The study’s focus: Freedom of association and collective bargaining in the platform economy

In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic has further accelerated digital transformations that were already under way in the world of work. Therefore, realizing the opportunities of the platform economy for workers and businesses is currently on the political agenda of many ILO Member States.1

This study analyses access to freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining in the emerging platform economy. The ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work of 1998 states that as fundamental principles and rights at work, freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining are essential elements in “maintain[ing] the link between social progress and economic growth ... enabl[ing] the persons concerned, to claim freely and on the basis of equality of opportunity their fair share of the wealth which they have helped to generate, and to achieve fully their human potential”. The ILO Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work of 2019 reaffirms that freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining are enabling rights and a key element for the attainment of inclusive and sustainable growth.2 The guarantee of these rights can help to ensure that the opportunities of the platform economy are realized for both employers and workers.

Freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining are fundamental principles and rights recognized in the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). These fundamental principles and rights apply to all employers and workers,3 with very limited and restricted exceptions.4

Box 1: The rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining

Box 2: Institutional background of the study

Diversity of the emerging platform economy

The exact size of the labour force in the platform economy is unknown as reliable data is still scarce (ILO 2022a). However, it is widely expected that the number of platform workers will rise in the coming years – potentially to about 90 million job opportunities in India alone (Augustinraj and Bajaj 2021).10

The number of digital labour platforms is rising and the emerging platform economy is transforming parts of the world of work (ILO 2022a; ILO 2021a). It is changing how work is organized by allowing businesses and individuals to connect with workers,11 for example to arrange a ride, order food or groceries, or find a freelancer for software development on digital labour platforms.

Work in the platform economy can take a multiplicity of forms. In general, digital labour platforms are classified into two broad categories: online web-based platforms and location-based platforms (De Stefano 2016b). Prominent sectors on location-based labour platforms include taxi, delivery and home services (such as plumbers and electricians); domestic work; and care work (such as childcare and caring for the ageing or people with disabilities) (ILO 2021a). On online web-based labour platforms, tasks include translation, writing, financial and patent services, design and software development or short-term tasks, such as annotating images, moderating content or transcribing videos (ILO 2021a). For an increasing number of workers, accessing work through digital labour platforms creates a variety of new opportunities while sometimes also posing challenges to working conditions (ILO 2022a; ILO 2021a).

Digital labour platforms offer benefits for workers and businesses and more broadly for consumers and society at large. For workers, digital labour platforms can create new income-generating and employment opportunities, while increasing their ability to combine their working hours with their daily lives. In particular, the platform economy can provide employment opportunities for groups of workers who are traditionally disadvantaged and face barriers in obtaining access to the labour market, including women, people with disabilities, young people, refugees, migrants, and workers with minority racial and ethnic backgrounds (ILO 2022a; ILO 2021a; EC 2021; Berg 2016; De Stefano 2016a). For businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises, the platform economy provides new opportunities for a wider market reach and to access a global workforce 24 hours a day, thereby improving efficiency, fostering innovation, reducing costs and enhancing productivity (ILO 2022a; ILO 2021a; IOE 2021).

In recent years, the growing popularity of the platform economy has increasingly been accompanied by coordinated group actions of platform workers including wildcat strikes, collective log-offs, and demonstrations in different parts of the world. Grievances are mainly related to pay, working conditions, employment classification and occupational safety and health (Bessa et al. 2022).

While the platform economy creates income-generating opportunities by facilitating access to labour markets for workers around the world, there are warnings that access to decent work may sometimes be difficult. Among others, this may relate to challenges in the exercise of fundamental principles and rights at work, an insufficient amount of work to sustain a living, inadequate social protection, low remuneration, long working hours, occupational health and safety issues, discriminatory practices, unfair termination, lack of access to dispute settlement mechanisms and skills underutilization (ILO 2022a; ILO 2021a; ILO 2021d; Wood et al. 2019; Berg et al. 2018).

In the G20 countries, “about 90% of the respondents on taxi and delivery platforms reported that work through platforms was their main source of income and these proportions were quite similar across countries” (ILO 2021a).

The large variety of opportunities and challenges also relates to the diverging characteristics, capabilities and needs of the workers active in the platform economy (ILO 2022a; ILO 2021a). A significant difference is the question whether a worker uses the platform economy as a permanent main source of income or as a supplementary income for a limited period (ILO 2021a).12 In addition, the type and level of skills required for tasks and projects are diverging (ILO 2022a). While workers on online web-based platforms tend to be highly educated, the average education levels of workers on location-based taxi and delivery platforms tend to be lower (ILO 2021a).

Access to freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining

Workers and employers have the right to establish and join organizations of their choice in order to promote and defend their respective interests, as well as the right to negotiate collectively with the other party. Many regulations in the labour market are based, among other things, on the assumption of the existence of an imbalance of bargaining power between individuals and their employers when negotiating pay and conditions of work (Freedland and Davies 1983). The rationale behind collective bargaining is to counter the lack of individual bargaining power and strengthen the unequal and therefore vulnerable position of an individual supplier of labour vis-à-vis the employer. The right to freedom of association is a precondition for collective bargaining to flourish.

During the emergence of the platform economy, there have been widespread assumptions that legal and practical difficulties would make it almost impossible for platform workers to participate in organizations of workers, coordinated group actions (such as protests, demonstrations or collectively logging out of the app) and collective bargaining (Johnston and Land-Kazlauskas 2018; Vandaele 2018). Some of these difficulties are especially acute for online web-based platforms because their workers are dispersed across different jurisdictions (ILO 2021a; Albrecht, Papadakis and Mexi 2021). Therefore, most of the practical examples identified and described in this study refer to the location-based platform economy.

Practical and legal challenges related to freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining in the platform economy

The practical obstacles to organizing and bargaining collectively on behalf of workers in the platform economy that are cited in the lliterature include the geographic dispersion of these workers in disconnected workplace locations such as their own vehicles or their own or customers’ private homes; the difficulties this creates for generating collective consciousness, compounded by the platforms’ encouragement of an individualistic, entrepreneurial image of platform work; the frequent turnover among workers; and the prospect of retribution against those who attempt to unionize without effective protections (Rodríguez Fernández 2020; De Stefano and Aloisi 2018; Prassl 2018).

Most relevant international labour standards on freedom of association and collective bargaining:

• • – Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)

  • – Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98)

  • – Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154)

  • – Collective Bargaining Recommendation, 1981 (No. 163)

The legal challenges often relate to an incorrect classification of platform workers as self-employed or independent contractors (ILO 2022a; Aloisi and Gramano 2019; De Stefano 2016a). Certain platform companies have adopted a “contracting model” that classifies their platform workers as “self-employed” or “independent contractors” (De Groen et al. 2021; De Stefano et al. 2021a). However, in many labour law systems, self-employed workers do not enjoy the same rights as workers in an employment relationship (ILO 2016). In national regulatory frameworks, access to collective bargaining is often dependent on classification as an employee or a special category of self-employed person, such as “workers” in the United Kingdom (Forsyth 2022). The adoption of the contracting model means that, depending on the restrictions posed by the national legal framework, workers in various different categories in the platform economy may be precluded from the right to engage in collective bargaining and the ability to take lawful industrial action under national legal frameworks.13

At the ILO, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) (2020) recalled that “the full range of fundamental principles and rights at work are applicable to platform workers in the same way as to all other workers, irrespective of their employment classification”.14 Box 3 gives an overview of observations and direct requests by the CEACR and decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA)15 on specific cases concerning the scope of application of the right to collective bargaining based on the ILO’s international labour standards.

Box 3: Scope of application of the right to collective bargaining in the ILO’s international labour standards

Research approach and main findings

This study provides empirical evidence from different regions of the world to identify avenues for platform economy workers to access freedom of association and collective bargaining. It shows that collective protests, the establishment of new organizations of workers and platforms, social dialogue and (to a limited extent) collective bargaining are taking place in the platform economy. The experiences from the ground described in this study indicate ways and a demand to create an even more enabling environment for freedom of association and collective bargaining in order to realize the opportunities of the platform economy for employers and workers.

In the preparatory phase of this research project, initial interviews with about 15 experts, such as representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations and experts from academia, were conducted to identify important developments and potential case studies in different regions of the world (initial interviews were conducted between February and April 2021). It is important to note that the case studies in this working paper are limited to describing developments regarding access to freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; they do not analyse in depth the working conditions of platform workers.

Chapter 1 provides a quantitative analysis of country surveys that were conducted among app-based and traditional taxi drivers and delivery workers. The surveys were conducted in Argentina, Chile, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco and Ukraine, with a total of 6,739 respondents who were app-based or traditional taxi drivers or delivery workers. This chapter shows the motivation of location-based platform workers to engage with each other and join different types of groups for the exchange of experience on issues of common interest or to collectively improve their working conditions. Most of the surveyed app-based delivery workers and taxi drivers were not aware of a trade union organization of which they could become a member. Instead, they mostly organized in informal groups of workers, for example on Facebook or WhatsApp or in other social media groups.

Chapter 2 calls attention to the situation “on the ground” by documenting concrete examples of organizing and bargaining collectively in the platform economy. Case studies were commissioned in Australia, Chile, India, Nigeria, Ukraine and Spain. The case studies were developed by local experts, who conducted about 20 interviews with national informants (ranging from workers and representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations to academic researchers). The country examples describe efforts by employers’ and workers’ organizations to reach out to workers on digital labour platforms and how these workers self-organize with a view to influencing their terms and conditions of work. It also shows the potential contributions that social dialogue and collective bargaining can make to resolving labour conflicts in the platform economy.

Chapter 3 provides a content analysis of a “first group of collective agreements” covering digital labour platforms. It benefited from a commissioned preparatory background study and reviews by academic researchers. In total, 11 collective agreements have been identified covering digital labour platforms in Austria, Chile, Denmark, Italy, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Spain and Sweden. For the majority of the collective agreements identified, the original texts were collected, translated and analysed for this study. All collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) regulate working time and include provisions on hourly wages and incentive-based payment structures. All identified CBAs apply to platform workers in an employment relationship, who often work in the food delivery sector in Europe.

The Conclusion provides a number of remarks based on the experiences described and analysed in Chapters 1 to 3.

Key findings

Figure 1: Number of survey respondents (n=6,739) of app-based and traditional delivery workers and taxi drivers, by country

Overall, the analysed observations in the country surveys indicate the existence of the need for and motivation of location-based platform workers to come together and engage with each other in some form to improve their working conditions – irrespective of the alleged individualistic character of the digital labour market and uncertainties about their employment classification and corresponding labour rights in many countries.

This chapter provides an empirical snapshot of the ways and forms in which platform workers engage with each other. In addition, the analysed data shed light on their motivations to join different types of groups and the effects of such membership. The chapter analyses data on workplace solidarities compiled through country surveys commissioned by the ILO. Most of the findings are limited to location-based platform workers. The last section of the chapter sheds some light on the workplace solidarities of online web-based platform workers.

The analysed survey data includes observations from 6,739 respondents from ten different countries, with a focus on developing and emerging economies (Argentina, Chile, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco and Ukraine).20 The country surveys were conducted between April 2019 and February 2020 in the form of in-person interviews using CAPIs. While the majority of questions in the survey were quantitative, some were qualitative and allowed for open-ended textual answers.

There are no comprehensive official statistics on platform workers, including their number and characteristics. Hence, there was no base from which a random sample could be drawn. In this context, the primary objective of the survey was to achieve a sample that would be as representative as possible of the target population of platform workers. The target population consisted of any worker aged 18 years or older who had been working in the taxi or delivery sector for at least three months. The criterion of working in the sector for three months was used to ensure that the worker could provide meaningful responses.21

The respondents to the surveys were grouped into four categories: (1) app-based delivery workers, (2) app-based taxi drivers, (3) traditional delivery workers and (4) traditional taxi drivers. The survey design allows for comparisons of findings between app-based and traditional taxi drivers and delivery workers.22

Motivations for engaging with other workers and joining different types of groups to improve working conditions on location-based digital labour platforms

In general, common interests and a shared identity are regarded as prerequisites of an effective collective representation of workers (Hyman and Gumbrell-McCormick 2020; Rodríguez Fernández 2020). However, platform work is often characterized by the lack of a common workplace in which workers can get to know each other and communicate with each other and with their representatives, in particular with a view to defending their interests in relation to the employer. Therefore, it is often argued that the dispersed labour market on digital labour platforms makes it very challenging for platform workers to become aware of their collective interests and develop a shared identity (Johnston and Land-Kazlauskas 2018; Vandaele 2018).

However, a general finding from the data collected through the country surveys is that across the ten countries, a significant proportion of surveyed app-based taxi drivers and delivery workers engage with each other in some form. This happens despite the alleged individualistic and dispersed character of the digital labour market, in which workers are isolated from each other. The interaction and engagement may happen on a non-regular basis through unplanned day-to-day encounters. In this regard, about 82 per cent of surveyed app-based delivery workers and 66 per cent of app-based taxi drivers reported that they speak with other drivers about their work experiences at least multiple times a week. These exchanges may happen in person at taxi stands, parking lots, tea stands or eating places, or may occur digitally via cell phones and social media.

In addition, a significant share of app-based taxi drivers and delivery workers joined different types of social media groups with the motivation to improve their terms and conditions of work. The organization of platform workers in different types of groups and associations23 is the focus of this chapter. The following sections summarize the information on workplace solidarities gathered from the above-mentioned ILO country surveys under four main findings.

Finding 1: Location-based platform workers are often not aware of trade union organizations

• A large majority of surveyed app-based taxi drivers and delivery workers were not aware of a trade union organization of which they could become a member. Even if location-based platform workers were aware of the respective organizations, they seldom decided to become a member. This reveals a major difference from surveyed traditional taxi drivers and delivery workers, who were much more likely to be a member of a trade union. For example, in Ghana and Indonesia traditional taxi drivers were 7 times and in India as much as 26 times more likely to be a trade union member than their app-based counterparts in the surveys. 24

About 85.7 per cent of surveyed app-based delivery workers and 68.4 per cent of app-based taxi drivers reported that they were not aware of a trade union organization of which they could become a member (see figure 2). This implies that some surveyed app-based taxi drivers and delivery workers were aware of a trade union organization of which they could become a member. However, it also appears that the majority of them decided not to join the organization.25

Figure 2: Awareness of a trade union organization

Trade union membership of app-based taxi drivers and delivery workers is low

Overall, the reported level of trade union membership of app-based taxi drivers and delivery workers was low in the country surveys. Where respondents reported being a union member, this mostly involved membership of newly established trade union organizations that primarily organize app-based workers, such as the “Online Drivers Union” or the “Uber Drivers Association”. A majority of union members reported that they actively participate in the union’s activities multiple times a week. Surveyed app-based taxi drivers are also more likely to be a member of a trade union than app-based delivery workers – while the unionization rates for both categories were low among those surveyed.26

Surveyed app-based taxi drivers and delivery workers who had joined a trade union organization were also more likely to report improved working conditions in comparison to those who had joined a social media group.27 Regarding the benefits of trade union membership, app-based workers indicated that the information and grievances they voiced were forwarded by the union to the platform company. Respondents also valued the exchange with other workers in order to receive advice on basic labour rights, organize protests, receive information about governmental regulations on the platform economy and receive financial support in difficult times (for example, obtaining access to insurance schemes through the trade union).

Comparisons show that traditional taxi drivers and delivery workers are more likely to be trade union members

Overall, surveyed traditional taxi drivers and delivery workers were much more likely to be trade union members than their app-based counterparts. However, the cross-country average of trade union membership hides important differences among the ten countries in the sample. Reported membership rates for traditional taxi drivers ranged from 0 per cent in Kenya and Mexico to 40.9 per cent in India.28 Country differences range from Lebanon, where traditional taxi drivers were 1.2 times more likely than app-based taxi drivers to be trade union members, to India, where traditional taxi drivers were 26 times more likely than app-based taxi drivers to be a member of a trade union. Only very few surveyed traditional taxi drivers and delivery workers reported membership of a trade union organization that also had app-based workers among its members.

Finding 2: App-based taxi drivers and delivery workers are using different types of social media groups to come together with the motivation to improve their terms and conditions of work

• Among those surveyed, about 28.4 per cent of app-based taxi drivers and 33.3 per cent of app-based delivery workers reported membership of a “Facebook, WhatsApp, or other social media group”. A large proportion of app-based taxi drivers (80.1 per cent) and app-based delivery workers (76.8 per cent) who are members exchange actively at least multiple times a week in these groups. Of these workers, a large share of app-based taxi drivers and delivery workers joined these groups with the hope or expectation to improve their working conditions. A sizeable proportion of them reported that membership in these groups translated into real improvements of their working conditions (see figures 3 and 4).

Facebook, WhatsApp or other social media groups provide a platform for almost one third of the workers to discuss problems and support one another

Among those surveyed, app-based taxi drivers and delivery workers who are members of a Facebook, WhatsApp or other social media group reported that such groups mostly provide a platform to discuss the problems they face and to support and help each other. This often includes information on traffic and road security or controls by the authorities. The groups also provide support in cases of emergencies or accidents or for car/bike repairs, sales and rentals. In social media groups for bicycle delivery workers, information is also exchanged on weather conditions.

In several groups, information is exchanged on how to improve earnings (e.g. information on high-demand areas, best routes, fares and bonus schemes in the apps). Some groups also provide information on fraudulent orders or customers and technical problems encountered with the app. The groups provide forums in which drivers can get advice from (more senior) peers on these issues. In addition, respondents reported that several groups provide platforms for socializing (jokes, memes) and moral support among app-based workers.29

Some of these groups were characterized by respondents as providing information on political lobbying activities of workers and their organizations in order to defend their interests; demonstrations and strikes; cooperation and solidarity between members; charity collections; how to defend the rights of app-based taxi drivers and delivery workers; and discussions of new regulations in digital platform work in their respective countries.

Motivations and reasons differ among workers for engaging with each other through Facebook, WhatsApp or other social media groups

Respondents were also asked about their motivations and reasons for engaging with each other through Facebook, WhatsApp or other social media groups. At the cross-country level, about 62.7 per cent of app-based taxi drivers and 45.9 per cent of app-based delivery workers who joined these groups did so with the hope or expectation to improve their terms and conditions of work.

However, large variations may be observed between different countries. For example, in Lebanon about 16 per cent30 and in Kenya about 70.3 per cent of app-based delivery workers joined a Facebook, WhatsApp or other social media group with the expectation to improve their workings conditions (see figure 4). Such variations between countries can also be observed for app-based taxi drivers (see figure 3).

Participation in Facebook, WhatsApp or other social media groups: Impacts on terms and conditions of work

About 47.2 per cent of surveyed app-based taxi drivers and 34 per cent of app-based delivery workers reported that participating in Facebook, WhatsApp or other social media groups helped them to improve their conditions of work. There are considerable variations among the ten countries (see figures 3 and 4).

Many of the surveyed app-based taxi drivers and delivery workers reported that social media groups provided them with helpful advice on how to improve earnings when starting to work on the applications. This included learning which hours and areas it was best to work in and further tips about how to earn more money and how to get more orders. Some workers also reported that the groups helped them to collectively achieve better conditions, such as lower highway tolls or better payment modalities for the use of highways in some countries.

Of those who joined these groups, several of the surveyed app-based taxi drivers and delivery workers reported that participating in Facebook, WhatsApp or other social media groups helped them to receive support from other drivers in cases of emergencies (such as car accidents or being robbed). For example, one respondent reported that when he had an accident other members of the group came to help and called his family. In addition, the drivers value social media groups for helping them to learn more about work processes, dangerous areas and situations or how to deal with problematic customers. The responses varied depending upon the country.

In addition, few workers reported that social media groups helped them to improve working conditions by collecting grievances and appealing together to the management of the platform companies. Grievances are collected by the “group admin” or a “chairperson”, who sends them to the platform company or sets up meetings and discussions with the management of the platform company. It was also reported that such groups helped workers to improve working conditions by learning about their rights, organizing protests and marches, raising awareness of precarious working conditions among the wider public and collectively lobbying at the political level for improved regulations and working conditions.

Finding 3: App-based taxi drivers and delivery workers engage less frequently in coordinated group actions than traditional taxi drivers and delivery workers

• While a significant number of surveyed app-based taxi drivers and delivery workers organize on Facebook or WhatsApp or in other social media groups with the motivation to improve their conditions of work, they rarely participate in collective actions such as protests, demonstrations or collectively logging out of the app to effectively represent their interests. This finding relates to the question of how membership in social media groups translates into improvements of working conditions for location-based platform workers.

Figure 5: Engagement in coordinated group actions

At the cross-country level, about 8.9 per cent of surveyed app-based taxi drivers and 3.4 per cent of app-based delivery workers reported that they had participated in coordinated group actions, such as a protest, a demonstration or collectively logging out of the app. Again, there are substantial variations between different countries. In Chile (28.6 per cent), India (13.9 per cent) and Morocco (33.3 per cent), a significant fraction of surveyed app-based taxi drivers have participated in coordinated group actions such as a protest, a demonstration or collectively logging out of the app. In other countries, such as Indonesia (2.7 per cent), Lebanon (1 per cent) and Mexico (0.5 per cent), almost none of the surveyed app-based taxi drivers have participated in coordinated group actions. This indicates again the importance of country-specific circumstances and industrial relations systems.

How did app-based workers find out about coordinated group actions?

Most app-based workers reported that they found out about coordinated group actions through Facebook, WhatsApp, Telegram or other social media groups. It should be noted here that this explicitly also includes social media groups operated by trade unions. A substantial proportion of app-based workers learned about coordinated group actions through colleagues. Few app-based workers found out about such actions in the newspapers or on TV.

What were they trying to achieve?

About half of the coordinated group actions by app-based workers aimed to achieve a pay increase. The demands included increased fares, a reduction of the commission fees deducted by the platform companies, or redefining bonus and incentive pay structure. Some coordinated group actions related to the legal rights of platform workers. Several of them also sought to achieve recognition for app-based workers’ organizations or union status. In addition, app-based workers used coordinated group actions to protest for greater job security; against account blockings; to help and support the cases of individual workers; to raise awareness of their working conditions after severe accidents of app-based workers on bicycles; or to protest that some workers on bicycles did not have suitable equipment to be protected against injuries and adverse weather conditions.

Were they successful?

On being asked whether coordinated group actions were successful, about one third of the app-based workers who participated in one reported that they had been (partially) successful in achieving their demands. Achievements included increased fares; media recognition such as on TV, in print media or the radio; or the establishment and registration of trade unions for app-based taxi drivers and delivery workers.

About two thirds of the app-based workers who participated in a coordinated group action reported such actions to have been unsuccessful or that results still remained to be seen. App-based taxi drivers and delivery workers often noted that there had been no response from the platform company or that nothing had happened at all. In addition, workers also reported some challenges in organizing as often an insufficient number of app-based workers had participated in a coordinated group action, such as collectively disconnecting from the app at a specific time. Few app-based workers reported threats, such as deactivation of accounts, if they participated in a coordinated group action.

Traditional taxi drivers and delivery workers are more likely to participate in coordinated group actions than their app-based counterparts

About 17.3 per cent of surveyed traditional taxi drivers and 9.3 per cent of delivery workers reported having participated in a coordinated group action, such as a protest or a demonstration. Also, for traditional taxi drivers and delivery workers there are large variations among countries. In Chile (28.6 per cent), India (42.4 per cent) and Morocco (28.2 per cent), a significant percentage of traditional taxi drivers reported that they had participated in coordinated group actions. In other countries, such as Ukraine (2.7 per cent), Indonesia (2.7 per cent) and Lebanon (0.0 per cent), only very few traditional taxi drivers reported such participation. Also, for traditional taxi drivers and delivery workers the variations in the level of their engagement in such actions indicates the importance of country-specific legal and practical circumstances and industrial relations systems.

Finding 4: Some app-based and traditional taxi drivers and delivery workers reported being or having been discouraged from participating in coordinated group actions or joining worker associations or groups that represent the interests of workers

• The country surveys show that some app-based workers feel discouraged from participating in coordinated group actions or engaging in worker associations. Often workers who reported feeling discouraged indicate that they intend to only work temporarily as an app-based worker and a lack of concrete impact of collective actions on working conditions. Few surveyed app-based workers reported feeling discouraged by the management of platform companies from participating in coordinated group actions or engaging in worker associations.

About 2.3 per cent of surveyed app-based taxi drivers and 3.6 per cent of app-based delivery workers reported being discouraged or having been discouraged from participating in collective action or joining any worker association or groups that represent their interests. These numbers need to be seen in the broader context of low unionization rates and the low rates of engaging in coordinated group actions. In a subsample of app-based workers who actually participated in coordinated group actions, about 8.8 per cent of app-based taxi drivers and 18.8 per cent of app-based delivery workers reported being discouraged or having been discouraged from participating.

The reasons for being discouraged from participating in group actions varied. It was either because the discussions in social media groups were time-consuming, often without any concrete actions; or they were discouraged by colleagues to participate; or they regarded their app-based work as something temporary and they just wanted to work and earn money. Individual app-based workers reported being discouraged to join in group action by circumstances that might be related to their migration status.

Few of the surveyed app-based workers reported that they were discouraged from participating in coordinated group actions through group messages by the management of platform companies and feared the threat of the deactivation of their accounts. Some of them reported that they were explicitly warned not to create or join any social media groups relating to the platform company.

Comparison to traditional taxi drivers and delivery workers

In comparison, 7.6 per cent of surveyed traditional taxi drivers and 3.5 per cent of traditional delivery workers reported being or having been discouraged from participating in collective actions or joining any worker association or groups that represent their interests. In a subsample of surveyed traditonal workers who actually participated in coordinated group actions, about 16.5 per cent of traditional taxi drivers and 3.1 per cent of traditional delivery workers reported being discouraged or having been discouraged from participating. It needs to be taken into consideration that traditional taxi drivers and delivery workers are also more likely to engage in coordinated group actions and much more frequently join trade unions in comparison to their app-based counterparts. This might partly explain why they also more frequently report being or having been discouraged from participating in collective actions or joining worker associations or groups that represent their interests.

Motivations for exchanging with other workers on online web-based digital labour platforms

Workers on online web-based platforms perform tasks on microtask, freelance and competitive programming platforms. Challenges for the organization of workers are amplified in the online web-based platform economy in comparison to the location-based platform economy. Workers on online web-based platforms are not necessarily located in the same geographical space with their requesters and directly compete with other platform workers to access the tasks offered by the platform, while often suffering from a lack of shared professional identity among themselves (ILO 2021d; Berg et al. 2018; Wood, Lehdonvirta and Graham 2018; Rodríguez Fernández 2018; Lehdonvirta 2016). Associational efforts mostly focus on forums and groups in social networks or on alternative formulas for action, such as the development of platform rankings to alert the workers themselves about the working conditions on particular platforms (LaPlante and Silberman 2016).

Since 2017, several surveys have been undertaken by the ILO to better understand working conditions on online web-based platforms. This includes a global survey of crowdworkers on five major microtask platforms (2017); a global survey of workers on freelance and competitive programming platforms (2019–2020); and country-level surveys of platform workers in China and Ukraine (2019).31 Based on the survey responses, the following sections analyse how workers on online web-based platforms engage with each other and whether trade union organizations play a role in this regard.

A substantial number of crowdworkers on microtask platforms turn to online forums for mutual support

The majority of crowdworkers (58 per cent) reported in the surveys that they turn neither to unions, solidarity groups, online forums or any other groups as a place to discuss problems or consult for advice related to crowdwork or to receive some form of protection.

Still, about one third of the surveyed crowdworkers turn to online forums to discuss problems or consult for advice related to crowdwork. Many of these online forums, such as Turkopticon, TurkNation and TurkerHub, are connected to specific platforms, such as Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). In addition, several crowdworkers reported using Facebook or Reddit groups to discuss problems or consult for advice. Some of the forums referenced by crowdworkers have a regional focus, such as the “Indonesian Online Worker Forum” or the “Online Microworkers Nepal”. However, most of the forums seem to attract an international audience of crowdworkers. Crowdworkers reported that they use online forums for mutual support, including to discuss available work and problems with tasks and to give general support. The exchanges in online forums included questions about companies and individuals who offer work on web-based online platforms and their reliability. Overall, crowdworkers used online forums mostly to support and help each other and not for discussing working conditions or organizing (online) protests.

Only few crowdworkers on microtask platforms turn to trade unions for support

A small number of crowdworkers reported that they had turned to trade unions to discuss problems, consult for advice or receive some form of protection related to crowdwork. The trade unions mentioned by respondents operate in different regions of the world and included the Sindicato de Empleados de Comercio (Argentina); the Canadian Freelancer Union and Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (Canada); IG Metal and ver.di (Germany); the National Joint Council of Action of the National Defence Workers’ Federation (India); the Unión General de Trabajadores (UGT) (Spain); Unite (United Kingdom); and the Freelancers Union (United States).

Freelance workers on online web-based platforms seldom engage with trade unions and professional associations

Workers on surveyed freelance platforms reported that they routinely use a number of online resources when engaging in platform work, including YouTube (60.4 per cent), blogs (36.1 per cent), online courses or universities (43 per cent), forums or other online communities (48.3 per cent) and platforms that provided help and support on a specific topic (38.5 per cent).

However, a large majority of workers (82.6 per cent) reported that they did not turn to labour unions, trade unions, professional associations or organizations or other organizations for their work on labour platforms. About 12.9 per cent of workers reported that they turn to professional associations or organizations to discuss their freelance work. This mostly included groups on Facebook and LinkedIn, as well as professional organizations such as the Online Professional Workers Association (OPWAK) formed in 2019 in Kenya. Only very few freelancers on online freelance platforms reported that they had turned to labour unions as additional resources when performing their tasks.

Key findings

Figure 6: Country case studies commissioned by the ILO

In Ghana, it was the non-payment of bonuses that first motivated app-based drivers to organize – “the bonuses weren’t coming and we realized that it was because nobody was speaking for the drivers”. In addition, drivers felt that the non-transparent deactivation of drivers by platform companies was frustrating (Akorsu et al. forthcoming).

Chapter 1 showed through country surveys that location-based platform workers are generally motivated to come together and engage with each other in some forms to improve their working conditions. Building on that general finding, the purpose of this chapter is to identify and document in more detail concrete examples “on the ground” from different regions of the world. The examples describe the efforts of employers’ and workers’ organizations to reach out to workers in the platform economy and how these workers self-organize with a view to influencing their terms and conditions of work.

Country examples are taken from case studies commissioned by the ILO in Australia32, Chile33, India34, Nigeria35, Ukraine36 and Spain37. In the preparatory phase of the research project (February to April 2021), interviews with representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations and experts from academia and civil society were conducted. These helped to identify important developments and case studies in different regions of the world. Based on those initial interviews, countries were selected for analysis based on their innovative legislative and judicial developments, while ensuring regional balance.

Overall, for the country case studies, interviews with about national 20 informants – who ranged from platform workers and representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations to academic researchers – were conducted by the contributors to this chapter. In addition, it draws on existing case studies in the academic and grey literature and in news reports.

Box 4: Realizing the opportunities of the platform economy for businesses and workers

Initiatives of workers’ organizations in the platform economy

Informal groups of workers, newly established trade unions and already existing trade unions are active in the platform economy. They engage in coordinated group actions (demonstrations, strikes and collective log-offs); use strategic or test-case litigation; and engage in public advocacy in the media and regulatory processes. The examples also show trade union activism in the platform economy on behalf of traditionally disadvantaged groups of workers, such as migrant workers. Overall, the country examples show that location-based platform workers have adopted a greater variety of strategies than online web-based workers. The notable differences in the organizational efforts between countries in the global North and South are also discussed below.

Establishing workers’ organization in the platform economy

ILO surveys in ten countries found that the reported numbers for trade union membership of workers in the platform economy are low overall (see Ch. 1). However, in some instances platform workers have established new organizations and sometimes they have joined existing unions (ILO 2022a; ILO 2021a; ILO 2021d). In some countries, existing unions have been very active in reaching out to workers in the platform economy supporting organizing efforts.

Platform workers establish new workers’ organizations

In different parts of the world, the establishment of new workers’ organizations can be observed. However, the self-organization of platform workers going beyond social media groups has mainly emerged in the ride-share and food-delivery sectors (ILO 2022a).

The types of organizations in which workers in the platform economy organize are very diverse. The newly established organizations take different legal forms and have different levels of organizational maturity. For example, in Chile some newly established organizations collect union dues, have established statutes or bylaws, have quota systems and are represented by elected representatives.38 Other organizations do not yet have statutes or guiding principles and membership registers and resemble more informal groups (see Box 5 for the names of newly established organizations and their organizational scope in Chile).

Particularly in countries with a conducive regulatory environment, formally registered trade union organizations and works councils have emerged in the platform economy.39 The interactions between already existing trade unions and these newly established workers’ organizations can be shaped by competition and conflict or by cooperation and mutual support. Box 5 illustrates with concrete examples the establishment of workers’ organizations and in some cases indicates how those new organizations engage with existing trade unions.40

Box 5: Examples of newly established workers’ organizations in location-based platforms

Existing trade unions reaching out to workers and their organizations in the platform economy

Box 5 showed that many newly established unions of platform workers are in regular contact or are supported by already existing trade unions. In several country examples, it may be observed that already existing and well-established trade unions provide support and access to institutional power for the emerging organizations of platform workers (see also Webster et al. 2021). Box 6 highlights some concrete examples of how existing trade unions reached out to workers in the platform economy and their organizations.

Box 6: Trade unions reaching out to workers and their organizations in the platform economy

Box 7 describes in detail how an already existing trade union supported the establishment and functioning of newly established trade unions for workers in the platform economy in India. The example illustrates how trade unions and newly established unions for platform workers can collaborate.

Box 7: A closer look: Trade unions reaching out to platform workers in India

Most of the newly established workers’ organizations are found in the app-based transportation and delivery sector. Box 8 describes how workers’ organizations explore the possibilities for organizing workers in another sector.

Box 8: Workers’ organizations reaching out to care and beauty workers in the platform economy in India

Box 9 describes in more depth the establishment of a trade union for workers in a grocery delivery platform who are in an employment relationship and describes the relationship with existing unions in Chile. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the president of the newly established trade union was elected as leader of the national organization of trade unions, the Central Unitaria de Trabajadores de Chile (CUT) in 2021. Moreover, the example illustrates the differences arising from the classification of workers when establishing an organization.68

Box 9: A closer look: Cornershop union of platform economy workers in Chile

The example from Chile in Box 9 described the successful establishment of a trade union. However, the establishment of new workers’ organizations in the platform economy faces several challenges, including a high membership volatility due to the often temporary nature of this type of work and the registration processes for public recognition as a trade union (Johnston and Land-Kazlauskas 2018).71 Box 10 describes the attempt to form a trade union for platform workers in Ukraine and describes the related obstacles that are common in many countries around the world.

Box 10: Challenges for creating a trade union for platform workers in Ukraine

Establishment of works councils in the platform economy

In some countries, workers in the platform economy have started to create works councils. Depending on the country, works councils may enjoy a wide variety of rights, from information, consultation and participation to co-determination of rights. However, when establishing a works council platform workers are reported to sometimes face obstacles related to the measures taken by platform companies, while the temporary character of platform work may reduce incentives for workers to engage.73 Box 11 illustrates the election of works councils and health and safety representatives in location-based platform companies in Australia, Austria, Germany and Norway and the establishment of the Riders Forum in Belgium.

Box 11: Establishment of works councils and health and safety representatives

Initiatives on online web-based platforms in the platform economy

In comparison to the situation in the location-based platforms, the legal and practical obstacles to organize and establish formal workers’ organizations are even more pronounced for workers on online web-based labour platforms that span different jurisdictions (ILO 2021a). These workers may also be less willing to organize. This observation was confirmed by the present study, which finds that groups of workers on online web-based labour platforms often take the form of online groups in which workers discuss their tasks and grievances. One example are groups of microtask workers on Amazon MechnicalTurk (LaPlante and Silberman 2016). Names of the forums include forums like Turkopticon, TurkNation and TurkerHub. Very often these groups seem to be limited to being mutual-aid mechanisms (see Ch. 1).

Box 12 illustrates initiatives on online web-based labour platforms that address content creators on platforms such as YouTube, Twitch or Instagram and workers on platforms such as Mechanical Turk, Upwork or Clickworker. In addition, it provides a good example of how protests against the adoption of a new law translated into in-person demonstrations by IT workers and online web-based platform workers in Ukraine.

Box 12: Initiatives on online web-based platforms

Organizing migrant workers in the platform economy

In several countries, labour platforms are an important source of employment and income for migrant workers. It is estimated that about 17 per cent of platform workers are migrants and that proportion is higher in developed countries (38 per cent) than in developing countries (7 per cent) (ILO 2022a).

For example, in Argentina migrants represent about 74 per cent of the workers surveyed in the delivery sector (ILO 2021a). In Australia, there is considerable evidence indicating a high concentration of migrant workers in the platform economy, particularly in the ride-share and food-delivery sectors. A 2019 survey by the Delivery Riders Alliance found that 75 per cent of food delivery workers who responded were temporary visa-holders, including international students and those on working holiday visas or bridging visas.90 A study of the working experiences of Uber drivers in the state of Queensland concluded that:

• “In contrast to non-migrants, migrant drivers are more likely to rely on the income from Uber to support themselves and their families. More importantly, these migrant drivers appear to have fewer alternative work options available to them, and thus find themselves more precariously positioned, and reliant on the Uber platform and its flawed star-rating managerial system. ‘Flexible’ working hours allow these precarious migrants to accrue enough work to make the money necessary to survive, whereas more secure workers – who are often non-migrants – can access flexible shifts when it is convenient for them to do so” (Holtum et al. 2021, p. 16).91

A high share of migrant workers can constitute another hurdle for the successful unionization of workers in the platform economy. This may be due to language barriers, the temporary character of the work relationship or unclear immigrations status. Box 13 illustrates with concrete examples the challenges identified and how trade unions reached out to migrant workers in the platform economy.

Box 13: Workers’ organizations and migrant workers

Demonstrations, strikes and collective log-offs by workers in the platform economy

In recent years, the growth of the platform economy has increasingly been accompanied by coordinated group actions of platform workers, including wildcat strikes, collective log-offs and demonstrations. Chapter 1 found that about 8.9 per cent of app-based taxi workers and 3.4 per cent of app-based delivery workers reported in the surveys that they had participated in coordinated group actions such as a protest, memorial, demonstration or collectively logging out of the app, with notable differences between countries. A large share of coordinated group actions of platform workers aimed to achieve a pay increase. Some of the coordinated group actions also sought to achieve the recognition of union status for platform workers’ organizations (see Chapter 1).

Building on the general findings of Chapter 1, the following sections describe concrete examples of coordinated group actions in more detail by giving, for example, information on the organization of protests, the number of platform workers involved and their demands (see Box 15). Important findings from the Leeds Index of Platform Labour Protest97 are also summarized.

Findings from the Leeds Index of Platform Labour Protest

The Leeds Index of Platform Labour Protest uses data drawn from a combination of online resources, including news media databases. It documents a general increase in the volume of protest events for the period January 2017 to July 2020 and reports the number of protest incidents related to working conditions on digital labour platforms (Bessa et al. 2022).98 It has been found that pay was by far the most prominent cause of dispute actions prior to the pandemic (64 per cent), followed by employment status (20 per cent), health and safety conditions (19 per cent) and regulatory issues (17 per cent). Protests about health and safety conditions have constituted more than half of the disputes since the pandemic started (up to 65 per cent of all protests in the second quarter of 2020), with Latin America being particularly affected. Grievances connected to union recognition motivated 6 per cent of all protests by platform workers worldwide. Labour protests on digital labour platforms are mostly driven by workers themselves and ad hoc constituted informal groups of workers, but increasingly protest actions receive support from newly established and already existing trade unions (see Box 14).

Box 14: The involvement of trade unions in protests

Protest actions have emerged in all regions of the world and are most prominent in ride-hailing and delivery services. However, there are major regional differences observable. In Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Arab States, workers are reported to mainly rely on demonstrations and strikes to make their voices heard. Protests in these regions are most likely to be led by newly established unions or ad hoc established temporarily informal groups of workers. For Europe, a higher level of involvement of already existing trade unions in workers’ protests in the platform economy is reported. For other regions, the involvement of “existing trade unions” in demonstrations and strikes of platform workers is reported to be low – with notable exceptions some of which will be covered in this chapter.

Concrete examples of coordinated group actions on transport and delivery platforms

Box 15 illustrates with concrete country examples from different parts of the world how workers on transport and delivery platforms engaged in protests such as demonstrations, strikes and collective log-offs. It does not give an exhaustive overview of instances of workers’ protests on transport and delivery platforms and is limited to providing examples from different regions of the world. Also, many workers’ protests did not result in concrete improvements of working conditions but featured in media coverage and influenced public opinion.

Box 15: Examples of workers’ protests on transport and delivery platforms

Box 16 analyses in more depth a concrete example from Ukraine with some typical characteristics of protests actions of delivery platform workers. In Ukraine, the first protests emerged in response to a reported reduction in pay and a deadly accident of a food courier driver in Kharkiv. Workers’ protests were initially led by an ad hoc established temporarily informal group of workers and involved demonstrations in front of the premises of the platform company and collective log-offs by workers from the app. The organization of workers mainly took place online via messenger services.

Box 16: A closer look: Protests of delivery platform workers in Ukraine

Protests beyond the ride-hailing and delivery sector

The majority of demonstrations, strikes and collective log-offs by workers are reported for app-based taxi drivers and delivery drivers in the platform economy. However, also beyond these sectors , workers have used protest actions to express grievances about wages and working conditions. Box 17 gives an example of protests by beauty workers on digital labour platforms in India.

Box 17: Protests by beauty workers working on digital labour platforms in India

The role of technology in protest actions

Several studies have shown the importance of social media groups and technology for the self-organization of workers or as a mean of already existing trade unions to reach out to workers in the platform economy (Aslam and Woodcock 2020; Maffie 2020; Rodríguez Fernández 2020). In many instances, newly established workers’ organizations, already existing trade unions and workers themselves use messenger services such as WhatsApp and Telegram to organize and get in contact with a larger number of platform workers.

In interviews with trade union organizers and representatives of workers’ associations, WhatsApp and Telegram groups were considered to be essential for uniting workers from platforms in the same area and to exchange information, concerns and hopes.129 However, in addition to technological tools, interviewed trade union representatives considered that specific strategies for each sector were needed, such as going to a public square where tour guides work and waiting for them to finish work. This example shows the importance of traditional and basic trades union tasks and strategies for organizing workers in the platform economy.130 As illustrated above, technology often plays a major role in organizing protest actions. However, protests are often not entirely conducted online but use traditional methods, such as in-person strikes and demonstrations.131

Box 18 illustrates the role of technology for protest actions, with concrete examples from different parts of the world.

Box 18: Examples of the role of technology for protest actions

Challenges to organize workers’ protests

The organization of workers’ protests in the platform economy is subject to several challenges. Often the challenges stem from the dispersed labour market on labour platforms in which workers do not know each other personally (Johnston and Land-Kazlauskas 2018). Other challenges stemming from their classification as self-employed workers or independent contractors relate to the protection of workers when participating in protests (ILO 2021a). In some instances, platform companies are reported to have responded to workers’ protests by penalizing workers by deactivating their accounts, denying the significance of protests and sending notices to workers to continue working during log-out periods, among others. In these cases, a lack of effective legal protections against the actions of platform companies’ can be a deterrent against collective actions by workers in the platform economy (ILO 2021a).

Box 19 illustrates the challenges to organize protests due to the dispersion of workers and reported opposition and measures from platform companies in response to workers’ protests, with examples from different regions of the world.

Box 19: Challenges for organizing coordinated group actions in the platform economy

Litigation and public advocacy

The examples above illustrated demonstrations, strikes and collective log-offs by workers in the platform economy. In general, it was found that litigation is more frequent with regard to location-based platforms and less on online web-based platforms. In addition, trade unions and workers’ organizations often pursue a multi-faceted strategy, including strategic or test case litigation and lobbying federal and state governments for increased regulation of the platform economy.

Litigation by trade unions and platform workers

In many countries, legal protections are linked to the legal question of “independent contractors vs. employees” and therefore strategic litigation by trade unions sometime focuses on the classification of workers. Also, already existing trade unions often provide legal advice or support the litigation efforts of platform workers´ initiatives to organize in trade unions or works councils. The existing literature provides several comparative analyses of litigation taking place around the world involving digital labour platforms (Hießl forthcoming; ILAW Network 2021; De Stefano et al. 2021a).

For example, the International Lawyers Assisting Workers (ILAW) Network (2021) provides a digest of key judicial decisions concerning digital platform, showing that trade unions were often directly or indirectly involved in litigation efforts (ILAW Network 2021). The support of trade unions in litigation efforts is often crucial as these may involve high costs and court proceedings about the classification of workers can take a long time in several countries.

It is not possible in the scope of this study to present an exhaustive overview of judicial decisions classifying workers in the platform economy (see also ILO 2022a). Moreover, as mentioned above, it is important to note that litigation is not a cost-neutral activity, nor is it quick and easy, which has led to diverging union strategies across countries. Particularly well institutionalized trade unions use the legal avenue to provide protections for workers in the platform economy in Europe and North America. In several countries this has resulted in a large number of court cases, while in other countries grass-root workers’ organizations seemed to rely more on protest actions instead of legal actions.142 Moreover, all well-known cases on the classification of platform workers relate to the location-based platform economy and not to the online web-based platform economy. There is no unanimity of court decisions when it comes to classifying platform workers as either dependent workers or self-employed (ILO 2022a).

Box 20 gives examples of litigation efforts. It briefly summarizes well-known rulings from the United Kingdom and Brazil, and uses the examples of Spain and Ukraine to illustrate one of the general findings noted above – namely that in some countries there are large numbers of litigation efforts (e.g. Spain), while in other countries trade unions rely much less on court cases to access freedom of association and collective bargaining (e.g. Ukraine).

Box 20: Judicial decisions on the classification of workers in the platform economy in Spain and Ukraine

The Leeds Index of Platform Labour Protest reports that a significant number of protest actions (15.3 per cent of all reported protests) involve litigation by trade unions and platform workers (Bessa et al. 2022). In particular, trade unions in North America, Europe and Central Asia support workers litigating against platform companies, challenging the classification of self-employed platform workers or seeking formal recognition of trade unions, and they protect other forms of protest (Bessa et al. 2022). However, also in other regions of the world, trade unions and workers’ organizations have started to use litigation to defend their interests and protect unionization efforts (see Box 21).

Box 21: Litigation by trade unions in Chile and Uruguay

Trade unions may also support individual platform workers in legal matters beyond the classification of workers. Box 22 gives examples relating to claims against insurances, the entitlement to work equipment, and the use und functioning of digital tools on the apps.

Box 22: Examples of union litigation beyond the employment classification

Advocacy by trade unions and platform workers to achieve regulatory change

In addition to strategic and test case litigation, trade unions and workers’ organizations often pursue public advocacy strategies, for example by engaging with the media or in regulatory initiatives. Workers’ organizations may lobby governments on different levels to adopt new regulatory initiatives (ILO 2021a). Box 23 illustrates the advocacy efforts of workers’ organizations, with concrete country examples.

Box 23: Advocacy by trade unions and platform workers to achieve regulatory change

Public advocacy of workers’ organizations often highlights the working conditions of the transport and food delivery sectors of the platform economy. However, several advocacy initiatives also go beyond these sectors. Digital platform enterprises are increasingly gaining importance in the provision of domestic and care work (ILO 2021b). Worldwide, the number of such enterprises active in the domestic and care sector grew from 28 platforms in 2010 to 224 platforms in 2020 (ILO 2021b). In response, for example in Australia, trade unions have used the Victorian On-Demand Inquiry for advocacy and made submissions on the impact of digital platforms on the wages and conditions of workers in the caring industries (see Box 24).

Box 24: A closer look: Unions in the care sector engaging in the Victorian On-Demand Inquiry in Australia158

Initiatives by digital labour platforms, self-employed platform workers creating entrepreneurial organizations and advocacy by employers’ organizations

This section describes how employers’ organizations give a voice to platform companies and reach out to employees, freelance workers and independent contractors. Some independent contractors in the platform economy have also self-organized in entrepreneurial associations. The case studies commissioned for this working paper surveyed the selected countries for initiatives by employers’ organizations relating to the platform economy. The identified country examples are included in this section and are supplemented by initiatives of employers’ organizations and digital labour platforms that were identified in a literature review.

In general, platform companies tend to regulate unilaterally through the terms and conditions that they apply to their self-employed workers or independent contractors (ILO 2021a). However, some individual platform companies pledge to engage in dialogue with workers’ organizations and informal groups of workers or to unilaterally improve working conditions (see Box 30). Other platform companies have decided to join national employers’ organizations (Hauben, Kahancova and Manoudi 2021) or create new employers’ organizations (ILO 2022a). Independent contractors or self-employed workers may also decide to join entrepreneurial associations or employers’ organizations (IOE 2019).

Box 25 gives examples of self-employed platform workers and platform companies joining or creating associations.

Box 25: Self-employed platform workers and platform companies joining employers’ organizations or creating associations

Also, some other organizations are not specific to platform work but are relevant to freelance workers in general. This includes, for example, UNIZO164 in Belgium, FNAE165 in France, IPSE166 in the United Kingdom and the Freelancers Union167 in the United States. Freelancers on digital labour platforms may decide to join these or similar organizations in order to organize and benefit from their membership services.

The action roles of employers’ organizations often include the public defence of the platforms’ contracting model. Some platform companies may resort to courts for ensuring the independent contractor classification of platform economy workers. In Spain, several platform companies voiced their preference of classifying workers as self-employed in the field of digital delivery platforms in response to the regulatory reform of Law 12/2021, which introduced a rebuttable presumption of an employment relationship for delivery riders (Box 26).

Box 26: Reactions of employers’ organizations and individual platforms to the Riders Law in Spain

In the location-based platform economy, the majority of platform companies express a strict preference for self-employed and independent delivery drivers, but at the same time some companies engage in dialogue with workers’ organizations and informal groups of workers. Box 27 presents the opinions voiced in interviews with representatives of platform companies based pm an analysis of the publicly available statements of platforms in Chile.

Box 27: Expert interviews and opinions voiced publicly by representatives of platform companies in Chile

In addition, employers’ organizations and platform companies often stress the advantages of flexibility and income-generation opportunities through platform work.170

Box 28: Advocacy by employers’ organizations

Platform companies engaged in improving working conditions or pledging decent pay

Some individual platform companies reached out to trade unions and engaged to improve working conditions. In Australia, one form of employer-union dialogue has occurred in the context of an application by the food delivery platform Menulog for the creation of a new modern award by the Fair Work Commission (for a discussion of the role of the platform company Just Eat Takeaway.com of which Menulog is a subsidiary, see Ch. 3).

Box 29 describes in detail the process and the statements made by the platform company Menulog during the award application at the Fair Work Commission in Australia (October 2021).

Box 29: The platform company Menulog (Just Eat Takeaway.com) applied to the Fair Work Commission seeking the creation of a new on-demand delivery services industry award in Australia

Other platform companies have made pledges to engage with workers’ representatives or to pay a living wage or to guarantee reasonable pay and fees for their workers (see Box 30).

Box 30: Platform companies’ pledges for a living wage, reasonable pay or to engage in collective bargaining

Key findings

Figure 7: Collective agreements in the platform and gig economy (January 2022)

Table 1 gives an overview of the agreements, indicating the contracting parties, the level of negotiations (enterprise or sectoral level) and the status of the agreement (duration and implementation status).

One of the first collective agreements (CBAs) negotiated between a digital labour platform and a trade union was the so-called “Hilfr agreement” concluded between the United Federation of Danish Workers (3F) and the Danish platform Hilfr in 2018 (Ilsøe and Larsen 2021). While the overall number of CBAs was at a low level as of September 2021, a trend can be observed towards the increased conclusion of CBAs in the platform economy in recent years. Research for this study identified 11 CBAs in the platform economy that are currently in force in eight countries (in Austria, Chile, Denmark, Italy, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Spain and Sweden).

Looking ahead, Uber enabled potential future collective negotiations by signing a recognition agreement in Great Britain in 2021, in which it recognized the trade union GMB as the representative organization for Uber drivers in the country.187 In Germany in 2021, the delivery platform company Lieferando and the trade union NGG were reported to discuss negotiating a collective agreement (Fairwork 2021). These examples indicate a continuous trend towards an increased conclusion of CBAs in the platform economy in the coming years.

Table 1: CBAs in the location-based platform economy (January 2022)

A first group of collective agreements in the platform economy

This chapter presents the basic characteristics of the CBAs identified in the location-based platform economy (see Box 31). It is important to note that all the CBAs identified apply to workers on digital labour platforms with an employment relationship and not to self-employed workers. The CBAs identified also address geographically localized work (on-demand work via apps) and do not address work on online web-based platforms (which could span geographies and legal jurisdictions). Most of the collective agreements were concluded between trade unions and individual platforms in Europe, mostly in the food-delivery sector. In some instances, existing sectoral agreements have been extended to cover some groups of platform workers (for example in Spain) or sectoral agreements were negotiated for delivery platform workers (for example in Austria and Denmark). For most of the identified CBAs, the original texts were collected, translated and analysed for this study.

Box 31: Characteristics of CBAs in the location-based platform economy

Characteristics of CBAs covering location-based digital labour platforms

Experimental nature of CBAs

The CBAs analysed belong to a “first group of CBAs”188 covering digital labour platforms. Most of these agreements are rather new and some are still in the process of implementation. Many of them are of an experimental nature, seeking to address the specificities of the platform economy. They address the classic features of a work relationship, such as wages and working time. However, the CBAs differ substantially in length, detail and scope. In several agreements, the social partners expressively state their intention to “pilot” the first agreement and gather experiences for establishing permanent collective bargaining relations in the platform economy.

Box 32: Experimental nature of the CBAs

The Annex to this study presents an overview of agreements that do not represent collective agreements but codes of conduct or social pacts negotiated between workers’ organizations and platform companies or employers’ organizations, including within the online-based platform economy.

A focus on food delivery and Europe

Several of the collective agreements in food delivery were concluded by the platform company Just Eat Takeway.com or its subsidiaries with national trade union organizations in Denmark, Italy and Spain. In addition, a sectoral agreement in Austria mainly applies to delivery drivers employed by Lieferando (Just Eat Takeaway.com).

All identified collective agreements address geographically localized work and the majority of CBAs were concluded in European countries (Austria, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden). The CBAs analysed include nine agreements from the food delivery sector (from Austria, Chile, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Spain, Republic of Korea and Sweden).189 One of the CBAs identified is in passenger transport in Sweden.190 The agreement signed by the platform Hilfr operates in the cleaning sector in Denmark.

One of the reasons for this uneven distribution across regions, countries and industry sectors may be the diverging traditions in social dialogue among countries and industry sectors. Also, app-based transport and delivery drivers in the platform economy may meet and exchange more often on street corners and waiting at restaurants than workers in other sectors (e.g., cleaning and care work in the platform economy), which may facilitate collective bargaining. In addition, app-based transport and delivery drivers may be more likely to work only for one specific platform company, which may make it easier to develop a shared identify among workers. Overall, the physical proximity and shared identity of app-based transport and delivery workers may make them easier to mobilize and organize for unions than workers in other location-based sectors and the online web-based platform economy (Tassinari and Maccarrone 2020).

Most CBAs in the platform economy are very recent

Figure 8 describes the development of CBAs in the platform economy during the period 2017–2021. Several of the CBAs identified were concluded for a fixed time period and those agreements will need to be prolonged or renegotiated when they expire (see Table 1). Figure 8 also indicates whether agreements were prolonged and renewed during the observed period. Renewed CBAs include the agreement signed by Delivery Technologies (Cornershop), which was first signed in 2017 and renewed in 2020 for the period 2020–2022. Similarly, the CBAs signed by the platform company Bzzt and the sectoral agreement signed by the Austrian Chamber of Commerce were renewed in 2021.

Figure 8 shows a trend towards the increased conclusion of CBAs in the location-based platform economy. It also shows that more than half of the CBAs identified (including renewed agreements) were concluded in 2021.

Figure 8: Development of CBAs in the platform economy, including renewed agreements (January 2022)

CBAs are predominately concluded at the enterprise level by individual platform companies

The majority of the CBAs identified were concluded at the enterprise level with individual platform companies (in Chile, Denmark, Italy, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Spain and Sweden). This includes the CBAs signed by the platform companies Bzzt, Delivery Technologies, Foodora (Just Eat Takeaway.com), Hilfr, Just Eat Takeaway.com and Woowahan. To some degree, this focus at the enterprise level may reflect that platform companies are not members of national employers’ organizations or other sectoral organizations (Ilsøe and Larsen 2021). Also, some multinational platform companies and their trade unions may prefer to negotiate at enterprise level rather than to be bound by higher-level (sectoral, national) CBAs. Finally, where sector-level agreements already exist in related industries (transportation, cleaning etc.), this may impact the bargaining pattern of platform companies (Ilsøe and Larsen 2021).

Complementarity and linkages between company and sectoral-level collective agreements in the platform economy

In some countries, a complementarity of agreements at the sectoral and enterprise levels can be observed. For example, in Italy the platform company Just Eat Takeaway.com and the trade unions CGIL/CISL/UIL agreed to apply the sectoral agreement “Logistics, Transport, Goods and Shipping” to delivery riders, and also to establish a specific company collective agreement. In Sweden, the terms of the CBAs signed between Foodora (Just Eat Takeaway.com) and the Swedish Transport Workers Union are complementary to the sectoral collective agreement for heavy trucks (Transport Agreement). The Swedish Transport Workers Union also signed a CBA with the platform company Bzzt that resembles the regular agreement for the taxi sector in Sweden. In Denmark, the sectoral agreement between the Danish Chamber of Commerce/Just Eat and the union 3F was inspired by the sectoral agreement in logistics.

CBAs at the sectoral level in the platform economy

In Austria, the VIDA and the Association for Freight Transport in the Austrian Chamber of Commerce concluded a sector-level agreement for food delivery in 2021 (the collective agreement was concluded for the first time in 2019 and renewed in 2021).191 In October 2021, the Austrian food delivery market was mainly shared between two major platform companies, Mjam (formerly Foodora and a subsidiary of Delivery Hero) and Lieferando (Just Eat Takeaway.com). Lieferando concludes employment contracts with its food delivery riders and Mjam offers freelance service contracts to its riders.192 The above-mentioned sectoral collective agreement concluded between the Austrian Chamber of Commerce and VIDA is applicable to employed delivery drivers. Therefore, in practice, the sectoral agreement currently mainly covers app-based food-delivery drivers for Lieferando in Austria.193

In Spain, a sectoral agreement in the hotel and catering sector between CEHAT-FEHR and UGT-CCOO-CIG has been extended with the purpose of including platform workers who enjoy employee classification.194 The extension of the functional scope of the national agreement could also imply the application of the regional and provincial collective agreements for the hotel and catering industry, in which the working conditions relating to working hours and wages are set. For example, the provincial collective agreement for the hospitality sector in Córdoba (Spain) has the same personal scope as the national agreement for the sector.195 Therefore, it includes platform workers in its scope of application in the sector. However, in July 2021 national experts estimated that collective agreements in the hotel and catering sector only apply to a small number of employed app-based delivery riders in Spain.196

In Denmark, the Danish Chamber of Commerce (DE), on behalf of Just Eat Takeaway.com, negotiated with the trade union 3F a sector-level agreement for food delivery from 2021–2023 (Ilsøe and Söderqvist 2022). This new sectoral CBA in the platform economy is a long and elaborate agreement and seeks inspiration from the existing sector-level agreement for logistics between 3F and DE. The agreement has the objective to cover multiple platforms in the future. Companies in the scope of the agreement, which at the time of their admission to the Confederation of Danish Employers do not have a collective agreement or local agreement with the 3F Transport Group or one of the union’s branches, will be covered by the food-delivery agreement from the time of their admission.

Content analysis of CBAs in the platform economy

The following section presents a content analysis of the text of CBAs, showing how the bargaining partners seek to balance the needs of platform companies for flexibility while providing protection for workers. The agreements address the personal scope of application (employment relationship), daily and weekly working hours, minimum hours and advance notice periods. Within food delivery, provisions on hourly wages are often combined with a bonus structure that relies on the number of deliveries. Most of the CBAs identified include provisions that entitle employees to receive adequate work equipment (such as bicycle helmets, rain jackets and gloves) and in some of the agreements, the social partner agreed on specific provisions to address the monitoring or tracking of smartphones or other digital devices used by delivery drivers. Also, most of the CBAs identified address the rights and responsibilities of the parties, thereby ensuring productive labour relations and establishing grievance mechanisms.

Scope of application: CBAs in the platform economy apply to employees

The CBAs identified apply to workers in the platform economy with an employment relationship. According to the collective agreement concluded between Just Eat Takeaway.com – CGIL/CISL/UIL, “open-ended subordinate employment contracts are the common form of employment relationship under which the worker performs his or her work for the company” (unofficial translation). The CBA negotiated between the platform company Hilfr and the Danish trade union 3F uses an optional model in which workers become employees by default after 100 hours of work via the platform and are subsequently covered by the collective agreement. In addition, some of the identified CBAs address the use of fixed-term employment contracts and the transition from fixed-term employment contracts to permanent employment contracts.

Box 33 presents examples of the wording of the scope of application of the CBAs identified in the platform economy.

Box 33: Provisions on the employment relationship

Provisions on hourly wages (or payment by results)

Many of the identified agreements in food delivery combine an hourly wage with a bonus structure that relies on the number of deliveries. Moreover, often a bonus structure is agreed upon for incentivizing night work, work on weekends, public holidays or work during adverse weather conditions. Many agreements define the maximum standard working time, defining hours above this threshold as overtime and stipulate additional premiums. At the same time, agreements refer to safety concerns and risk mitigation as reasons for limiting maximum bonus payments to workers. Some agreements provide holiday pay or other additional allowances. As noted above, many of the agreements are of an experimental nature and the social partners agreed in some agreements to review the bonus structures and their effects on working conditions after a trial period (for example, Just Eat Takeaway.com – CGIL/CISL/UIL).

Box 34 shows examples how provisions on hourly wages (or payment by results) and additional allowances are worded in the CBAs identified.

Box 34: Provisions on hourly wages (or payment-by-results)

Provisions on working time and negotiated flexibility

The provisions on working time in the CBAs identified seek to balance the needs of platform companies for flexibility while providing protections for workers. The agreements address daily and weekly working hours, minimum hours and advance notice periods, minimum length of shifts, daily rest periods and weekly rest days, annual leave and night work.

For example, the agreement between Dansk Erhverv – 3F stipulates that the normal weekly working time comprises at least 8 hours and up to 37 hours. Shifts for both full-time and part-time employees must be at least 4 hours and employees must be aware of their rota four weeks in advance. However, the same agreement provides additional flexibility by accepting that varying weekly working hours can be agreed upon and that extra shifts may be established.

According to the agreement between Just Eat Takeaway.com – CGIL/CISL/UIL, employees are entitled to an unpaid break if shifts exceed a certain hourly threshold. The agreement provides additional flexibility by stipulating that due to the specific features of the service, the riders’ employment contracts include an elastic clause, which allows changes (without additional charge) to the weekly timetable defined by the company, with a minimum of two days’ notice. In addition, it introduces a concept of “time banking” or keeping track of hours worked in “accounts” for individual workers, thereby increasing the flexibility of working hours.197 It is stipulated that overtime hours worked by part-time riders shall be accumulated in a time bank. Workers are then entitled to compensatory time off or overtime payments.

Box 35 presents examples of how provisions on working time and flexibility are worded in the CBAs identified.

Box 35: Provisions on working time and flexibility

Provisions on access to work equipment

Most of the CBAs identified include provisions on adequate work clothing (such as bicycle helmets, rain jackets, rain pants, gloves and overshoes) that has to be provided by the platform company. If employees use private equipment for their work, then most agreements stipulate the duty of the platform company to reimburse workers for the use of their own equipment. The amount to be reimbursed can be calculated on the basis of the number of working hours or mileages for cars and motorcycles. The agreement signed by the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber – VIDA address the reimbursement of the use of private cell phones used for deliveries. In Spain, the agreement signed by Just Eat Takeaway.com stipulates that the mobile phone is always provided by the platform company.198 In Chile, the agreement signed by the platform company Cornershop stipulates that workers should receive an allowance to support the cost of a data plan for the use of their smartphones as work tools.

The details of the provided equipment differs between the agreements. For more details, see Box 36.

Box 36: Provisions on access to work equipment

Provisions on the utilization of algorithms in the management of labour and data security and privacy

A few of the agreements include specific provisions addressing the monitoring or tracking of smartphones or other digital devices used by delivery workers. The Hilfr – 3F agreement refers to the right of employees to request that derogatory and false comments are removed from their online profiles on the platform. Most of the identified agreements do not explicitly address the permitted or non-permitted use of collected smartphone data in relation to disciplinary procedures against workers.

In Spain, the agreement negotiated between Just Eat Takeaway.com and the trade unions UGT and CCOO covers new ground by including provisions on data protection and digital disconnection and on informing workers' representatives about the algorithms used for work management (ILO 2022a).199 The agreement addresses the transparency of algorithmic decision-making and ensures that the used algorithms and/or artificial intelligence systems are subject to human supervision. To this end, it has been agreed to create a joint commission, of representatives of workers and the platform company, called the “Algorithm Commission”.200

Box 37: Provisions on data security and privacy

Provisions on industrial relations and dispute resolution

Most of the CBAs identified address the rights and responsibilities of the parties, thereby ensuring sound industrial relations and effective dispute resolution mechanisms. However, provisions vary widely among the agreements and sometimes essential provisions, such as those on shop stewards or the deduction of trade union membership fees, were postponed until a renegotiation of the collective agreement (Hilfr – 3F).

The agreement between Just Eat Takeaway.com – CGIL/CISL/UIL guarantees the exercise of trade union rights, in the forms provided for by law and by the CCNL (sectoral transport agreement). Also, the agreements address, for example, the election of trade union representatives, training courses for elected trade union representatives and the rights of posting and assembly, which may also be exercised in digital mode. Similarly, the agreement between Just Eat Takeaway.com – UGT/CCOO includes the rights to use virtual notice boards and other digital tools by trade union representatives. Some of the agreements regulate the remuneration of union representatives for the exercise of their functions.

Several agreements refer disputes arising from the interpretation of the text of the agreements to a committee composed of equal numbers of representatives of the contracting parties. Agreements also include references to general frameworks or protocols used for stipulating standards for handling industrial disputes in countries. In addition, the agreement between Dansk Erhverv – 3F includes a protocol on access to payroll data for discouraging wage dumping.

Box 38: Provisions on labour relations and dispute resolution

Further thematic areas identified in CBAs

In addition, the CBAs identified include further thematic areas and provisions. For example, in the Republic of Korea, the CBA identified provides access to unemployment benefits and pension contributions and also provides for a Skills Development Fund for employees (ILO 2022b).

Collective agreements can improve the content as well as the scope for persons eligible for social protection measures. Several of the CBAs identified include provisions relating to social protection, such as pension schemes, sick leave benefits, insurances against work related injuries or damages to third parties. Often the entitlement to social protection schemes is dependent on a minimum duration of the employment relationship with the platform company. In addition, several of the identified agreements include references to legislative provisions for determining entitlements to social security schemes.

Most agreements stipulate an obligation for the platform company to provide the employees with adequate safety protections for their work. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this may have been interpreted as an obligation to provide additional PPE to workers. However, the agreement between Just Eat Takeaway.com and CGIL/CISL/UIL is the only agreement in which a specific reference to the COVID-19 crisis could be identified.

Box 39: COVID-19 pandemic and safety protocols

In Denmark and Sweden, platform companies apply CBAs negotiated for temporary agency work

In some countries, in addition to the above-mentioned agreements between trade unions and employers´ organizations and platform companies, another trend of regulating work in the platform economy can be observed. In Denmark and Sweden, some platforms have created a “temporary agency model”, whereby they draw on existing regulations to hire platform workers as temporary workers. This can take place with and without union involvement.

In Sweden, the trade union Unionen has negotiated with the platform companies Gigstr201 and Instajobs202 and these platforms are covered by the general collective agreement for temporary agency workers (Söderqvist and Bernhardtz 2019). In Denmark, the platforms Chabber203 and Meploy204 have utilized the legislation on temporary agency work companies to hire platform workers as temps and draw on contents from relevant sector-level agreements (Ilsøe and Larsen 2021). In the Danish case, this practice means that platform workers are hired on zero-hour contracts and that their wage levels match existing wage levels at the user company. In cases where the user company is covered by sector-level agreements, platform workers receive wages as regulated in the sector-level agreement (Ilsøe and Larsen, 2021).

Collective agreements for self-employed workers in the platform economy?

The ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work recognizes freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining as one of the four categories of fundamental rights. These rights apply to platform workers, irrespective of their classification (ILO 2022a).205 In addition, the ILO Centenary Declaration reaffirms that all workers should enjoy adequate protection and respect for their fundamental rights. As mentioned above, in its 2012 General Survey, the CEACR understands that "the recognition of the right to collective bargaining has a general scope and should be enjoyed by [self-employed] workers".206 This is reiterated in its 2020 General Survey, which states that "the full range of fundamental principles and rights at work [including the right to collective bargaining] are applicable to platform workers ... irrespective of their employment status". 207

Collective bargaining for self-employed workers and competition laws

Competition law may create a barrier for collective bargaining for self-employed workers in the platform economy. If platform workers are classified as employees, it is evident that the conclusion of a collective agreement does not challenge the rules of free competition (Rodríguez Fernández 2021). However, the “collaborative model”, whereby unions and platform companies seek to preserve freelancing options, can collide with national competition or anti-trust laws (IOE 2019). Therefore, in some countries the classification of platform workers may still be relevant when it comes to exercising their right to collective bargaining (ILO 2022a).

The questions sourrounding the conclusion of collective agreements for self-employed workers has been the subject of debate in some countries.208 The discussions often focus on self-employed workers who do not have sufficient bargaining power to be able to influence their working conditions, either because they are in a situation comparable to that of dependent workers, or because the companies for which they provide services exercise monopsony power. In such cases, there is some consensus that collective bargaining for the self-employed, especially in the case of platform workers, is compatible with the rules of free competition (ILO 2022a).

In recent years, some platform companies and trade unions have attempted to conclude collective agreements and other forms of written forms of collaboration in which platform workers are classified as self-employed workers. However, at the time of preparation of this study all identified collective agreements intended to apply to self-employed workers in the platform economy have either been declared unrepresentative by national labour courts or have been withdrawn by the bargaining parties themselves. To date, although collective bargaining for self-employed workers in the platform economy has been attempted it has not yet been successful (Rodríguez Fernández 2021).

Looking ahead, for countries in the European Union the recently published draft guidelines describe how the European Commission plans to apply EU competition law to collective agreements that regulate the working conditions of certain categories of solo self-employed.209 The guidelines state that collective agreements between some groups of solo self-employed persons210 and digital labour platforms fall outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU and therefore do not infringe EU competition law.211

Box 40: EU initiative to harmonize competition law with collective bargaining

The following paragraphs briefly describe identified agreements between platform companies and trade unions that relate to self-employed workers in the platform economy. In addition to the conclusion of collective agreements, platform companies and trade unions have also concluded a number of mostly non-binding agreements, declarations or codes of conduct that seek to promote minimum working standards for self-employed workers the platform economy (see Annex).

Collective agreements for self-employed workers

In Denmark in 2018, the freelance platform Voocali213 concluded an agreement with the trade union HK. However, HK later chose to withdraw the agreement due to other platforms’ experiences with the country’s competition laws.214 Also, as noted above the platform Hilfr and the Danish trade union 3F agreed on a hybrid model in which workers become employees by default after 100 hours of work via the platform and are subsequently covered by the collective agreement. Initially in 2018, the agreement also included a minimum hourly fee for freelancers on the platform. However, in response to a notice about an upcoming assessment by the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority, in 2019 Hilfr committed to remove the minimum hourly fee for “Freelancehilfrs” from the agreement (Jacqueson et al. 2021).

In Italy in 2018, a group of food-delivery platform companies established a new employers’ organization called “AssoDelivery”215 to negotiate with the Government and workers’ organizations (IOE 2019).216 In 2020, AssoDelivery and the trade union Unione Generale del Lavoro (UGL) signed a collective agreement applying to self-employed workers on digital delivery platforms.217 However, the courts of Bologna, Florence and Palermo declared that the signatory union lacks sufficient representativeness among platform workers.218

Collective agreements applying to intermediate categories of workers

Some jurisdictions create intermediate figures between dependent work and self-employment, such as “worker” in the United Kingdom or “economically dependent self-employed worker” in Spain (ILO 2022a). For example, in Great Britain in 2021, the Supreme Court decided that Uber drivers can be reclassified as “workers” under United Kingdom law.219 Afterwards, Uber signed a recognition agreement in which it recognized GMB as the representative trade union for Uber drivers. The agreement is designed to create an environment in which Uber drivers can remain being self-employed while having worker classification and the protection of applicable labour laws. The recognition agreement defines the areas in which the platform company will work together with GMB as the representative organization for Uber drivers who are members of the union (Forsyth 2022). For example, GMB will play a role representing drivers if they lose access to the Uber app. Moreover, GMB and Uber will meet regularly to discuss driver issues and concerns.

Social dialogue on online web-based platforms

Collective bargaining in the location-based platforms is still in its early stages and many of the CBAs identified are of an experimental nature, seeking to address the specificities of platforms. The challenges for collective bargaining are even bigger in the web-based platform economy that spans countries and jurisdictions (Albrecht, Papadakis and Mexi 2021; Rodríguez Fernández 2020). During the course of research for this study, no collective agreement in the online web-based platform economy was identified. Therefore, this section presents non-binding agreements, such as codes of conduct between platform companies and trade unions. In some circumstances, these non-binding agreements may evolve into collective bargaining in online web-based platforms in the future.

In 2015, the German software testing platform Testbirds initiated a voluntary code of conduct for paid crowdsourcing. This “Crowdsourcing Code of Conduct” included principles such as “fair payment”, “only serious tasks” and “open and transparent communication”. As of September 2021, nine platform companies had signed the code of conduct and the German Crowdsourcing Association joined as an official supporter.220 In 2016 with the permission of the platforms, the trade union IG Metall conducted a survey of workers on six German platforms (ILO 2020). Among other topics, the survey asked workers to indicate which principles of the code of conduct they found most important. By a large margin, survey respondents indicated that “fair payment” was the most important principle. As a result, the second version of the code of conduct, released late in 2016, included a refinement of the “fair payment” principle to indicate that platform operators should seek to orient payment toward “local wage standards”.

In 2017, IG Metall, the signatory platforms and the German Crowdsourcing Association established an “Ombuds Office” to effectively implement the code of conduct and resolve disputes between workers and signatory platforms. During 2019, the Ombuds Office of the Crowdsourcing Code of Conduct received about 14 cases, submitted by workers via its online form.221

A code of conduct between the Mila AG and the trade union Syndicom refers to “crowdworkers” and some of the offered tasks may resemble online web-based platform work, while other tasks are location-based, such as technical support or repair works at the client’s premises (see Annex).222

Transparency of algorithms used for the management of activities and labour: the role of trade unions and workers’ representatives

Information asymmetries between platform companies and workers about the functioning of algorithms can lead to grievances and conflicts. Transparency about the assumptions and criteria used by algorithms can be a first step towards reducing information asymmetries. However, individual workers may face challenges when individually assessing algorithms and their functioning (ILO 2022a). A second step after establishing data transparency is ensuring that the effects of algorithms and ratings on working conditions and pay are well understood. In this regard, there may be a new role for trade unions and workers’ representatives, which in the future may play a role in levelling the playing field when negotiating the use of algorithms or managing worker data (see also De Stefano 2019).

The first regulatory initiatives started to address the algorithms used in the management of activities and labour. Some initiatives created or proposed to create new informational and consultative rights for workers’ representatives and trade unions relating to the use of algorithms in the management of labour. With regard to collective bargaining, ensuring an understanding of how automated monitoring and decision-making systems affect working conditions and pay may also be a prerequisite of effective negotiations and consultations in the platform economy.

Information rights for workers’ representatives on the use of algorithms in the management of labour in Spain

In Spain, Law 9/2021 attributes a new competence for workers’ representatives to be informed by the company about the parameters, rules and instructions on which algorithms base their decisions (see Box 41). The new statutory information right for workers’ representatives on the use of algorithms in the management of labour was substantiated and operationalized in a collective agreement in 2021. In the agreement signed between Just Eat Takeaway.com and the trade unions CCOO and UGT, it was agreed to create a joint commission, the Algorithm Commission (Rodríguez Fernández 2022) (for more details on the collective agreement, see the subsection above entitled “Provisions on the utilization of algorithms in the management of labour and data security and privacy” and Box 37).

Box 41: Transparency of algorithms for workers’ representatives in Spain

Information and consultation right in the directive proposal of the European Commission

In December 2021, The European Commission proposed a set of measures to improve the working conditions in platform work. Articles 6 and 9 of the proposed directive aim at fostering social dialogue on the use of algorithms in the management of labour by introducing collective rights regarding information and consultation on substantial changes related to the use of automated monitoring and decision-making systems (see Box 42). Moreover, article 15 of the proposed directive would require digital labour platforms to create digital communication channels on which platform workers can contact each other (see Box 42).

Box 42: Transparency when using algorithms in the management of labour and information, consultation and access rights in a proposal for a new EU Directive223

Table 2: First observations and trends

Trends regarding collective bargaining in the location-based platform economy

This section presents the first observations and trends derived from the analysis of the CBAs identified in the platform economy. First, it is observed that regulatory and judicial changes and conditions may trigger the conclusion of collective agreements in the platform economy. Second, a trend may be observed to conclude more elaborated and detailed agreements. Also, platform companies and trade unions have started to experiment with the conclusion of sectoral-level agreements. Third, it is not only trade unions that push for the conclusion of CBAs in the platform economy. In at least one country, a platform company is reported to have approached union organizations to conclude a collective agreement. Fourth, a tendency among international platforms to export bargaining practices from one country to another may be observed. Table 2 gives an overview of these first trends and observations and indicates countries in which they may be observed.

Observation 1: Regulatory and judicial changes and market conditions can trigger the conclusion of collective agreements

Collective bargaining does not happen in isolation but is influenced and can be incentivized by regulatory and judicial conditions and developments. In the platform economy, this is most explicit in discussions on the classification of workers in the platform economy and the corresponding national rights to collective bargaining. Legally introducing a presumption of an employment relationship (in Spain) or judicially granting worker classification (in the United Kingdom) may reduce legal obstacles to collective bargaining in the platform economy. In addition, collective bargaining can be supported by further regulatory initiatives. In Italy, the legislator included food delivery drivers in the category lavoro etero-organizzato. Welfare state regulations and business partners may also favour the application of a CBA in some countries. In Denmark, this is reported to have triggered the conclusion or application of collective agreements in the platform economy to improve market access (Ilsøe and Larsen, 2021).

Box 43 describes in more details examples from Denmark, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom that illustrate how important regulatory conditions can be for initiating and supporting collective bargaining in the platform economy.

Box 43: Regulatory and judicial changes and market conditions may trigger the conclusion of collective agreements

Observation 2: Trend towards more elaborated and detailed agreements and experiments at the sectoral level

The more recently concluded collective agreements tend to include more comprehensive and elaborated regulation and have a wider thematic scope than the very first negotiated CBAs in the platform economy. This is often achieved by integrating existing thematic protocols and agreements between the social partners into the newly concluded CBAs in the platform economy. For example, the Dansk Erhverv–3F agreement annexes general protocols on “Night work and health surveillance” and “Skills development and training” and the Foodora (Delivery Hero)–Swedish Transport Union agreement includes a detailed sectoral annex on “Occupational health and safety management for companies in the transport sector”.

The trend towards more detailed and elaborated agreements can be illustrated by simply looking at the length of the agreements: while the Hilfr–3F agreement (concluded in 2018) had 11 pages, the sectoral agreement between Dansk Erhverv–3F (concluded in 2021) has 89 pages and regulates working conditions and pay in much more detail and with a wider thematic scope.

In Spain, a CBA concluded in late 2021 contains detailed provisions on the role of workers' representatives (workers’ councils) in the company regarding the algorithms used for work management. It may also be observed that the social partners have started to experiment with sector-level agreements that tend to include more elaborate regulations that cover working conditions with more specific rules. In Austria, Denmark and Spain, sectoral collective agreements were concluded that apply to employees in the app-based food-delivery sector. In addition, in Italy and Sweden the concluded enterprise-level agreements are complementary to existing sectoral collective agreements,which are likely to include more elaborate and detailed regulations of working conditions.

Observation 3: Trade unions or platform companies can drive the conclusion of CBAs

Negotiations of CBAs in the platform economy have mainly been union-led. Most notably in Norway, the agreement between the food-delivery platform Foodora and the trade union Fellesforbundet was concluded after a strike by the couriers working via Foodora (Ilsøe and Jesnes 2020). However, in one country a platform company is reported to have taken the initiative to negotiate a collective agreement. Interestingly, negotiations for the Hilfr–3F agreement began on the initiative of the platform. Currently, the union and the platform are renegotiating the agreement in the attempt to create a sector-level agreement for cleaning platforms (Ilsøe 2020).

Box 44: The platform company Hilfr initiated negotiations for a collective agreement

Observation 4: Tendency among international platforms to “export experiences with collective bargaining” from one country to another

There is a tendency among international platform companies to learn from experiences with collective bargaining and to subsequently engage in collective bargaining in other countries as well. For instance, Foodora (subsidiary of Delivery Hero) concluded its first agreement in Norway (2019) and its second agreement in Sweden (2021), while Just Eat Takeaway.com participated in sector-level bargaining in Denmark and shortly thereafter in enterprise-level negotiations in Italy and Spain (both processes took place in 2021). From 2021 to 2022, Just Eat Takeaway.com and its subsidiaries were in negotiations with trade union organizations in Australia.

For Just Eat Takeaway.com and its subsidiaries, the export of bargaining practices may indicate the value of gathering experiences and learning from concluded CBAs for establishing collective bargaining relations in other countries.

Effects of collective agreements covering digital labour platforms

What are the effects of the identified collective agreements on working conditions and pay?

Given that most CBAs are very recent and that some are not yet fully implemented, it is difficult to evaluate the effects of the agreements in practice. Only a few of the identified agreements have a history of several years. Therefore, current reports on the effects of CBAs are largely based on early anecdotal evidence. In the coming years and after the implementation of the identified CBAs, additional research and case studies will be needed to analyse in more detail the effects of collective agreements on working conditions and pay in the platform economy.

Box 45: Effects of CBAs on working conditions and pay

How many workers are covered by collective agreements in the platform economy?

Collective bargaining is taking place in the location-based platform economy and a first group of CBAs has been concluded in different regions of the world. However, on the whole such collective agreements currently apply to only a limited number of workers in the location-based platform economy.

A total of 11 CBAs have been identified in eight countries that apply to platform workers that are employees. However, most platform workers are classified as independent contractors and not as employees and are therefore not covered by the CBAS identified.From a global perspective, the growing but still very small number of CBAs and the limitation of workers in their employment relationships indicate the currently limited role of collective bargaining for regulating working conditions and pay in the platform economy.

Box 46: Number of platform workers covered by collective agreements

Looking to the future of collective bargaining in the platform economy

Employers‘ and workers’ organizations have reached out with various initiatives to workers in different sectors in the platform economy (see Ch. 2 ). These developments and the first group of CBAs described in this study show the great potential that social dialogue holds for regulating working conditions and pay in the heterogeneous sectors of the platform economy. It is important to note that collective bargaining is a form of regulation that interacts with and complements other types of regulation, such as statutory labour laws, which may give more or less space for rule-making through collective bargaining. In some countries, regulatory and judicial developments have facilitated access to collective bargaining for workers in the platform economy and even supported collective bargaining. As a consequence, in some countries this has led in the location-based platform economy to a move away from the contractor model towards the employment model and the corresponding conclusion of initial CBAs in the platform economy.

Workers’ organizations, collective bargaining and other social dialogue endeavours are emerging in the platform economy

The previous chapters have described how platform workers joined social media groups, among others, with the motivation to improve their working conditions (Ch. 1). In some countries, platform workers have engaged in coordinated group actions, such as demonstrations and collective log-offs and strategic litigation, to express their grievances, while some platform workers have created new associations or joined already existing trade unions (Ch. 2). Also, in the location-based platform economy a first group of collective agreements have been concluded (Ch. 3).

About 85.7 per cent of app-based delivery workers and 68.4 per cent of app-based taxi drivers are not aware of a trade union organization of which they could become a member.

Instead, the examples identified in this study show that for various reasons, platform workers are more likely to organize in informal groups of workers, such as on Facebook or WhatsApp or in other social media groups.

However, without effective organizational structures and sufficient legal recognition, there remain questions about the effectiveness of these groups to achieve lasting and meaningful improvements of working conditions.

Informal groups of workers, newly established trade unions, already existing trade unions and employers‘ organizations have engaged in initiatives to improve working conditions in the platform economy. Self-organizations of workers have mainly emerged in the ride-share and food delivery sectors, including among migrant workers. There are fewer examples of successful organization in the online web-based platforms. Particularly in the global South, many of the initiatives described involve the establishment of informal groups of workers and platform workers seem to mainly rely on demonstrations and strikes to make their voices heard. Some platform companies have unilaterally pledged to improve working conditions or to engage with workers’ representatives.

Particularly in the global North, a number of collective agreements has been concluded by already existing trade unions that mostly apply to employees within the food-delivery sector in Europe. Many of these agreements are of an experimental nature, seeking to address the specificities of the platforms, and are still in the process of implementation. Therefore, for most agreements it is too early to assess their implementation and effects. In addition to the conclusion of collective agreements, already existing trade unions and newly established workers‘ organizations of platform workers have concluded a number of non-binding agreements, such as declarations or codes of conduct with platform companies (see Annex).

Diversity of the platform economy: The contributions of social dialogue and collective bargaining

The observed heterogeneity of digital labour platforms, performed tasks, concerned industry sectors and workers’ needs indicates that there cannot be a “one-size-fits-all” regulatory response for all the types of work that is conducted on and through digitally mediated labour platforms. This increases the potential contributions of social dialogue and collective bargaining for developing responsive and practice-oriented solutions that take into account the diversity and specific needs of the platform economy.

Collective bargaining has some characteristics that seem to respond well to the fast growth of the platform economy, the continuous evolution of its technical and organizational conditions and its expansion into new industry sectors, resulting in a wide range of opportunities and challenges. First, legitimacy is increased, as regulation through collective bargaining is always based on the joint participation of employers or employers’ organizations on the one side and workers’ organizations on the other side in the negotiation of collective agreements. This is particularly important in newly emerging parts of the labour markets, as regulation may be of an experimental nature that seeks to address the specificities of the platform economy. Second, the adaptability of regulation through collective bargaining allows for rapid establishment or renegotiation in case of technological, economic or work organizational changes in the newly emerging business models. Third, the customization or practice-orientation of collective bargaining reflects the particular conditions of an industry or occupation in the platform economy.235 However, as a tool of flexible and practice-oriented, bottom-up regulation, collective bargaining can only flourish in an enabling legal and institutional environment.

Creating an enabling regulatory environment for realizing the opportunities of digital labour platforms

During the emergence of the platform economy, it was often assumed that because of the practical obstacles and legal challenges involved, the organization of workers, coordinated group actions and collective bargaining would be almost impossible. The country examples described in this study have shown that these initial concerns may have been partly overstated and the motivation of platform workers has the potential to overcome these barriers and allow them to engage collectively. However, several of the initiatives identified have to a large extent taken place outside the traditional industrial relations frameworks in the countries concerned or are limited in their scope to employees in the platform economy. In this regard, it is important to recall that most platform companies classify their workers as independent contractors and not as employees (De Groen et al. 2021; De Stefano et al. 2021a). In many countries, the legal classification of platform workers determines whether they have access to certain trade union rights, such as to engage in collective bargaining.

Regulatory initiatives mostly address location-based platforms and are often very recent and still ongoing

The ILO Centenary Declaration calls on all Members, with the support of the ILO, to “respond to challenges and opportunities in the world of work relating to the digital transformation of work, including platform work” and to develop “policies and measures that ensure appropriate privacy and personal data protection.”236

In a number of countries, the regulation of the emerging platform economy is surrounded by legal uncertainty, which expresses itself in various consultative and legislative initiatives and also in a large number of court decisions. Several regulatory initiatives address working conditions and social protection in the location-based platforms, in particular with respect to workers on delivery and transportation platforms. Any regulations concerning online web-based platforms face the additional challenge that workers are dispersed across different jurisdictions. Even if national regulatory initiatives do not directly refer to freedom of association and collective bargaining, they have effects on these rights when they affect the classification of workers, which often determines who has access to these rights. However, the stages of implementation of national regulatory initiatives vary. Most regulatory initiatives are very recent and there is not yet a clear trend to be observed; developments are not finished and very much in flux.237

Current legislative initiatives address a number of regulatory areas to improve working conditions and create an enabling environment for freedom of association and collective bargaining on digital labour platforms. For example, in December 2021 the European Commission proposed a set of measures to improve working conditions on digital labour platforms.238 The regulatory package includes a proposal to correctly determine the employment status of workers on location-based and web-based platforms in light of their actual relationship with the digital labour platform;239 draft guidelines clarifying the application of EU competition law to collective agreements of solo self-employed workers (see Box 40); and digital access rights for platform workers and their organizations (see Box 42). Through these measures, the European Commission aims to improve the working conditions and social protection of platform workers and to create an enabling environment for improved representation and to support the negotiation of collective agreements.

Looking to the future: the growing importance of digital labour platforms

The number of digital labour platforms has been steadily increasing for years and it is widely assumened that the platform economy is likely to expand in the future. The experiences obained during the COVID-19 pandemic are expected to further accelerate digitalization and the growth of digital labour platforms in the long run. Moreover, the importance of digital platforms lies not only in its scale but also in the fact that it is an experimental field for technological innovations and the utilization of algorithms in the management of activities and labour, which stretches beyond digital platforms and is penetrating several traditional sectors of the economy.

Looking to the future, it is important to ensure that opportunities on digital labour platforms are realized for both workers and businesses. The examples identified in different regions of the world, as presented in this study, show that collective bargaining and other forms of social dialogue may have an added value for negotiating responsive and practice-oriented solutions that take into account the heterogeneity of the platforms. These examples also illustrate possible avenues for employers’ and workers’ organizations to strengthen representation, develop collective bargaining and foster an inclusive social dialogue in the platform economy. However, as a tool of flexible and practice-oriented, bottom-up regulation, collective bargaining and social dialogue can only flourish in an enabling legal and institutional environment.