K’taka Bill misses gig workers’ primary ask
The Bill has important provisions for platform workers but fails to define their employment status, as a result of which they have little recourse to legal protection under the labour laws
The government of Karnataka recently introduced a Bill called the Karnataka Platform-based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Bill, 2024. The Karnataka government’s Bill is the latest legislative attempt to regulate the relationship between gig, or platform, workers and the digital platforms they work for (such as Uber, Ola and Swiggy). Legislation has long been needed, as — for the moment — existing labour laws are not applied to platform workers. Platforms classify them as “partners,” use this classification to avoid labour laws, and the terms and conditions of work are determined by contract. However, the vast disparity of power between platforms and their workers means that not only do workers have no meaningful bargaining power in shaping the terms of these contracts, but also, the terms of work are frequently and unilaterally altered.
In some respects, the Karnataka Bill follows its predecessor law that was passed in Rajasthan last year. It envisions the setting up of a welfare board, which will be funded through cess-like contributions, as well as being funded by the state and central governments. It guarantees access to social security schemes for platform workers. And it introduces certain basic safeguards — such as a 14 days’ notice before dismissal— that can help forestall arbitrary action by platforms.
Unfortunately, however, the Bill fails to address the rather significant elephant in the room: The employment status of gig workers, and the rights they can claim by virtue of that status. This is a legal battle that has been taking place in multiple countries across the world. Broadly, and at the risk of some simplification, many countries’ labour laws are applicable to a class of workers commonly known as “employees”, or those in an “employment relationship.” In order to get around having to adhere to labour laws (which would include the payment of minimum wages, overtime and holiday pay, obligations of non-discrimination and non-interference with unionisation, protections against dismissal and so on), platforms across the world have claimed that they do not actually “employ” anyone, but only serve as a conduit for people to offer services for consumers. For example, a company like Uber argues that it is not in the business of transport, but that it is a “digital service.”
With a few exceptions, lawmakers and courts have been sceptical of these claims — and rightly so. Many of the platforms under discussion exert a significant amount of power and control over workers, through the device of the algorithm that underlies the so-called “digital service” (or, in common parlance, the “app”).
They fix wages (and unilaterally alter them), exercise disciplinary powers (by kicking individuals off the app, especially if their ratings go down), and enjoy asymmetric control over information through their control over the proprietary software that runs the app. For this reason, even though modern-day digital platforms do not resemble the classic image of the factory and the workers on the shop floor, courts and legislators have frequently held that for the purposes of labour law, platform workers are employees and not partners.
Such a finding is crucial because, as noted here, the employment relationship — or the legal status of employment — is the gateway for workers to access the basic labour rights that mitigate the imbalance of power between workers and corporations. In this context, the Karnataka Bill’s silence on the issue of employment status appears to be by design and is a serious shortcoming. Mere access to social security schemes (which is also promisedby the centrally-enacted new labour codes, which are yet to come into force) is not a sufficient substitute for employment status: Indeed, it is no substitute at all, as State largesse cannot substitute for labour rights.
As anyone who reads the newspapers knows, some of the most shocking stories of exploitation and workers’ suffering in recent times have come from the gig, or platform industry. We hear of workers being run into the ground, of having to perform deliveries in blazing heat or dangerous rains, of having no recourse against arbitrary downgrading of wages or against dismissal. The reason for this is simple: Platform workers, at present, do not have recourse to law and legal rights — in particular, the rights guaranteed by labour laws (although there are pending petitions in the Supreme Court seeking this status through judicial declaration).
Any new legislation that does not recognise and remedy this, for all its pious words, risks turning into a sham. One, therefore, hopes that the Karnataka government consider amending the Bill and clarifying that the default status (unless established otherwise) is that platform workers are employees and entitled to the rights and benefits under the nation’s labour laws.
Gautam Bhatia is a Delhi-based advocate. The views expressed are personal