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.

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?”

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:

1. Gigs correspond to laws and regulations
2. Clarification of legal situations
3. Fair payment
4. Motivating and good work
5. Respectful interactions
6. Clear tasks and within a reasonable time frame
7. Freedom and flexibility
8. Constructive feedback and open communication
9. Regulated approval process
10. 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:

1. A neutral chairman;
2. A representative of the German Crowdsourcing Association;
3. A representative of the German Trade Union Confederation (DGB);
4. A representative from one of the member platforms;
5. 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.

Listen to the podcast with Markus Steinhauser, COO of Testbirds and founder of the Crowdsourcing Code.