Union-like voice for platform workers levels the field against Big Tech algorithms

PLATFORM workers are a diverse group, from Grab drivers clocking 10-hour shifts to university students who occasionally deliver for Foodpanda. Granting such a hodgepodge group a collective voice – similar to a trade union – may seem counterintuitive. But it is an important move to mitigate the risks of work governed heavily by matching algorithms.

Singapore is taking a key step forward in this regard. On Wednesday (Jul 12), the government announced that platform workers would be allowed to join representative bodies with similar powers as trade unions, under laws planned to take effect from the second half of 2024. This follows other moves to align platform workers’ retirement savings and work injury compensation with those of employees.

Platform workers are considered self-employed persons, and therefore not eligible for unionisation. They have industry associations, but these are backed by informal agreements rather than a legislative framework, and thus lack the influence of unions.

Meanwhile, platform operators have implied that their drivers and riders don’t desire a collective voice. Last year, Grab, Foodpanda and Deliveroo said most riders are generally satisfied with platforms’ support systems and that “appetite for union support is seemingly low”, based on a joint survey of 4,000 delivery riders.

Less than a third of riders were members of the National Trades Union Congress, and only 3 per cent were part of the National Delivery Champions Association that represents delivery riders.

But that could just mean a lack of awareness, rather than appetite. Independent research shows a need for platform workers to have greater bargaining power, given the extent of control that matching algorithms exert.

In a 2022 study by the Institute of Policy Studies, algorithmic management was a pain point raised by platform workers. One ride-hailing driver cited how he followed the app’s heat map that pinpointed an area with demand, but received no jobs for an hour, before eventually getting one for a meagre S$4.80. Social media is full of similar complaints from platform workers.

Unlike other self-employed persons, platform workers lack the power to set prices and to push back against algorithmic decisions that they feel are unfair. While apps have a panopticon-like view of workers, the workers themselves have little clue as to the parameters that an algorithm takes into account when managing their work.

These algorithms are not just matching workers to jobs; they also determine incentives and penalties, sometimes in an opaque manner. Many platform workers adjust their hours and behaviour to suit algorithms, but this may not always pay off.

Representative bodies would provide a channel through which platform workers can flag concerns about algorithmic decisions to the platforms that devise them, or even to the authorities if needed.

This is particularly important as the pool of platform workers expands. Singapore had 88,400 platform workers last year, up 20.8 per cent from 73,200 in 2021.

Some may fear that platform worker representative bodies would exert undue pressure to the point of crippling operators. But Singapore’s approach includes elements that are in operators’ favour.

For instance, based on a set of guiding principles for such negotiations, platform operators do not have to disclose proprietary information. All parties are also urged to be “mutually committed” to operators’ business success.

In this age of artificial intelligence acceleration, the algorithms of platform operators may grow more sophisticated, but not necessarily more explainable and transparent. A collective voice will be critical to push operators to treat workers fairly.