nice foundation of the steps you need to go through to launch a successful platform.
It is almost inevitable that you have seen OpenAI’s insane tool ChatGPT pass by or possibly tried it yourself. An impressive chatbot that you can ask any question, only to get a comprehensive and detailed answer. Many sectors, including education, are anxiously considering what to do with such a tool. I have tried the tool myself and it is really impressive. For instance, before the workshop on platform economy and education, I asked what are important topics for education and platform economy. A rather general and vague question. You can see the result in the image at the bottom of this piece.
ChatGPT is yet another development that, as with AI and algorithms, seems like a kind of magic black box. It almost seems like magic: everything happens by itself. But…. is that really the case? Certainly not. Both in training and execution, there are always loose ends. For instance, many tech companies use platforms like Amazon Mechanical Turk: a platform where people all over the world (and especially pieces of the world where you can get by on very little income and where people have little alternative) perform mini jobs of a few seconds via a platform: so-called ‘clickwork’. This involves recognising images, but also resolving loose ends of seemingly automatic systems. Content moderation of platforms like Facebook is also designed according to these principles. Not always pure platform, but similar principles.
Mary Gray wrote a fascinating book on so-called clickwork: “Ghost Work – How to stop Silocon Valley from building a new global underclass“. Timm O’Reily wrote the following about this book: “The Wachowskis got it wrong. Humans aren’t batteries for The Matrix, we are computer chips. In this fascinating book, Gray and Suri show us just how integral human online task workers are to the development of AI and the seamless operation of all the great internet services. Essential reading for anyone who wants to understand our technology-infused future.” Highly recommended.
“To build that safety system, OpenAI took a leaf out of the playbook of social media companies like Facebook, who had already shown it was possible to build AIs that could detect toxic language like hate speech to help remove it from their platforms. The premise was simple: feed an AI with labeled examples of violence, hate speech, and sexual abuse, and that tool could learn to detect those forms of toxicity in the wild. That detector would be built into ChatGPT to check whether it was echoing the toxicity of its training data, and filter it out before it ever reached the user. It could also help scrub toxic text from the training datasets of future AI models.
To get those labels, OpenAI sent tens of thousands of snippets of text to an outsourcing firm in Kenya, beginning in November 2021. Much of that text appeared to have been pulled from the darkest recesses of the internet. Some of it described situations in graphic detail like child sexual abuse, bestiality, murder, suicide, torture, self harm, and incest.”
OpenAI considers this work very important: “Classifying and filtering harmful [text and images] is a necessary step in minimising the amount of violent and sexual content included in training data and creating tools that can detect harmful content.” The article’s authors are rightly critical after their research: “But the working conditions of data labelers reveal a darker part of that picture: that for all its glamour, AI often relies on hidden human labor in the Global South that can often be damaging and exploitative. These invisible workers remain on the margins even as their work contributes to billion-dollar industries.”
ChatGPT remains an impressive tool, but surely the magic is a lot less (clean) than the tech optimists try to make us believe. Andrew Strait describes it powerfully in the piece: “They’re impressive, but ChatGPT and other generative models are not magic – they rely on massive supply chains of human labour and scraped data, much of which is unattributed and used without consent”
What can we learn from this?
While the insights from this story alone are interesting on their own, I think it’s important to look further. What can we learn from this case study.
For one thing, it shows that these kinds of tools feast on the work of others: scrapping content created by others and low-paid moderators and workers. It is the bright minds who devise and build systems to do this and get away with the credit and money, but I think it is important to (re)recognise more that this content does not fall from the sky and there may be a necessary discussion about how fair and desirable this is.
I would also like to broaden that discussion a bit. I regularly speak to very committed scientists with a clear opinion about what is ‘fair’ who meanwhile use Amazon Mechanical Turk for their research. I understand that this is incredibly convenient, but then of course you also have butter on your head. A good conversation about fair treatment and remuneration of everyone in the chain is something that is missing from many innovations. A conversation that, as far as I am concerned, could be had more often. People who perform clickwork are a kind of ‘disposable labour’. The moment they are no longer needed, no one will care. And because of this, it is only right that the authors of Ghostwork and of this article point out the facts to us.
Airbnb and regulation: it is an issue that has been around for quite a few years. Earlier, national regulations were introduced in the Netherlands and now this is being extended to European regulations. I think a good step for everyone.
The regulations will also be accompanied by a European tool: “The Commission is coming up with a single European data tool for exchanging information on holiday rentals between platforms and local authorities. Platforms will now have to share, in places where rules apply, data every month on how ma
ny nights a house or flat has been rented out and to how many people.”
It would also be good to secure the knowledge and research in a central location alongside this tool, so that not every city has to reinvent the wheel itself. Furthermore, I am (very) curious about the implementation of this. Connecting the platform and the central European tool: that’s probably fine. But what about the translation to the individual systems of the municipalities (a link with the land registry in the Netherlands, for instance, seems light years away, and we are a country in the digital vanguard…) and what are the privacy risks involved? I will keep following this.
About and contact
What impact does the platform economy have on people, organisations and society? My fascination with this phenomenon started in 2012. Since then, I have been seeking answers by engaging in conversation with all stakeholders involved, conducting research and participating in the public debate. I always do so out of wonder, curiosity and my independent role as a professional outsider.
I share my insights through my Dutch and English newsletters, presentations and contributions in (international) media and academic literature. I also wrote several books on the topic and am founder of GigCV, a new standard to give platform workers access to their own data. Besides all my own projects and explorations, I am also a member of the ‘gig team’ of the WageIndicator Foundation and am part of the knowledge group of the Platform Economy research group at The Hague University of Applied Science.
Need inspiration and advice or research on issues surrounding the platform economy? Or looking for a speaker on the platform economy for an online or offline event? Feel free to contact me via a reply to this newsletter, via email (martijn@collaborative-economy.com) or phone (0031650244596).
Also visit my YouTube channel with over 300 interviews about the platform economy and my personal website where I regularly share blogs about the platform economy. Interested in my photos? Then check out my photo page.
