‘Scale doesn’t excuse shifting all risk to workers’: Hidden power gap in India’s gig economy

When delivery partners called for strikes across cities on New Year’s Eve, the disruption was brief. Orders flowed, deliveries stayed on schedule, and platforms avoided open confrontation. Labour researchers say this wasn’t a coincidence — it reflects the structure of India’s gig economy. 

“The biggest reason that the strike failed on Dec 31 is labour oversupply and fragmentation,” says Dr Anjana Karumathil, Associate Professor of Practice at IIM Kozhikode, who researches India’s gig economy. “Even if one fragment stops working, there are always others available who don’t share the same agenda. That itself weakens collective action.” 

Platform leaders often present this resilience as evidence of fairness. In a recent post, Zomato founder Deepinder Goyal argued that gig work is flexible, voluntary and mostly a secondary income source. A system that consistently draws and retains workers, he suggested, can’t be fundamentally unfair. 

But Karumathil challenges that logic. “India’s labour laws have only just begun recognising gig workers, and that too without defining them as employees,” she says. Under the Code on Social Security, 2020, gig and platform workers qualify for social security registration, but not for basic protections like minimum wages, fixed hours or collective bargaining. “The platform still controls demand, allocates tasks, determines pay and enforces discipline through opaque algorithms, without being held accountable.” 

That imbalance also explains why strikes can be neutralised quietly. Platforms don’t need to fire anyone or involve the police. Oversupply ensures replacements. Algorithmic controls — such as incentives, surge pricing, or deactivations — manage labour supply in real time. Workers who log off risk losing income or being deactivated without warning. “At least 60–70% of blue-collar gig workers have faced deactivation at some point, often without explanation,” Karumathil notes. 

Earnings debates add further complexity. While platforms cite average payouts of Rs 20,000–22,000 and the freedom to log in or out, researchers highlight income volatility. “Flexibility only works when there is predictable access to work, transparent pay and the freedom to exit without penalty,” Karumathil says. “When earnings fluctuate wildly, social security is absent and bargaining power is weak, it’s not flexibility — it’s precarity.” 

From a legal lens, incremental protections may be more feasible. According to Siddharth Chandrashekhar, Advocate & Counsel at the Bombay High Court, the Code on Social Security formally recognises gig and platform workers and mandates aggregator contributions to a fund for benefits like health cover and pensions, via e-Shram registration. “Without reclassifying gig workers as traditional employees, the law can still introduce minimum safeguards—baseline earnings principles, safety standards and protection against arbitrary deactivation,” he says. Such steps, he adds, could reduce uncertainty while keeping flexibility intact. 

Some recent worker demands — such as fixed monthly income, permanent employment, and full benefits — are understandable, Chandrashekhar says, but clash with the task-based nature of gig work. A more realistic solution, he suggests, lies in guaranteed earnings, safety norms and structured dispute mechanisms. 

Platforms have expanded access to work in an economy where nearly 90% of jobs are informal. But, as Karumathil notes, “Scale alone cannot justify business models that shift all risk to workers.” Until enforceable safeguards take hold, platforms will keep absorbing worker resistance — quietly, efficiently, and by design.