Food for Thought: A Survey on the Nature of Work Precarity in Platform-Based On-Demand Work

Abstract

This study aims to empirically understand the precarity of food delivery work at online platforms particularly during the COVID-19-led devastations. Food delivery workers are the new form of the global phenomenon in the labour market. This is a result of access to cheap internet and smartphones among customers, which has enabled the platform to create a new form of labour market. Platform-based food aggregators use the terminology of 'delivery partners’ for these workers which alters the traditional employer-employee relationships, allowing corporations to evade labour-related responsibilities. This makes working conditions at digital platforms highly precarious and is reflected by low income and the non-existence of labour welfare measures. The COVID-19 pandemic and resultant lockdowns have worsened the precarious nature of on-demand work. It has caused a massive loss of livelihoods and erosion of income, showing the importance of traditional employer-employee relationships. These precarious working conditions call for affirmative actions in the form of regulations.

Introduction

The outbreak of COVID-19 and the subsequent nationwide lockdowns endangered the livelihood of the informal workers (92 per cent of total workforce) in India (International Labour Organisation, 2019). It caused a massive shock effect in the economy, as the Gross Domestic Product shrunk by 7.4 per cent (National Statistical Office, 2022) causing job loss and making workers highly vulnerable. The lockdown was a draconian act; it locked the entire population (1.35 billion) inside without provisions for supply of essentials. In the absence of social protection, it also made informal workers highly defenceless. Evidently, this has adversely impacted the unrecognised workers attached to online platforms, particularly in urban India (Parwez and Meena, 2021).

The ‘platform economy’ in India emerged after the financial crisis of 2008-09 and heavily relies on venture capital for its rapid growth. It mobilised the available surplus urban workers in an insecure work arrangement (Parwez, 2015; Sundararajan, 2016). There is development of a plethora of digital platform intermediaries, not only operating in food delivery services but also in transportation (Uber, Ola), groceries (Bigbasket, Grofers), hospitality (Airbnb), medicines (NetMed, 1mg), household chores (Urban Company) and many others. Workers associated with these platforms are either self-employed or independent contractors on zero-hours contracts indicating an informal work arrangement. Traditionally, informal work is low-paid, low in quality and based on low skill levels (Srnicek, 2017; Kalleberg, 2018; Veen et al., 2020). Mostly, these workers are from socio-economically vulnerable groups working for platforms of on-demand services in the most precarious working conditions (Standing, 2016; Rubery et al., 2018; Schor et al., 2020).

Precarity in on-demand work allows work arrangements between platforms and workers not to be defined by traditional employer-employee relationships. As a result, companies could avoid compliance with labour laws and welfare measures. Furthermore, platform-based on-demand work increases precarity in work with hidden and engrained distinct types of controls, rankings, feedback, and rating systems (Parwez, 2015; Gandini, 2019).

There is no recognised definition of on-demand work; however, the International Labour Organisation (2016) termed non-standard work part-time, temporary, multi-party, disguised, and dependent self-employment. Non-standard work is also associated with fixed tenure and sub-contraction (Parwez, 2016). Kalleberg (2018) signify non-standard work with uncertainty, unpredictability, and risk.

In India, Zomato and Swiggy are the two major food aggregator platforms providing on-demand food delivery services. They are riding on the fast growth (25-30 per cent/year) of the food delivery industry which is likely to be touching $8 billion by the end of 2022 (Google and Boston Consulting Group, 2020). It has created considerable employment opportunities, but prevailing work arrangements also raise the question on the kind of employment.

Work precarity is not only about the contractual work arrangements but also reflects on hidden working conditions managed by the internet-based control systems (Gandini, 2019). Precarious working conditions is essentially owing to lower pay, employment conditions, lack of social protection, and occupational stress in the absence of collective actions. But in the case of on-demand work, precarity is primarily caused by the terminology 'delivery partners’ for workers (Standing, 2016; Srnicek, 2017; Stewart and Stanford, 2017; Rubery et al., 2018; Veen et al., 2020).

Based on these premises and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the present study aims to understand the working conditions of food delivery workers associated with platform-based food aggregators in India. It is an emerging area of study in India that has lacked the focus of academia for some time. This study draws evidence from qualitative interviews to understand the facets of on-demand work, contributing to an empirical understanding of delivery work and aggravation due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Literature review

Labour flexibility in work arrangements is a highly debatable concept and considered a central feature in the reorganisation of the labour market in the last decade. It is largely an outcome of the globalisation of production, distribution, and consumption in the neoliberal era which seeks mobile and flexible work arrangements (Moore and Joyce, 2020). It refers to the flexibility in location, mobility, and schedule – and benefits employers to a far greater extent than workers.

However, in practice flexibility is essentially about the absence of social protection and benefits (Parwez, 2015; Standing, 2016). This ensures workers operate in the absence of a labour union, resulting in weak bargaining power facilitating precarious working conditions (Snyder, 2016). It has enabled a burgeoning platform economy ¹ in a prevailing capitalist system in which the workforce offers tools of production synchronised by the online management and control systems (Srnicek, 2017).

The capitalist system is often at the centre of the struggle between capital and labour (Coase, 1937). Although capitalism reflects both firm and labour as equivalents in a contractual relationship, evidence from the literature suggests otherwise (Sundararajan, 2016; Stewart and Stanford, 2017; Perkiss, 2018; Moore and Joyce, 2020). It simply suggests the labour process theory, where capital uses surplus labour to provide services to customers. This emphasises food delivery workers are controlled by platforms, reflecting on Marx’s (1867) idea of organisation of work under capitalism. The capital expansion via technology is promoting a greater system of exploitation where labour value is less than the value of the product of the workers. This is exploitation because the exploited receive wages or benefits less than the average productivity of labour.

An emerging platform-based economy has given new meaning to working in different work organisations. It is mainly because online platforms are essentially internet-enabled, exceedingly precarious and commodified work arrangements (Standing, 2016; Srnicek, 2017; Rubery et al., 2018). Platforms are predominantly considered a continuation of neoliberalism (Zwick, 2018; Gandini, 2019), with increasing financialisation (Lapavitsas, 2011), fissurisation (Weil, 2014), precarisation of work (Rubery et al., 2018), characterised by internet-enabled Taylorism (Cherry and Antonio, 2017) and postcapitalism (Heeks, 2017; Perkiss, 2018).

In theory, online platforms instantly link labour with the customer, making a two-way digital market (Hall and Krueger, 2015; Srnicek, 2017). It is the re-organisation of on-demand work coordinated by an internet-based shadow company (Parwez, 2015; Perkiss, 2018). This reflects on platform-based delivery work, which showcases a relationship between labour and firm. There are ‘click-work’ platforms ² employing labour for small online tasks (Gandini, 2019). Further, another form of online platform emerged as a meeting place for labour with clients ³ (Parwez, 2015), and on-demand work ⁴ includes delivery services managed by platform aggregators (Stewart and Stanford, 2017). Food aggregators such as Zomato and Swiggy ⁵ in delivery services fall into this category. This work arrangement allows platforms to profit with a percentage share of each transaction. It could be another example of rent-seeking behaviour (Perkiss, 2018).

This pursuit of flexible and autonomous labour resulted in the de-standardisation and casualisation of labour relations (Schor et al., 2020). Briken et al. (2017) observes on-going labour process is largely an outcome of the post-Fordist revolution, wherein advancement in technology plays a critical role in the high automation of labour and degradation of work (Griesbach et al., 2019). It is visible among gig workers, independent contractors, zero-hours workers, freelancers, and contingent workers engaged in low-paid and low-skilled work (Veen et al., 2020). The advanced technology in the form of internet and smart phones allows flexibility in time and location, which encourages non-attainment of responsibility as an employer serving the interests of the platform companies (Fidler, 2016). This arm’s-length relationship between platform and worker makes for a work arrangement which causes non-standard working conditions (Fidler, 2016). This arrangement facilitates the transfer of work-related risks from firm to labour (De Stefano, 2016). For instance, not all work arrangements are established by written contract, which allows for the exclusion of social protection and exposes workers to market forces (Parwez, 2016; Piasna and Drahokoupil, 2019).

Conversely, work precarity is not only restricted to an explicit issue or linked to a social group (young, women, and educated); it reflects on non-standard or temporary employment characterised by low wage, insecurity, social protection, and unable to support a household (Parwez, 2015; Veen et al., 2020). This precarisation of work results from ‘neoliberal’ policies (Bourdieu, 1998) and capital dominance (Fidler, 2016; Moore and Joyce, 2020) which tend to put profit ahead of workers’ welfare.

Much of the literature focuses on the algorithm-based platform’s unique characteristics (Rosenblat and Stark, 2016; Griesbach et al., 2019), changing the nature of work and labour laws (Cherry and Antonio, 2017; Veen et al., 2020). However, there is insufficient attention to work arrangements and exploitative labour practices of platform-based on-demand work.

Research methods

This study follows the inductive approach to understanding work precarity in on-demand food delivery work associated with platforms. It is based on the qualitative empirical data collected from the food delivery workers during the field interaction conducted in the Jaipur district. The choice of Jaipur was meant to deviate from general metropolitan-based studies to understand the experiences of food delivery workers in a relatively small city. Furthermore, the restriction on movement (lockdown) during pandemics also limited the fieldwork to the Jaipur area.

Respondents were informed about the study’s purpose and consented to the interview. This study uses a qualitative case approach to capture data, employing a multi-tier engagement approach with respondents. It facilitated the adoption of purposive and consequent snowball sampling owing to inadequate opportunities for interactions caused by COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown norms. Only those respondents who worked in either of two food aggregators (Zomato and Swiggy) during the COVID-19 pandemic and before were chosen. It allowed us to interview thirty-seven delivery workers (Appendix 1), and two focus group discussions (FGD) consisting of seven and nine respondents, leading to interactions with a total of fifty-three workers. In these interviews, we tried to capture the various aspects of food delivery work and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic-led lockdown based on a semi-structured questionnaire.

Further, FGD was conducted at the gates of two of the popular restaurants in the area, where several workers tend to wait for their orders. All interviews were conducted from September to November 2020, during the COVID-19 first wave. The interviews were face-to-face in the Hindi language for better understanding. Each interview lasted twenty-five to thirty-five minutes, and the focused group discussions took about thirty to fifty minutes.

Preliminary exchanges were frontal street intercepts because the lockdown norms constrained mobility. The COVID-19 pandemic, lockdowns and the varied socio-economic backgrounds of workers meant diverse interview subtleties. For instance, street interaction occurred while we made an order for food or whilst delivery workers were waiting for orders outside the eateries. Respondents seldom left interviews midway; in some cases, we were able to finish the interview at a later stage.

To analyse the qualitative interviews, we used thematic classification to identify themes in the interview data. It allowed the identification of patterns in the responses, capturing several facets of precarious working conditions in on-demand delivery work. Questions were primarily focused on working conditions – earnings, welfare processes, social protection, labour union, social stigma, organisational indifference, health threat, and app-based control systems. A list of selected questions is provided in Appendix 2 for further reference.

Not all respondents operated exclusively for one platform, with three indicating association with another. Furthermore, nineteen respondents exclusively operated on behalf of Zomato, and the remaining eighteen operated for Swiggy. Respondents used diverse modes of transport: 84 per cent utilised motorbikes, and 16 per cent employed scooters. All respondents were men and young, falling into the age group of eighteen-to-thirty-three years. Also, twenty-eight workers were from Jaipur, and nine workers were from other districts of Rajasthan. Educationally, all respondents were formally educated from primary education to post-graduate level.

Results: food delivery work and pandemic

COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns caused havoc in India’s labour market. The situation instigated the forfeiture of millions of jobs and endangered many more, creating an uncertain and precarious future for livelihoods. As a result, on-demand food delivery is one of the most affected sectors as physical movement and contact is necessary to render services, adding to the misery of delivery workers.

On-demand food delivery work: working hard but earning less

Even though workers are imperative for food delivery, they are also principal risk-takers in the delivery cycle. Evidently, the on-demand model tends to increase the work precarity by shifting the economic risks from firm to labour (Interviews 3, 5, 8, 11-12, 17-18, 25-26, 30 and 35). To ensure this, food aggregators enter into a contractual relationship with a fleet of motorcyclists. In order to become a food delivery worker, one needs to own a bike/scooter and a smartphone with an internet connection. It looks simple and convenient while ensuring minimum regulatory risks.

Participant (35) said, ‘I want to leave this job; it is very tiring, low income and no saving. I cannot do this all my life, but there is no other option available. What to do?’

Participant (6) said, ‘I am not getting enough orders to earn a reasonable incentive, even though I work extra hours, but all in vain’.

Working hard and earning less is a common phenomenon in the food delivery space. Lack of employment opportunities and limited income has created a desperate situation for many food delivery workers (Interviews 4, 6, 13, 18-19, 27, 32 and 34). Low income, occupational stress, and no social protection makes on-demand work extremely precarious (Raj, 2020). This is reflected in the absenteeism of employment rights and social security measures in on-demand food delivery work (Piasna and Drahokoupil, 2019).

Participant (8) said, ‘I have worked for both Swiggy and Zomato, the situation is the same, and they do not care about us.’

Participant (32) said, ‘I cannot complete my daily target as there are not enough orders. Every day, I start food delivery from eight in the morning to eleven in the night, just to remain employed’.

All workers invest about ten to twelve hours daily, but a low quantity of orders and new rate cards have only led to a meagre income that is not enough. Workers cannot even feed their family or pay house rent, let alone the expenses of education and healthcare.

Participant (4) said, ‘Before Corona, I used to earn enough to survive, but with lockdown, there was no income for months’.

Participant (10) said, ‘With zero savings and low income, I was forced to take a loan from my relatives, but I am finding it difficult to pay them back’.

Precarious working conditions in delivery work also expose the notion of so-called autonomy and flexibility (timing) in on-demand work (Interviews 2, 4, 7, 17, 25, 28, 30 and 35). These adjectives are mainly used to designate workers as ‘delivery partners’ to avoid legal responsibility and reduce labour costs.

Participant (30) said, ‘You can be your boss, and you can work as you wish but considering low salary, one cannot choose.’

Participant (16) said, ‘Every day I am forced to work twelve hours a day with little earning. The flexibility in work hours is used to be an incentive for me, but today it does not mean anything’.

For food aggregators, ratings given by customers are crucial; they indicate the quality of the food and delivery. Customers, before ordering food, rely on ratings for the quality of food and eateries. Even though these ratings are reflective of independent perspectives on food, most of the time on delivery workers will always ask (request) for five-star ratings because incentives also depend on customers’ ratings on each delivery. This practice of forcing workers to plead for ratings reflects the nature of the work.

Every food delivery worker tends to request the following quote ‘please give the five ratings’. It is always an emotional pitch (Interviews 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12-14, 17, 21, 26, 28-29, 32-33, and 36).

Platform aggregators positing labour market challenges

The challenges posited by the on-demand platforms have severe implications for labour market and working conditions. On-demand food delivery work is based on digital management system which restricts workers’ awareness of processes. The online platform’s discrete control features let them manage physically-dispersed labour and to systematise services. This ensures arm’s length relationships between platforms and labour.

Participant (17) said, ‘They call us partners but do not care about us. We are not even officially workers just slaves to them.’

Participant (3) said, ‘Once I was delivering food in an outlying area, and some anti-social element robbed me with food, phone, and cash. I was also threatened with physical assault. I tried to call our field manager, but the call got diverted to customer care.’

Further, control is exercised with the system of reward and punishment. The work composition is mainly based on percentages and incentives, encouraging workers to take as many orders as possible. Food delivery in time is mandatory at platforms; failure leads to strikes against the name. It facilitates platform-based labour process control, extracting surplus labour value. This work arrangement symbolises a dystopian system based on digital instruments tracking and monitoring of workers. Information asymmetry is a modus operandi of platforms which limits possibilities for delivery workers. The opaqueness of the various aspects of the app influences the labour process, preventing informed decisions from the worker’s perspective (Interviews 1, 7, 11-12, 15, 18, 22-23, 27, 31 and 33).

Participant (12) said, ‘Everything happens through the mobile app. I do not know how it works.’

Further, welfare provision such as health insurance provided by platforms is based on pre-pandemic rules which do not deliver any protection from COVID-19 pandemic-led health consequences. However, even in pre-pandemic times, health insurance was of little help, considering prior experiences with the insurance claims (Interviews 1, 6, 8, 13, 17, 19-20, 25-26, 28, and 32-33).

Participant (8) said, ‘Three months ago, one of my friends met in an accident and lost his life while driving hurriedly to deliver food on a rainy day; his motorcycle slipped and got skid to road divider and died due to head and ribs injury. There was no help from the company, and his family could not even claim medical insurance’.

Participant (19) said, ‘I met a fatal accident and fractured the arm while delivering the food. This accident left me seriously injured, and I could not be able to work for five months. Later I tried to claim medical insurance, but there was no relief even after many attempts’.

Most workers have difficulty in comprehending the language of medical insurance: often text is complex/ambiguous. For instance, workers are uninformed of the processes for claiming insurance money, coverage periods, types of medical care, eligible hospitals, and more.

Inequitable labour conditions circumvent India’s complex and inadequate labour systems, making workers vulnerable to unforeseen eventualities.

Collective actions

Collective actions are imperative in the prevailing work environment to defend labour rights. The collective action is primarily denoted by unionisation, but it has been challenging for platform-based delivery workers. However, there are only a few labour unions for food delivery workers in India. This makes any organisation of a protest or resistance difficult (Interviews 2, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 16-17, 22-23, 25-26, 29, 31, and 37). It is predominantly entrenched in the cultural precariousness of platforms, which discourages any form of unionisation and collective actions.

Participant (11) said, ‘There is a union that wants us to be part of the protest, but I do not want to; I need this job’.

Participant (37) said, ‘Many have asked me why not strike or form a union but do not know what to do’.

Even though there are several trade unions, including the Indian Delivery Lions Association (IDLA) ⁶ , an association with 5,000 gig workers operating in Jaipur, food delivery workers are largely unaware (Interviews 1-3, 5, 10-11, 13, 17, 21, 26, 28-29 and 33). IDLA has demanded financial assistance and safety measures for delivery workers for some time without any success. It is attributed to the complexity of platform-based on-demand work arrangements and lack of recognition from the government agencies (Interviews 7, 12, 15, 18, 26 and 31).

Participant (26) said, ‘We (food delivery workers) do not have any labour union, and I also do not know about there is any union for us’.

However, in the last few years, increasing work precarity has caused serious dissension among delivery workers, which has led to protests and agitations. For instance, delivery workers have protested in Delhi, Chennai, Bengaluru, and Hyderabad against wage reduction and the absence of social security. All India Gig Workers Union has been active in raising their voice but could not be able to convince platforms to take social security measures.

There are cases of unionisation and protests for delivery workers, particularly in the COVID-19 pandemic times. For example, IDLA took the issues of food delivery workers to the authorities in Jaipur, but nothing has changed. The Indian Federation of App-Based Transport Workers, which exemplifies gig workers, is working towards reducing workers’ vulnerabilities, but the results are far from the desired level. The Labour union, namely Marathi Kamgar Sena and Maharashtra Navnirman Kamgar Sena, have raised voices with protest marches for equality and labour rights for gig workers in Mumbai, but there has been limited success. The Centre of Indian Trade Unions has backed gig workers in Kerala, Telangana, West Bengal, and Andhra Pradesh for labour rights. United Food Delivery Partners and Namma Chalakka Trade Union in Bengaluru have demanded regulation of the platform and fixed wages for delivery workers, but all in vain. Evidently, it is critical collective actions are only limited, and have a limited bearing on working conditions for delivery workers.

COVID-19 pandemic: loss of jobs, safety issues and social stigma

The COVID-19 pandemic has aggravated the work precarity in the food delivery sector. Loss of jobs and income has caused uncertainty and decline in the dignity of labour (Stewart and Stanford, 2017). The ongoing pandemic has forced food delivery workers to rely on little savings for food and rent. Earning from food delivery work is inadequate, forcing many to return to their native village/town (Interviews 7, 9, 12-13, 18, 23, 29 and 33).

Participant (33) said, ‘I had only meagre savings during the COVID-19 pandemic. So, I had no choice but to return to the village. But there was no conveyance in sight, so we walked to Rajsamand and Baran for hundreds of kilometres. It took us thirty-six hours to reach home in dire circumstances’.

Participant (12) said, ‘All problems began with the lockdown in March. Before, this job felt good and stable, but now it feels like slavery for nothing.’

The pandemic and lockdowns caused a massive decline in food orders, forcing food aggregators to retrench thousands of delivery workers (so-called delivery partners); most of these workers being the sole breadwinners of their families. Amidst lockdown, Zomato laid off 13 per cent of its labour force and enforced wage deduction on the rest of the personnel. Swiggy followed similar steps and retrenched about 1,000 workers (Indian Express, 2020). This cost reduction drive also led to the loss of income for delivery workers; even though food delivery is labour-intensive, a worker remains disposable.

Participant (27) said, ‘After lockdown I went back to village with family. Even though, today I am back but earning so low that I cannot bring the family anymore’.

Participant (35) said, ‘Somehow, I am managing with little work but do not know what will happen in future. I am not even able to send any money back home.’

Participant (7) said, ‘There was no income for two to three months, and now with only few deliveries it is difficult to survive. However, some of my friends lost their job during the lockdown are not even hired back.’

The anxiety caused by COVID-19 infection among consumers resulted in fewer orders, reducing workers’ income. Though lockdown norms have relieved with time, panic remains reflecting the new normal and customer behaviour. The nationwide lockdown was followed by several stages of unlocking as per intensity of the virus spread. It was not only a health crisis but also an economic disaster for delivery workers, as norms of physical distancing damage labour-intensive delivery work. It is largely the outcome of fear-psychosis and hesitancy in ordering food from outside. Even though customers gradually return to food platforms, the response is low, resulting in low income for workers as they get paid according to the number of deliveries completed (Interviews 3, 4, 7-8, 10, 12-13, 17-19, 22 and 35).

Participant (17) said, ‘Even though there is the ease in lockdown norms, I am getting very few orders after toiling for ten to twelve-12 hours/day. There is no compensation by the company in these difficult times. How will my family survive?’

Further, food delivery is precarious considering the health risks in the prevalence of the COVID-19 virus, and delivery necessitates transport, physical proximity while delivering food, and cash/mobile payment. Although on-demand platforms depend greatly on delivery workers, there is no compensation or any other form of support to workers during lockdowns (Interviews 3, 6, 9-10, 13, 15, 18-20, 23-24, 28-29, 31, 33 and 36). Platforms also tried to shift responsibility by referring workers to government programmes for monetary support. This also echoes the apathy shown by the platforms.

Participant (28) said, ‘They took advantage of lockdown and reduced our pay because they knew we do not have any option but to accept it.’

Participant (31) said, ‘During the lockdown, there were no roadside eateries to eat. Luckily, there were two restaurants providing food to people like us.

Although food aggregators extended the services to groceries during the pandemic, orders remained low. It compels workers to work long hours and take as many orders as possible, increasing the chances of contamination, stress, and expense (Interviews 6, 7, 9, 13-14, 20, 25, and 32). Delivery workers are now waiting longer for the orders at the cost of personal life causing occupational stress (Interviews 1, 3-5, 7-9, 12-13, 19, 22-23, 26, 29, and 34). For instance, food aggregators claim to provide contactless delivery, but cash transactions are also allowed, defeating the purpose of contactless delivery (Interviews 4, 6, 9, 13, 19, 22, 25 and 28).

Field evidence suggests that food aggregators are not addressing the issue of workers’ safety during the COVID-19 pandemic, except for the few cosmetic steps of mask and sanitiser distribution. Even though food aggregators claimed suitable supply of sanitisers, masks, and disinfectants to delivery workers, news reports ⁷ indicate otherwise. It forced delivery workers to bear the costs themselves (Interviews 1, 3-6, 14-16, 23, 27-29, 31, 33, 36, and 38).

Participant (15) said, ‘Since lockdown is enforced, we are forced to bear expenses of mask and sanitiser. We neither received mask and sanitiser from the company nor any reimbursement for these expenses.’

These food aggregators concentrated on conveying hygiene practices to consumers and government agencies instead of real practices to protect workers and customers. The objective is to enhance reputation with text messages to customers about safety measures taken and implemented. They also provide information on adopting World Health Organisation protocols with images and messages on the app and webpage. But workers remained largely unaware of guidelines, also reflecting the priorities of platforms.

Participant (6) said, ‘Zomato officials are working from home in their comfort but when we call there is no response to any problems.

Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic preventive measures led to instances of encroachment on the right of privacy. Platform-based firms such as Zomato’s made use of the contentious government-backed Aarogya Setu ⁸ app compulsory for its workers. This app tracks movement of individuals, which could be termed as infringement into privacy (Interviews 4, 9, 12, 16, 22, 27 and 34).

Participant (22) said, ‘I have no idea why I am told to install this app (Aarogya Setu) on my phone. Maybe government want to hear what we say’.

The patchy implementations of COVID-19 norms have also restricted workers’ mobility and safety. During lockdown, period workers suffered harassment by the police and consumers alike (Interviews 1, 4-5, 7-8, 11, 13-14, 16-18, 21-23, 27-28, 31-33 and 35). Although food delivery has been classified as an essential service, there are several media reports of verbal and physical assaults endured by the workers at the hands of the police. This made movement in cities risky and challenging, but workers were punished by the platforms for not being able to work even though they were available.

Participant (17) said, ‘There is road blockade at every corner, and police harassment (both verbal and physical) is part of everyday work.’

Prevalence of high job insecurity forces workers to be outdoor and at physical proximity with others, which exposes them to the extremely infectious COVID-19 virus. This high mobility and contact with eateries and customers also stigmatises delivery workers for doing their job. These workers are subject to severe social stigma caused by fear psychosis toward the COVID-19 virus (Interviews 3, 5-6, 10, 13, 19, 21, 24, 28-29, 33). News reports of delivery workers who tested positive for the virus further worsened the situation, aggravating the already precarious working conditions.

Participant (5) said, ‘Since news channels reported a food delivery worker in Delhi was positive with coronavirus while delivering food. It has made things difficult; today, customers treat us like untouchables ⁹ . It is very insulting’.

Participant (29) said, ‘Customers shouted and told us to deliver food at the door, even though we are supposed to make contactless delivery. We are forced to make delivery at doorsteps bearing the risk of contamination. A few days ago, a customer complained about me because I asked him to collect food from the gate.’

Participant (33) said, ‘It is boiling temperature in summer; still, I wear the company’s uniform over my cloth for safety. Moreover, whenever I come back home, I will shed my uniform outside. Then I go to the bathroom to change cloth and bath before interacting with the family.’

In these dire times, delivery workers were induced to hide symptoms and continue with work. If not, they risked the loss of work and income. If a worker gets infected with the virus, their bank accounts/transactions are suspended without monetary compensation. This echoes the prevailing high work precarity and increasing vulnerability of workers.

Discussion

Although platforms are acclaimed for market efficacy, the reality for food delivery workers provides a different perspective. Delivery workers are primarily young men and formally educated but lack job opportunities elsewhere, making food delivery a compelling option. They are essentially locals, but there are cases of intra-state migration. These vulnerable delivery workers come from varied socio-economic experiences and reflect the typical structure of any sector.

The empirical analysis of working conditions of food delivery work adds knowledge on the labour-capital conflict in on-demand work platforms. The precarious working scenario is ascribed to dependent labour, and lack of recognition hampers the worker’s effective socio-economic participation and marginalisation.

Consequently, precarisation of delivery work with platforms explains non-standard labour characterised by low pay, contract work, unscheduled working hours, app-based controls, lack of regulations, absence of collective actions, and primarily exhausting work arrangements.

Workers have tried to be collective and express dissent in several ways, but the impact continues to be inadequate. There are few labour unions for gig workers, and all are in metro cities. Further, there are very few labour unions focused on delivery workers. It also reflects the ineffectiveness of limited collective actions.

Policy implications

Market forces call for vulnerable labour to extract surplus value with a low standard of work arrangement. So, food aggregators invented the terminology ‘delivery partner’ to evade liabilities and legitimacies of labour laws. It has allowed the platforms to avoid traditional employer-employee relations, establishing conditions of non-standard employment. This reflects the limitations or loopholes in current labour regulations. It also indicates the future direction of work arrangements in developing economies.

Food delivery workers are continuing to be invisible and mistreated in public spaces. They suffer from state and societal apathy. Even though delivery workers form a tiny part of India’s labour force, there are critical repercussions on labour market institutions.

There are visible implications on the unionisation of workers in future, as gig work, such as food delivery work, is coordinated by internet-based algorithms that ensure negligible interaction among workers. Thus, formation of labour is difficult, having a visible, adverse impact on the bargaining power of workers and any form of collective actions. It also ensures the invisibility of food delivery workers, leading to a lack of recognition from mainstream agencies. This has severe implications for the working conditions and social protection of workers.

Precarious working conditions are also due to app-based discrete control features that track and monitor workers’ movements, while incentives and earnings are largely based on a system of reward and punishment. This facilitates information asymmetries as a modus operandi of platforms. The opaqueness of the various aspects of the app adversely affects any effective action to address workers issues.

The COVID-19 pandemic has further aggravated work precarity for food delivery workers. In the absence of work and adequate earnings, delivery workers are forced to rely on their little savings for food, housing, and more. In the absence of any compensation/measures from the platforms and government, many were forced to return to their native village/town. Even though on-demand platforms depend greatly on delivery workers, there is no support to workers during lockdown. This requires serious policy interventions to provide protection to food delivery workers in hard times. However, there is the Code on Social Security, 2020 (Ministry of Labour and Employment, 2020), which provides social security to informal workers but its impact, so far, on food delivery workers is negligible. This limits a serious legislation to an ornamental gesture.

Future research

The theoretical aspect of food delivery is an under-explored subject area, and thus this study suffered from a lack of theoretical background. Further study should be undertaken to establish the notion of work precarity of on-demand work and provide guidelines for future research.

In addition, internet-based controls and the reward and punishment system should be researched to understand the premises and process of work precarity. This work arrangement is based on digital instruments tracking and monitoring of workers’ movements while extracting surplus labour value.

Further, an appropriate definition for food delivery workers would go a long way to providing much-needed social protection. However, government agencies in India do not collect data on gig workers, making documentation difficult. However, documentation will put delivery workers in the middle of the public discussion, space, and policy formulation, thereby helping clarify the definition of gig work, platform, and informal workers, for better policy implementation.

The court’s recent ruling in the United Kingdom ¹⁰ provides a guideline for the formalisation and regulation of gig workers as per labour laws. Nevertheless, this also provides an opportunity for academia to explore the impact of such a ruling on workers and the platform, especially perceived changes in working conditions and the financial viability of on-demand work. Further, California has witnessed several proceedings specifying the status of platform-based workers. Nothing like this takes place in India, but it would be interesting to have a comparative analysis of the working conditions of gig workers in developed and developing economies.

Conclusion

The rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic was followed by several lockdowns, which added to the vulnerability of workers in general. Although food delivery work is considered a slightly improved version of informal work, it can be worse in the absence of social protection. Literature and field evidence reflected the same in the form of increasing precarity in food delivery workspace with the advent of the pandemic. Those involved with platforms suddenly became unemployed with little to depend on, resulting in grave financial hardship, reflective of the precarious labour market.

Besides monetary loss, workers are also on the frontier of health risks, coupled with social stigma caused by customer and police behaviour alike. Even though workers are essential for the delivery cycle and efficacy of services, they are highly disposable and subject to exploitation. This non-standard work arrangement has left workers highly vulnerable and marginalised.

The increasing work precarity has led to a rise in discontent, but collective actions have not yet produced any desirable results. It also shows the significance of traditional employer-employee relationships in ensuring labour standards and dignity in work. These precarious working conditions call for affirmative actions from governments along the lines of labour regulations and social protection.