Email Newspaper opinion columns and other online platforms (Twitter, Substack and Instagram) were swamped with a call for a strike by Gig Workers on New Year’s Eve. Everyone has an opinion about gig work in India. Many intellectuals and policy analysts seemed to argue that gig work is an efficient outcome and maximises welfare, while criticising unions and customers who supported this workers’ campaign. As a customer who joined the boycott, I find these arguments not only misplaced but fundamental misunderstanding of the whole issue. The distortion of reality begins with the terminology itself. The oft-repeated argument is that workers aren’t ‘workers’, but delivery ‘partners’. They are entrepreneurs working with platforms to earn money in exchange for their labour. They exercise ‘agency’. In reality, they do not. This is an essential discursive mechanism pushed by platforms to get rid of statutory employment obligations even when they continue to exercise managerial control over them. Significant research has delved into algorithmic management and has analysed the nudges used to influence workers. Platforms like Uber, Zomato, and Swiggy penalise workers for not logging in during peak hours or declining delivery jobs. This sounds more like a boss in an IT firm than an open, free marketplace facilitating equal exchange. Does it then matter that the boss is an algorithm rather than a human? Under the current arrangement, workers are not free agents or entrepreneurs. They are controlled like employees and should be treated like them. This implies that platforms must be liable for statutory obligations: a guaranteed minimum wage, contributions to the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) for social security, and comprehensive accident insurance. Platforms have also found defenders in neoliberal economists, armed with their clean graphs and equations to satisfy the current equilibrium. Their argument rests on the premise of a highly price-sensitive Indian market. They warn that any government intervention to raise ‘labour costs’—such as mandating minimum wages—would force platforms to hike delivery fees. This, they argue, would inevitably crush consumer demand, shrink the market size, and ultimately leave the very workers we intend to help unemployed. The underlying assumption here is that the market is perfectly competitive. It is not. These ‘markets’ are monopsonies—markets where a single buyer (the platform) exercises immense power over sellers (the workers). This allows the platforms to drive down wages significantly below competitive market prices. Moreover, the customers these platforms serve are essentially urban elites who aren’t as price-sensitive as claimed. The 10-minute delivery model caters to the convenience of an upper-middle class elite that uses these platforms to save time. For a consumer ordering a ₹400 coffee at their doorstep, a marginal fee increase to fund a living wage is unlikely to break the bank. The demand in this segment is inelastic because what is being sold is not just a product, but the luxury of time. On the one hand, customers have been called price-sensitive; on the other, they have been asked to be nice by tipping. Customers should exercise their ‘agency’ and tip more to improve workers’ welfare. This sounds like a kind gesture. It surely is. But in this act of kindness, the platform secures a sinister victory in its attempt to socialise its costs. Platforms evade all forms of responsibility. They do not own the delivery vehicles; workers own or lease them and pay for the fuel. They do not pay for their workers’ social security and, as seen, do not pay minimum wages. So, when they ask you to tip the workers, they socialise their costs once again. Even after socialising all these costs, platforms still don’t seem to be making money. Sounds very economical indeed! Finally, critics also chided the customers who joined the boycott, accusing them of stealing the workers’ agency. They did not! Gig workers’ movements worldwide have benefited from customer support. Platforms employ both algorithmic and physical tactics to fissure the workers. Studies have found that Uber tracked drivers’ movements specifically to prevent attempts to organise. In the face of such pressures against worker organising and an algorithmic, non-human boss, customers hold leverage over the platform. Workers appealed to the customers to use this leverage. And they did. It was not a reaction to the daily experience of inequality. They have seen inequality every day, even before Zomato existed. Customers did not boycott out of pity; they acted because, in a market devoid of fair rules, solidarity is the only remaining corrective mechanism. Subscribe to Our Newsletter