by Manish Kumar 27 April 2021
INTRODUCTION
An increase in the use of smartphones and widespread connectivity has transformed how people use services such as taxis and food delivery. Zomato and Swiggy have emerged as behemoths of the industry. But questions have been asked time and again about how these service aggregators treat their workers.
The author, through this article, tries to draw the reader’s attention towards questions such as – What is the identity of delivery agents – whether they are employees, partners, or agents? Whether Legal disadvantages are written into their agreement? Do the delivery agents lack proper training? And finally, check if the Social Security Code is enough to alleviate the suffering of these delivery workers.
What is the identity of delivery agents – employee, partner, or agent?
Government has time and again acknowledged the delivery agents as employees while including them as part of the employment generation stats. Still, they certainly do not enjoy the rights of an employee. Despite the important–sounding position, i.e., delivery partner, they are actually gig workers or platform workers. Under section 2(35), the Social Security Code defines the term gig worker as “a person performing a work or participating in a work arrangement and earning from such activities outside of traditional employer-employee relationships.” The work is usually transitory and is completed within a specified period under a nonstandard work arrangement.
Under section 2(61), the Social Security Code defines a platform worker as “a worker working for an organization which uses an online platform for providing specific services to individuals or organizations.” For example, Uber, Ola, Zomato, etc. Further, section 2(86) describes an unorganised worker as a self-employed, home-based, or wage worker in the unorganised sector.
Now, since the delivery partners work in an unorganized arrangement, outside the traditional employer–employee relationship, and offer specific online services, the author believes that these definitions have overlapping parts. It is unclear how schemes specific to these categories of workers will apply.
Gig worker contract – Legal disadvantage written into their agreement.
Zomato is a feedback–driven employment model, which means the delivery partners always walk a fine line. Zomato workers can be terminated without notice immediately for creating a ruckus, organizing a strike, or any activity against Zomato. They can be terminated for rude behavior with the staff, restaurant partner, or consumer. Moreover, they can be fired for poor work, irregularity of work, not coming to a meeting, poor performance for two consecutive weeks, including low daily productivity, fewer login hours, idle hours. They do not have any upper limit on working hours, no avenue of appeal if the contract is terminated, no job security. Moreover, they are not allowed to form unions. Besides, the working conditions are often poor and dangerous, with increasing deaths being reported due to road accidents.
Claims have been made that delivery boys can choose how much they work by controlling the hours, but the same is false. Break longer than two weeks means the end of employment for them. They can also be terminated for fraudulent conduct, customer complaints, and unsatisfactory reviews by customers and restaurants or misconduct or negligence, or doing any activity unbecoming of a delivery partner. Digital workspace is proving out to be the modern form of slavery. The conditions that these delivery boys are subjected to are inhuman. They face everyday harassment at the hands of rogue customers, mostly late at night, food robberies being commonplace.
After all the uncertainties they face and the long hours they put in at work, these delivery workers certainly deserve compensation that guarantees them a decent standard of living. The Delivery men earn money in three ways. The first is their salary, which depends on the number of orders they deliver and various other permutation and combinations. The second is incentives, which are subject to the completion of certain targets. The third source of income for delivery men is tipping by customers. The income that these delivery partners receive has reduced over the years. Due to the nature of the food delivery business, companies have reduced the incentives, leading to a steep decline in income. Recently, Zomato dropped its basic pay per delivery from₹40 to ₹30, triggering a protest led by 1,000 Zomato delivery executives. A revision done by Swiggy in early August led to a reduction of average earnings of the worker to a third.
Although the companies such as Swiggy and Zomato provide voluntary schemes such as Hunger service Fund and Swiggy Smiles Program to provide medical support and accidental support to their workers, a Newslaundery report says that these initiatives are ad hoc and cover a relatively small group of people who are deemed as employees and are meaningless for these workers.
India is not the only country where Food Aggregators resort to such practices. Service aggregators worldwide use every trick in the book to ensure that they are not legally obligated to provide minimum wages and other social benefits, which are entitled to their workers. However, in recent years, several lawmakers and courts, from California in the United States to France, have tried to resist such practices. California passed a law that directs aggregators such as Uber and Doordash to provide their workers with all the protections they are entitled to and treat all their workers as employees and not as independent contractors. However, the aggregators now spend $110 million to put the law to a public ballot and get it overturned.
Do the delivery agents lack proper training?
Most of the time, the delivery boys or partners, as they are called, are not hired directly by these food aggregators such as Swiggy and Zomato but by intermediary recruitment agencies. Hence, the delivery boys don’t get exposed to proper training. There have been various instances of the delivery boys violating traffic rules while delivering orders. Driven by incentives and hurry to deliver time–barred orders, the delivery boys endanger themselves and others on the road. Moreover, since the vehicle belongs to the driver, they are liable for the fines and not the parent company employing them. According to Kasim Raja, ACP, food aggregators do not have any rules and regulations related to safety.
The rising number of accidents or deaths about food delivery executives prompted the Mumbai traffic police to summon delivery executives to address negligent and rash driving, helmetless driving, parking in no-parking zones, jumping traffic signals, and driving on footpaths.
Although it is not a frequent occurrence, recently, a video went viral showing a Zomato delivery agent having several spoonfuls of the food before resealing the package and adding it back to his delivery bag.
CONCLUSION
Today, the food delivery industry in India, led by companies such as Swiggy, Zomato, and Uber Eats, is valued at over 12,000 crores. App–based economy is going to be the future of work. So it becomes even more pertinent to look into the protection, insurance, and social security of such workers.
In a market where the consumer is considered the king, Government policies must make sure that the basic rights of these workers aren’t trampled upon. Previously, the labor laws in India did not endow any social security benefits to the workers in the unorganized sectors. Still, the new Social Security Code bestows power upon the Central Government to frame schemes for the welfare of workers in the unorganized sector on the issues about Life and disability cover, health and maternity benefits, Accidental insurance, Creche, old age protection, and any other benefit deemed fit by the Central Government.
Moreover, gig workers must form unions recognized by law so that their compensation is decided through collective bargaining and not unilaterally on the whims and fancies of the service aggregators. According to a report, Swiggy threatened to suspend riders from their platform after the protests following the drop in incentives. Even though social security benefits are a step in the right direction, they won’t suffice to safeguard the interests of gig workers to a meaningful degree.
In addition to the right to create unions recognised by law, gig workers must be provided with protection at work. They must be given a universal basic income covering all categories of jobs. It is disconcerting that the government acknowledges the need for health insurance cover and gratuity for the workers, but not protection at the workplace and minimum wages. The Social Security Code still being a draft; one would hope that adequate political pressure will contribute to these revisions.
The number of gig workers in our country stands at 15 million and is only going to increase. So, the author believes that leaving such a sizable section of the economy unchecked is a grave injustice towards such workers. The need of the hour is an administration system that recognizes the gig workers in a position similar to traditional employees in various aspects. If the aggregators insist that they be treated as non-employees, they ought to be recognized in a category of their own and provided with benefits such as forming unions, universal minimum wages, and safeguards at the workplace conditions that suit the gig economy framework better.