New York Passes Sweeping Bills to Improve
Conditions for Delivery Workers
A package of legislation from the City Council set
minimum pay and working conditions, placing New York at the forefront of
regulating a multibillion-dollar industry.
New York City is home to the largest food delivery
market in the country. The slate of legislation would set minimum pay for
workers and enable them to set limits on how far they are willing to travel.
Jeffery C.
Mays
By Jeffery
C. Mays
Sept. 23,
2021
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/23/nyregion/nyc-food-delivery-workers.html
Since the
beginning of the pandemic, food delivery workers on bikes have become even more
ubiquitous features of the New York City streetscape, earning low wages and
often braving horrendous weather, hazardous streets and the threat of robbery
to bring people their takeout orders at all hours of the day.
On
Thursday, the city became the first in the nation to take aggressive steps to
improve those employees’ working conditions, approving a groundbreaking package
of legislation that will set minimum pay and address the plight of couriers
employed by app-based food delivery services like Grubhub, DoorDash and Uber
Eats.
The
legislation, which has the support of Mayor Bill de Blasio, is the latest and
most broad example of the city’s efforts to regulate the multibillion dollar
industry. While other cities have taken steps to restrict the food delivery
apps, no city has gone as far as New York, which is home to the largest and
most competitive food delivery market in the country.
The vote
comes at a time when the food delivery industry has exploded as restaurants
have relied increasingly on delivery services to survive during the pandemic.
The number of delivery workers, most of them immigrants, has risen to over
80,000, according to the city, yet their working conditions remain difficult at
best and horrendous at worst.
Those
conditions captured the city’s attention a few weeks ago when the remnants of
Hurricane Ida hit the city, and scenes of food delivery workers traversing
flooded streets to deliver meals stirred outrage.
A survey of
500 app food delivery workers by the Worker Institute at Cornell University’s
School of Industrial and Labor Relations and the Workers Justice Project found
that 42 percent of workers had experienced being underpaid or not paid at all.
Nearly half said they had crashed while delivering food and 75 percent of those
said they used their own money to pay for their medical care. Fifty-four
percent reported being robbed and 30 percent said they were assaulted during
the robbery.
Corey
Johnson, the City Council speaker, said that the package of legislation would
give workers the “rights they deserve” and that he was optimistic it would
spark a national movement to improve conditions for app-based delivery workers.
“It
wouldn’t surprise me if some of the large, multibillion dollar corporations
that are making a lot of money in New York City try to stop this,” Mr. Johnson
said at a news conference before the vote. “My hope is that other cities will
actually take action and other cities will
join New York City in providing protections for delivery workers.”
The
legislation prevents the food delivery apps and courier services from charging
workers fees to receive their pay; makes the apps disclose their gratuity
policies; prohibits the apps from charging delivery workers for insulated food
bags, which can cost up to $50; and requires restaurant owners to make
bathrooms available to delivery workers.
Under the
legislation, delivery workers would also be able to set parameters on the trips
they take without fear of retribution. Workers — who have been targeted by
robbers intent on stealing their money or their e-bikes — would be able to
determine the maximum distance they want to travel from a restaurant or specify
that they are not willing to go over bridges to make a delivery, for example.
The package
of bills, however, falls short in a variety of ways, representatives of the
workers said. The delivery workers, for example, would still be classified as
independent contractors who are ineligible for workers’ compensation or
unemployment benefits.
Patricia
Campos-Medina, executive director of the Worker Institute, called the
protections passed on Thursday the “floor” of what was necessary to provide
“basic rights.”
The workers
need the ability to negotiate work rules with their employers, she said, adding
that the City Council has more work to do to improve conditions for them.
“My concern
is that this gets presented as the solution,” Ms. Campos-Medina said in an
interview. “The ability to use the bathroom is a basic human right.”
The use of
food delivery apps soared as the pandemic shuttered the dining rooms of
restaurants around the city. But for the mostly immigrant laborers tasked with
delivering the meals, working conditions were as difficult as ever.
José
Ramirez, who came to New York from Puebla, Mexico, has worked as a delivery
worker in Manhattan for four years. He said he earns about $8 an hour before
tips, which has required him to work more than 10 hours a day on most days to
earn enough money to support himself.
Mr.
Ramirez, a member of Los Deliveristas Unidos, a group that has been fighting
for years for delivery worker protections, said restaurants have denied him
bathroom access so frequently that he has resorted to calling his friends
during his shift to use their bathrooms.
Sign up for
the New York Today Newsletter Each
morning, get the latest on New York businesses, arts, sports, dining, style and
more. Get it sent to your inbox.
“People
sometimes come up to me after I make their delivery and tell me they’re sorry
they can’t tip me,” Mr. Ramirez said. “I feel happy I helped, but I’m not
getting paid. I have to pay for my bike, my delivery backpack and my cellphone,
so we need a dignified minimum pay.”
As demand
for deliveries has soared, workers at food delivery start-ups across the
country have been organizing efforts to demand better pay and conditions. Some
cities in California and Washington state passed temporary measures to provide
hazard pay for delivery and other essential workers because of the pandemic.
States like
California and Massachusetts have also been engaged in protracted legal battles
over which rights and protections should be given to gig workers.
Last year,
California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 22, a victory for
companies like Uber and DoorDash that allowed them to continue treating drivers
as independent contractors. The measure exempted the companies from a state
labor law that would have forced them to employ drivers and pay for their
health care and other benefits. As a concession to labor advocates, the
initiative offered a wage floor and limited benefits to drivers.
But last
month, after a lawsuit by a group of drivers and the Service Employees
International Union, a California judge found the proposition unconstitutional
and unenforceable. The companies have said they will appeal.
Chicago
recently sued the food delivery apps, charging that they engage in deceptive
practices. San Francisco, meanwhile, voted to place a permanent 15 percent cap
on fees the apps charge restaurants, but Mayor London Breed has not signed the
law, saying it “oversteps what is necessary for the public good.”
New York
City is currently facing two lawsuits from the largest food delivery companies
in the industry, which are seeking to eliminate rules that regulate how much
the apps can charge restaurants and the information they must disclose.
Grubhub,
DoorDash and Uber Eats filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Manhattan
earlier this month arguing that a 15 percent cap on fees for online orders and
5 percent cap per order for other fees such as marketing was unconstitutional
and would ultimately lead to higher prices for consumers and less profits for
restaurants.
Restaurant
owners say the companies sometimes charge them fees of up to 30 percent per
order, which affects their already slim profit margins. But because the apps
have come to dominate the food delivery market, the owners have said they have
no choice but to list their restaurants on them.
DoorDash
filed a separate lawsuit last week contesting another law passed by the City
Council that would require the apps to share customer data such as their names,
addresses, emails and telephone numbers with restaurants.
Although
the new package of bills may also face court challenges, Grubhub officials said
they supported the legislation.
“These
bills are common-sense steps to support the delivery workers who work hard
every day for New York’s restaurants and residents,” Grant Klinzman, a
spokesman for Grubhub, said in a statement. “Ensuring they receive a living
wage and have access to restrooms isn’t just a good idea, it’s the right thing
to do.”
In a
statement, Campbell Millum, a spokeswoman for DoorDash, said the company
recognized the “unique challenges” facing delivery workers in New York City and
had launched initiatives to improve safety and pay and expand access to
bathrooms.
But the
company is concerned that legislation allowing workers to set parameters on
where and how they will make deliveries could have “unintended consequences,”
she said, and cause worse service in “underserved areas.”
Carlina
Rivera, a councilwoman from Manhattan who sponsored the bathroom legislation,
said she had heard stories from workers who had to wait hours to find a
restroom they could use and from other workers who were asked to pay to use the
bathroom at a restaurant.
“These are
workers that have been disenfranchised for a long time. They come from
historically marginalized and low-income areas of our city,” Ms. Rivera said.
“It took a national and global pandemic and waist-deep floodwaters to bring
attention to their plight.”
The
legislation calls for the city to conduct a study to determine how much
delivery workers should be paid. Currently, the workers’ pay is determined by
whether they are working during peak hours, the amount of time in between
trips, and the neighborhood where food is being picked up and delivered.
Hildalyn
Colon, director of policy for Los Deliveristas Unidos, said the need to pass
the bills became more urgent as the food delivery industry became a source of
income for more workers, many of them immigrants who begin working just weeks
after arriving in the country.
Manny
Ramirez, 34, and his wife both work as delivery workers. He said there has been
a longstanding, pressing need to improve working conditions.
“These
bills are already affecting us and changing our lives, because these issues
have come to the surface,” Mr. Ramirez said in Spanish. “This is just the
beginning of things that are going to come.”
Reporting
was contributed by Nicole Hong, Coral Murphy Marcos, Ashley Wong and Patrick
McGeehan
Jeffery C.
Mays is a reporter on the Metro desk who covers politics with a focus on New
York City Hall. A native of Brooklyn, he is a graduate of Columbia University.
@JeffCMays
New York City delivery workers win rights to
better tips, bathrooms and more
A package of bills targeting app-based companies such
as Grubhub and Doordash will also set minimum pay
Kari Paul
Fri 24 Sep
2021 02.14 BST
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/sep/23/gig-economy-doordash-grubhub-food-delivery
New York
City lawmakers have passed a historic package of bills to improve labor
conditions for gig economy and food delivery workers.
The first
of its kind legislation, which targets app-based delivery companies such as
Grubhub, Uber Eats, and Doordash, will set minimum pay, allow workers to keep
more of their tips, and limit how far workers can be asked to travel for
deliveries. It will also guarantee workers access to bathrooms – an issue that
has long plagued people in the gig economy and has been exacerbated by Covid-19
restrictions.
City
council speaker Corey Johnson, speaking in a press conference following the
vote on Thursday, said the package would give workers the “rights they deserve”
and inspire future legislation.
“New York
will now be the first city in the country to make sure delivery workers are not
exploited – to make sure people are treated with dignity and respect, that they
get their wages, and that they are not exploited by these multibillion dollar
corporations,” he said.
The
legislation was written in collaboration with Los Deliveristas Unidos (LDU), a
collective of mostly-immigrant app delivery workers that have long pushed for
living wages, bathroom access, and the right to organize.
It comes as
Covid-19 has increased consumer reliance on delivery services, causing the
sector to grow exponentially in the past year. Uber Eats, the food delivery
segment of the ride-hailing company Uber, grew by 190% in 2020, adding 36,000
couriers in New York City alone.
But the
growing army of workers found themselves on the front lines of a pandemic with
no health benefits and little job security. Many complain they are unable to
access bathrooms and often cannot see or access the tips that customers add to
orders.
Excluding
tips, the median hourly wage for delivery workers in New York City was $7.94 in
2020 according to a study from the Worker’s Justice Project. The hourly net pay
when including tips was still below New York’s $15 minimum wage, at an average
of $12.21.
A spokesman
from Grubhub said the company supported the bills, calling them “common-sense
steps to support the delivery workers who work hard every day for New York’s
restaurants and residents”.
“Ensuring
they receive a living wage and have access to restrooms isn’t just a good idea
– it’s the right thing to do,” he said. DoorDash has also expressed support of
the legislation.
Cities are
increasingly cracking down on the gig economy. Chicago sued food delivery apps
in August for misleading consumers, restaurants, and workers – including “using
consumer tips to pay itself rather than its drivers”. In June, San Francisco
voted to cap delivery app fees charged to restaurants at 15%.
But some of
the companies targeted by these efforts are also fighting back. California in
2020 passed a law entitling drivers to benefits and better pay, which industry
giants such as Uber quickly countered with their own bill exempting themselves
from the legislation. Uber now plans to appeal after that bill, Prop 22, was
ruled unconstitutional in August.
Workers
themselves are also making their own efforts, demanding the benefits afforded
to full-time employees including better pay and the right to organize.
Starting
this week, contractors at Instacart have called on customers to boycott the app
as they demand better working conditions. In June, Uber and Lyft drivers
participated in a day-long strike to demand the right to organize.
Worker
advocates say the New York bills are a good start but do not address some
broader concerns about the gig economy in the US, and that more comprehensive
legislation on a national scale is needed.
“This is an
excellent step in the right direction, but I am concerned that a piecemeal
approach to addressing these serious issues is going to take the wind out of
the movement towards basic employment rights for these workers,” said Veena
Dubal, a professor of employment law at University of California, Hastings.
She added
that delivery workers are at a very high risk of injury and should be entitled
to workers’ compensation and healthcare when they are hurt on the job.
“This is
better than nothing in the short term, but lawmakers should not think by
passing these bills they are doing enough,” she said.
Spain declares delivery riders to be staff, in EU
first
EURACTIV.com
with AFP 12 Mar 2021
File
photo. Deliveroo delivery service workers from Belgium and Netherlands protest
against their working conditions, in Brussels, Belgium, 27 January 2018.
[Stephanie Lecocq/EPA/EFE]
Spain’s
government announced Thursday (11 March) a deal that will recognise riders
working for delivery firms such as Deliveroo and UberEats as salaried staff
following complaints about their working conditions — a first in the EU.
The move
came six months after Spain’s leftwing government pledged to clarify the legal
status of couriers working for online delivery firms, saying they should be
considered employees rather than “gig” workers.
It will
strike at the heart of the so-called gig economy, which relies on hundreds of
thousands of independent workers for app-based services such as food delivery
or car rides.
The
government’s deal with Spanish labour unions sets up the first legislation in
Europe that explicitly regulates the status of delivery workers who get around
on bikes and motorcycles and whose numbers have exploded in recent years.
In
Spain, as in other countries, the riders have repeatedly denounced their
precarious working conditions, taking legal action to demand recognition as
salaried staff, which would grant them benefits such as paid holidays and sick
leave.
“They
are now considered as salaried workers and will enjoy all the relevant
protections,” Labour Minister Yolanda Diaz said in a televised address.
Spain is
“the first country in the European Union to legislate on the matter”, Diaz
said.
The
delivery firms have repeatedly insisted that they are merely acting as an
intermediary between businesses and the riders, who are said to be
self-employed and must pay their own health and pension contributions.
The
text, which will take the form of a legislative decree that does not need to be
voted on by parliament, “recognises the presumption of employment for workers
who provide paid delivery services” via such digital companies, a ministry
statement said.
It is
expected to be approved by the cabinet and to be on the books as early as next
week.
Cristobal
Ospina, a 26-year-old salaried delivery rider for Spanish platform Mensos, said
the biggest advantage of being staff was the “stability” of knowing you will
work a set number of hours every week.
“It
won’t be random,” he told AFP in Madrid.
But
other riders like Cristina Ausin, 24, feared losing their flexibility. She said
she had a chronic health condition that made it difficult for her to commit to
a fixed schedule.
“With
these apps, I disconnect when I need to and that’s it, I don’t have to explain
myself to anyone. Now with a fixed contact, I have to ask for sick leave.”
Platforms
on the defensive
Confusion
over the riders’ status had also arisen as some court rulings have gone in
their favour while other found for the delivery firms.
The
government’s move came after a Supreme Court ruling in September that there was
a “working relationship” between riders and Barcelona-based food delivery app
Glovo.
Delivery
platforms have also found themselves on the defensive elsewhere in Europe.
Last
month Italian prosecutors told Uber Eats and other food delivery platforms
their couriers were employees and not independent workers, fining them 733
million euros for breach of labour safety rules.
France’s
government is expected to unveil proposals on delivery riders soon.
The
European Union is also considering the issue.
Last
month, Britain’s Supreme Court ruled that Uber drivers and delivery people are
workers, and not independent contractors.
Uber
defends contractors ahead of EU law on gig workers' rights
Uber on
Monday (15 February) called on EU regulators to recognise the value of
independent contracts in job creation as they consider new rules to protect gig
economy workers.
Shift to
contracts
Some
platforms have chosen to shift to employment contracts.
Just Eat
Takeaway announced last year it wants to end relying upon independent riders.
In
January, its French unit said it planned to hire 4,500 riders as employees,
offering contracts from 10 hours to full time and paying the minimum wage.
Other
platforms are sticking to their argument that their business model provides
flexibility and control to delivery workers, who can pick and choose when and
how much they work.
Critics
have argued that the refusal to consider their app-based workers as employees
leads to low pay and a lack of medical insurance and other benefits.
Platforms
have also had their share of victories.
In
November, a ballot proposal by Uber in its home US state of California
declaring gig workers to be independent contractors, while offering some
healthcare and minimum pay, was passed by voters.
That
overturned a state law that had declared gig workers to be employees.
THE
ESSENTIAL TECH WORKER
On the job but unprotected — why European welfare
is failing gig workers
Regulators are struggling to extend traditional
protection to Uber drivers, Deliveroo riders and other platform workers.
BY
MELISSA HEIKKILÄ
October
22, 2020 10:41 am
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-welfare-systems-failing-gig-workers/
When gig
economy platforms arrived in Europe a decade ago, observers predicted that they
would either blow up the welfare state — or get smothered by it.
In many
ways, both prophecies have come to pass.
For
thousands of Uber drivers, delivery riders, babysitters and other denizens of
the "gig economy," what was originally meant to be a side hustle has
turned into a de facto job representing their sole source of income — ushering
in a new generation of workers whose jobs are far more precarious than those of
their peers in traditional employment. Meanwhile, European countries that
uphold their welfare systems with pride are still struggling to figure out how
to bring this new type of worker into the fold.
One
reason they're having a hard time is that current labor laws are premised on a
binary either-or definition: A worker is either an employee, or they are not.
Regulators
are stuck in a bind. Attempts to protect workers who appear to be self-employed
but in reality depend on a single company for their livelihood have fallen flat
or run into legal obstacles. In London, for example, Uber has been stuck in a
tortuous legal process since 2015 trying to overturn a court decision that
ruled drivers should be classified as workers instead of self-employed people.
The
companies themselves have proposed a compromise, a “third way,” that would
grant workers some social protections but maintain their independent status.
So far,
their attempts have ended in failure. France flirted with a voluntary charter
for gig workers that would maintain their independent status but provide some
social rights. That initiative was quickly struck down by the country’s
Constitutional Council as “unconstitutional,” because it gave platforms the
power to fix rules that legislators should have.
Last
September in Italy, food-delivery companies unveiled a collective agreement
with a far-right union that would establish workers as independent contractors.
The agreement caused outcry among workers, unions and the country’s labor
ministry, who deemed it invalid and against Italian labor law.
Collective
agreements are also tricky — the first one between a union and Danish domestic
work platform Hilfr was struck down by Danish competition authorities.
California
— the birthplace of the gig economy — has tried to atone for its creation with
a new bill, dubbed AB5, that forced companies such as Uber and Lyft to
reclassify their drivers as employees. The ride-hailing companies are embroiled
in an expensive lobbying battle against the law.
One
European court after another has looked at the evidence and reached the same
conclusion: Any pretense that workers are independent is “fictitious,” in the
words of France’s highest court in a ruling regarding Uber drivers.
A U.K.
Supreme Court decision on the same issue is imminent. Courts in Spain and Italy
have reached similar rulings with respect to other gig work platforms. One of
the main arguments courts have highlighted is the level of algorithmic control
platforms have over workers. The algorithm decides when and how workers work,
and how much their work is worth.
Platforms
say workers want their autonomy and flexibility, which is incompatible with
employee status. That status could also be the end of their business. Uber, for
example, has never made a profit, and likely never will if it has to pay its
drivers and couriers social benefits. The outcome of California’s AB5 fight
will show how resilient the platforms’ business models truly are.
The
European Commission has pledged to improve the working conditions of gig
workers. So far the Commission’s only suggestion has been to tweak competition
rules to allow for bargaining rights for gig workers.
The
seeming incompatibility between traditional employee protections and
platform-based business models has opened room for proposals that could blow up
the way we think about the relationship between workers and the companies that
sign their paychecks.
Two
leading legal scholars on labor law, Nicola Countouris, of University College
London, and Valerio De Stefano, of KU Leuven, have suggested redefining the
definition of workers and offering employment protections to anyone who works
for a client or another person, and doesn’t hire other people or employ
significant materials or capital.
This
would catch Uber drivers and Deliveroo couriers, and also protect workers in
other fields that are starting to normalize the use of algorithmic control,
such as the care and retail sectors.
There
are some early signs of movement in this direction. All eyes will be on Italy,
which in 2019 passed a law giving couriers basic protections including sick
leave and social security while still categorizing them as autonomous workers.
Even as
the coronavirus rages on, the European welfare system still hasn't figured out
how to embrace gig workers. At stake is not just home delivery and on-demand
rides, but the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of ever-more essential
workers.
Delivery Workers, Trapped in the System
by chuang |
Nov 12, 2020 | Blog | 1 comment
https://chuangcn.org/2020/11/delivery-renwu-translation/
Around the
world, previously invisible delivery personnel have achieved a new prominence
in popular consciousness as “frontline workers” throughout the COVID-19
pandemic. As the emergency has highlighted both the importance and the dangers
of delivery work, strikes over working conditions have occurred alongside
public displays of appreciation. In China, the sector had already become a
focal point of unrest several years ago, as both capital and labor flowed from
the declining factory sector into services in general and the minimally
regulated new e-commerce platforms in particular. While lockdowns in the early
part of this year limited in-person organizing, the past few months have seen a
revival of labor actions combined with a flurry of media exposés about the
industry. Express parcel couriers seized upon the lead-up to the November 11th
shopping holiday, “Single’s Day,” with protests, slowdowns and mass
resignations reported in multiple cities over the past weeks. And two months
ago, one of China’s most widely read magazines, Renwu (人物, “People”), published a long-form
inquiry into the horrors of food delivery work, based on six months of
research. The report has been widely reposted and viewed 3.16 million times via
the original link on Weibo alone, sparking a series of related articles. Below
is our translation, prefaced by a summary and brief commentary. In the coming
weeks we will publish an original text analyzing what these nightmarish trends
in “platform capitalism” reveal about China’s economy as whole within its
global context.1
The report,
titled “Delivery Riders, Trapped in the System” (外卖骑手，困在系统里) and collectively authored by a team of unnamed journalists at Renwu,
was published on September 8th, 2020. The monthly magazine Renwu was founded in
1980 under the People’s Daily Press and is now run by the state-owned People’s
Publishing House, which mainly publishes political books. In March, Renwu ran
an interview with Ai Fen, one of the first doctors to share information about
the COVID-19 outbreak despite warnings from her hospital to remain silent. The
interview was deleted within hours but was shared widely through a variety of
creative methods to circumvent censorship, including the use of emojis and the
reversal of word order. The piece translated below provides another examination
of individuals whose expression and lives are being held hostage by forces
beyond their control. The article intersperses worker interviews with data
about the industry, examining not only the impact of algorithmic controls upon
the workers themselves (known as “riders” because they deliver food and other
items by riding electric scooters), but also the ways in which outside actors
contribute to this system, as it controls them in turn.
Summary
Since this
is particularly long piece, it will be helpful to first give readers a summary
of the contents. The opening section, “Order Received,” recounts the increasing
pressure placed on riders by shrinking delivery time limits. As iterative
machine learning processes push for ever shorter delivery times, an
accomplishment celebrated as a triumph of technology by the algorithm’s
creators, the riders have no choice but to violate systems of traffic control
in an “inverse algorithm.” Later sections “Navigation,” “Smiling Action,” and
“Five Star Ratings” delve deeper into the threats to public safety created by
this process and the further displacement of responsibility away from companies
and onto riders.
“Heavy
Rain” begins to question this “triumph of technology,” revealing that a single
weather event is enough to topple the algorithms’ utopia of efficiency. Like
many allegedly “smart systems,” the platforms’ algorithms require human
intervention (and even operation) to function. It is here that the curtain is
pulled aside, with an Ele.me supervisor admitting that this intervention is
done to make conditions more difficult for workers. Ultimately, those with
power to change the system have chosen to do nothing – or even to exercise that
power to further push riders to the limits of their ability in pursuit of even
greater profit.
“Navigation”
investigates how the use of an algorithmic system allows the platform to
generate demands that would be unreasonable from another human, including
driving against the flow of traffic, achieving delivery times that would only
be possible by flying, and even going through walls. “Games” further
investigates the impacts of algorithmic control, arguing that the gamification
of rider wages gives the appearance of greater independence for workers while
in fact subjecting them to a system of control that shapes their very
perception of reality.
The
sections, “Elevators,” “Gatekeepers,” and “Coca-Cola and Peppa Pig” delve into
riders’ relationships with building management, restaurant owners, and
customers, respectively. Each relationship represents a variable in the
delivery process which the riders, facing the “constant” of delivery time
assigned by the algorithms, must bear the burden of mitigating. Often these
variables require the exercise of emotional labor, and the workers’ subjection
of themselves to a system dominated by the whims of the consumer and the
production of products over which they have no control. Notably, “Coca-Cola and
Peppa Pig” demonstrates how the algorithms shape reality not only for riders,
but for consumers as well – one customer notes that while previously he had
been quite happy to watch TV while waiting for his food, he now finds it
unbearable due to the unrealistic delivery time provided by the platform.
The
sections “Scooters,” “Smiling Action,” “Five Star Ratings,” and “The Final
Safety Net” investigate the systems that further push risks onto riders while
ensuring that profits continue to accrue to the platforms. In “Smiling Action,”
Renwu illuminates how the platforms’ attempts to defray public criticism
regarding accidents involving delivery riders with random safety checks (given
the Orwellian name “Smiling Action” by Meituan) further subject riders to
heartless and inconsistent systems of control. Interviews with police officers
in the section “Five Star Rating” demonstrate that government responses have
further shifted blame and responsibility for threats to safety onto riders.
Rather than constructing transportation infrastructure better suited to growing
numbers of delivery riders, or enacting laws that address the algorithmic
factors pushing riders to violate traffic laws, cities have instead opted to
surveil and punish individual riders. Although the officers interviewed express
sympathy for the riders’ plight, they continue to enforce these laws against
riders. While punishing riders for infractions, these officers often take up
the task of delivering food, ensuring that even though individual riders are
punished by the legal system, the system itself remains unchallenged. The
officers have ultimately become conscripts of the algorithm. “The Final Safety
Net,” which covers the inadequacies and denials of insurance coverage by
platforms further illustrates the vulnerability of riders in the absence of
formal employment contracts.
The closing
section, “Infinite Game,” briefly turns its attention to the programmers
themselves, suggesting that they in turn are trapped in service of a larger
system, with an educational background that has left them ill-equipped to
adequately access the impact of the systems they designed on society. This
section also alludes to broader concerns about personal data privacy that are
gaining traction in mainland China, noting that even as riders’ data is used to
refine the algorithmic systems of control, the ownership of that data remains
under dispute. Ultimately, the article concludes, these actors are trapped in a
“game” that they do not completely understand, with little choice but to keep
playing.
Continuing
the Struggle: Protests Escalate, But Can They Change the System?
Protests by
waimai delivery riders2 had already begun to escalate prior to increased media
coverage regarding the plight of gig workers. Strikes by food delivery riders
have increased more than four-fold between 2017 and 2019, going from ten
reported strikes in 2017 to at least 45 in 2019 according to China Labor
Bulletin. Abuse of gig workers and delivery riders is a global and cross-sector
issue. Riders in Brazil, South Korea, Thailand, and Romania have also joined
protests calling for better working conditions in this year alone, according to
data from ACLED. More recently, strikes and protests by kuaidi couriers, many
of whom deliver orders from China’s flourishing e-commerce industry, have also
increased, with Service Worker Notes reporting thousands of posts online
regarding courier strikes just this year. Similarly to food delivery platforms,
courier platforms have sought to expand their market share by cutting delivery
prices, passing on those cuts on to their workers while the platforms’ revenue
continues to grow. Workers from several major courier companies are protesting
over wage arrears, with China Labor Bulletin noting that some expect these
strikes to escalate around November 11, a popular online shopping holiday in
China. According to Jinjiao Caijing (金角财经, “Golden Horn Finance”), Baidu search volume for keywords related to
strikes by courier workers was up 2,235 percent year-on-year in late October,
with deliveries already piling up in multiple cities.
Following
the release of Renwu’s article, Ele.me introduced a function that allowed
customers to indicate that they are willing to wait an extra five or ten
minutes for their delivery, a move that was widely criticized as simply passing
responsibility onto customers, according to Ziben Yixian. The day after Renwu’s
article was released, Meituan announced that it would be allowing riders eight
minutes of flexible time, and would extend delivery time and even stop orders
during bad weather, mitigating the problems highlighted in the section “Heavy
Rain.” However, riders highlighted that other problems with Meituan’s
algorithm, including unrealistic delivery directions, remained unaddressed and
highlighted that the “system is responsible” for the risks entailed in working
as a rider.
While
Renwu’s article offers little vision of a path forward and ends with the image
of delivery riders pushing onward in an infinite game that they have little
ability to control or even completely understand, other articles have focused
on riders’ exercise of agency within or against the system. “Feeding the
Chinese City,” a collection of interviews with delivery riders originally
published by “Awaken Club” on WeChat and translated by Progressive International3
provides an alternative vision of delivery riders’ future. The article
highlights mutual aid groups and the beginnings of responsiveness to the plight
of workers from the national bureaucracy. Ultimately, the difference in these
futures comes down to different visions of workers’ power within an algorithmic
system of control. “Feeding the Chinese City” depicts fellow riders rushing to
the aid of a fallen comrade, a behavior that another interviewee urges Chinese
society as a whole to emulate. In “Delivery Riders, Trapped in the System,”
however, a rider watches a fellow colleague get hit by a car and rides away,
the ding! of a new order ringing in his ears. Thus far, Renwu’s cynical
assessment of the factors at play seem to be more accurate: according to China
Labor Bulletin, although the official All-China Federation of Trade Unions has
identified delivery work as one of its “eight major sectors,” the system itself
remains unchallenged, with benefits from union interventions “[failing] to
address the fundamental problems endemic in the industry.”
We have
chosen to translate this article not only for its useful investigation of the
structure of algorithmic labor governance, but also for the interesting
position that its publication––and the outpouring of similar reporting on
precarious delivery workers––marks in regard to the economic position of
delivery workers and the platforms that employ them. While we will explore the
history and current dynamics of China’s so-called “platform capitalism” in our
upcoming piece, with an eye to the role that the current media recognition of
platform workers might play in signaling an end of the anything-goes expansion
of platform industries, here we want to note the conflictual terrain that gave
rise to these forms of reporting: Renwu’s investigation comes as China’s
sluggish recovery following the COVID-19 outbreak has seen broadening
inequality. Government stimulus has focused primarily on enterprises and
middle-class consumers, rather than on the migrant workers who saw the most
significant loss of income (as much as 75 percent during the height of pandemic
lockdowns in February and March, according to Stanford University’s Rural
Education Action Program). At the same time, officials such as Premier Li
Keqiang have highlighted the informal sector as the solution to China’s rising
unemployment. Finally, Renwu‘s
investigation of the negative impacts of the Meituan/Ele.me duopoly comes as
the Chinese government is seeking to assert increased control over major tech
companies, with new antitrust guidelines released November 10th targeting tech
giants including Meituan. On the same day, a post by the Cyberspace
Administration urged Chinese tech companies not to allow Chinese consumers to
become “prisoners to algorithms,” echoing the framing used in Renwu’s article.
Ultimately,
this report demonstrates that rising dependence on the informal sector without
social safety nets is likely to result in decreased wages and increased
vulnerability for workers. In addition, by directing stimulus through
businesses, including Ele.me and Meituan, the state is subsidizing the systems
that oppress them, further concentrating wealth in the hands of a few major
companies. With its focus on a sector that intentionally displaces risk onto workers,
Renwu’s article vividly demonstrates the negative repercussions of inadequate
social safety nets and weak protection for workers, as well as the growing and
largely unchecked control of tech firms over the nature of reality and
consumption itself.
–Chuang and friends
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário