Clear the confusion over the riders

In platform labor, where working on multiple platforms has become the norm, the concept of employers who hire dependent workers can be different from what’s defined in the existing Labor Standards Act.

Park Su-ryonThe author is head of the industry news department at the JoongAng Ilbo.

Mourning continues after the death of a “master of delivery” last month. Jeon Yun-bae died in August after a collision in July with a bus that ran a red light. The late rider became famous by making deliveries in Songdo, Incheon, for 15 to 17 hours every day, earning 12 million won ($8,931) a month. He started as a delivery rider when he couldn’t find another job, but his continuous efforts made him a branch manager of a delivery agency.

No one forced him to work such long hours, but he made 110 to 120 deliveries a day, which means one call every eight to 10 minutes. The labor must have been too much for him, who had suffered from a stroke, cataract and depression. But there was no system to prevent his overworking. Many riders actually envied him for working such long hours for a long time without having any accidents.

Even after his death, news reports about delivery riders’ accidents continue day after day. Accidents occur while they are making deliveries under bad weather conditions or when they were hit by drunk drivers. Is it okay to enjoy speed and convenience in return for riders risking their lives for a delivery fee of about 3,000 won?

In addition to delivery riders, the number of people working on platforms — such as substitute drivers and data entry workers — is increasing every year. Last year, there were 883,000 platform workers in Korea, an 11.1 percent increase from the previous year. They account for 3 out of every 100 newly employed people, and the proportion is growing every year, according to the Korea Employment Information Service. Of them, 55 percent, or 485,000, are delivery workers and drivers. In today’s Korea, where decent jobs are increasingly hard to find, the jobs created by delivery platforms are one of the few jobs with low entry barriers that do not require education or personal connections. Instead, platform workers are responsible for everything, including their own safety.

The market of “humans as a service,” as defined by Oxford Law Professor Jeremias Prassl, has grown globally over the past decade. Lawsuits have arisen in many countries over their status as laborers. Many of them rely on platforms for a significant amount of their monthly income, and when their contracts are suddenly terminated, they claim that they were fired unfairly. Recently, Korean courts are making rulings one after another. But the rulings on their status depend on cases.

According to the Supreme Court’s ruling on July 25, drivers of TADA were employees under the direction and supervision of the platform company Socar. But delivery riders are not “employees hired by agencies” as they “freely choose whether to accept orders,” according to a ruling by the Seoul Central Court on July 12.

What makes the courts’ rulings inconsistent is the limit of the current Labor Standards Act. The law only protects wage workers hired by certain employers from unfair dismissal or overtime working. Platform workers cannot be recognized as employees due to their jobs’ characteristics which are similar to those of the self-employed — for instance, their working hours and places are not controlled by others and they can choose their work. As they take orders from various platforms, it’s also impossible to identify users under the current law.

But riders are increasingly dependent on platforms such as delivery apps and agencies. Their monthly incomes fluctuate depending on the algorithm that assigns orders, changes in the delivery app’s commission structure or the competition between platforms. Even though platforms say they don’t control when and where their riders work, they know exactly what they do through data to reward and penalize them. And yet, the current law only asks whether riders are employees or self-employed, although their work has characteristics of both.

Now is the time to change the question. The bill aimed at protecting vulnerable laborers, proposed by the governing party, is the starting point. It can offer an opportunity for the conservative party to change its image as an anti-labor force.

Platform companies are just waiting to see the reactions of the National Assembly. Four years ago, Baedal Minjok, the largest delivery app in Korea, showed responsibility by signing a collective bargaining agreement with unions for the first time in the world, but its competitors are still torn between responsibility and profitability. But the delivery apps are no longer hungry startups. It’s a huge mistake if they expect society to see their risk as an adventure.

In platform labor, where working on multiple platforms has become the norm, the concept of employers who hire dependent workers can be different from what’s defined in the existing Labor Standards Act. Consumers are waiting for innovators who are both profitable and socially responsible.