Concerns of gig workers must be heard, addressed fairly

Over the past decade or so, driven by the widespread adoption of digital platforms, there has been a dramatic surge in the numbers of gig workers across the country. A NITI Aayog report pegged gig and platform workers at 7.7 million in 2020-21, estimated to touch 23.5 million by 2029-30. A few examples illustrate the scale. In the second quarter of 2025-26, Zomato had about 5.5 lakh average monthly delivery partners, Blinkit had about 3.39 lakh, while in 2023, Uber had already crossed 1 million drivers using its platform. Then there are logistics and delivery platforms. However, alongside this absorption of large pools of labour in the non-farm sector, worries have grown over the welfare of the workers, and the security of their jobs and incomes. There are concerns over fluctuating and uncertain wages, lack of transparency in pay structures, long hours and unsafe working conditions. Over the last few days, strikes by workers engaged by companies such as Swiggy, Zomato and Zepto calling for a ban on 10-minute delivery services have drawn attention to this issue. It requires careful consideration on the way forward.

On its part, the Union government has taken steps towards improving the welfare of gig workers. Under the new labour codes, gig and platform workers have been formally defined and recognised. Under the Code on Social Security, aggregators are required to contribute 1-2 per cent of their turnover to a social security fund which would finance welfare schemes for these workers. These workers are now also eligible for government-notified accident insurance, health and maternity benefits. The codes envisage an expert committee under the National Social Security Board to advise on matters related to gig and platform workers. Beyond this, however, it may not be prudent for the government to intervene to tackle a specific problem, say, for instance, delivery times for the gig workers. Wage growth is likely to be under pressure in a labour-abundant economy, in which non-farm employment opportunities are still not adequate.

It is necessary, however, for companies to acknowledge that gig workers form the backbone of their operations. Even as they seek to maximise profits for their shareholders, they need to listen to the concerns of workers, and address them. For instance, payment structures can be made more transparent. The fall in utility derived by the consumer from a slightly “delayed” delivery may not be significant for the companies’ bottom line while it poses serious hazards for the workers. A fair and reasonable solution needs to be negotiated by both parties.

Overall Analysis

The editorial examines the rapid expansion of gig and platform-based employment in India and juxtaposes it with the growing anxieties around worker welfare. It opens with a data-driven overview, citing official estimates and company figures to establish the sheer scale of gig work. This factual grounding lends credibility and seriousness to the argument. The language here is objective and informative, helping the reader understand why the issue has become economically and socially significant.

The middle section shifts to concerns faced by gig workers — uncertain wages, opaque pay structures, long hours, and unsafe conditions. By referring to recent strikes against ultra-fast delivery models, the author subtly highlights how efficiency-driven business practices can push risks onto workers. The phrase “requires careful consideration on the way forward” signals a balanced approach rather than outright confrontation.

In the second paragraph, the editorial evaluates the government’s response. It acknowledges the positive steps taken under the new labour codes, particularly the formal recognition of gig workers and the creation of a social security framework. The language here is measured and cautious. While credit is given to the state, the author warns against excessive micro-intervention, especially in market-driven aspects like delivery timelines or wage determination in a labour-surplus economy.

The final paragraph places the moral and operational responsibility squarely on companies. The author argues that since gig workers are the backbone of platform businesses, firms must engage with their concerns seriously. The language becomes normative and persuasive, stressing fairness, transparency, and negotiation. The example of slightly delayed deliveries illustrates how minor consumer inconvenience can substantially improve worker safety, reinforcing the editorial’s call for a balanced, humane solution.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Pegged – fixed or estimated at a particular level.
2. Absorption – the process of taking in or employing workers.
3. Prudent – wise and cautious in decision-making.
4. Envisage – to foresee or plan for something in advance.
5. Backbone – the main support or foundation of a system.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial argues for a fair and balanced approach to gig work regulation, recognising both the economic role of digital platforms and the legitimate concerns of workers. While government safeguards are necessary, the author stresses that ethical business practices and dialogue between companies and workers are essential for sustainable growth.

Tone: Balanced, analytical, and moderately persuasive, combining economic realism with a concern for social justice.