Big questions over gig worker welfare in Singapore

AS SINGAPORE looks to provide more sustained support for lower wage workers, there has been renewed attention on whether gig workers need a lift too.   

At the top of the list are the labour protection gaps that ride hailing and delivery workers face. 

“Food delivery riders are a vulnerable group, with a higher chance of experiencing skids and falls, especially when delivering in wet weather or when in a rush,” Yeo Wan Ling, advisor to the National Delivery Champions Association (NDCA), told The Business Times.

She added: “Currently, the coverage provided by platform operators is inadequate and uneven, and there is generally little to no income support for riders if they need to be on medical leave. Also, unlike employees, riders cannot claim for work injuries under the Work Injury Compensation Act.”

There is a “critical need” to review existing work injury coverage, with one possibility being to include them under WICA, said Ms Yeo, a Member of Parliament who also advises the National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA). 

Many riders have no choice but to work through their injuries, even when granted medical leave, as they need to provide for their families, Ms Yeo said.

A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU

Monday, 3.30 pm

Garage

The hottest news on all things startup and tech to kickstart your week.

Sign Up

Gig workers often lack access to comprehensive medical, accident, and earnings protection. Current market offerings are often not flexible enough to cater to the unique needs of gig work, said Sebastian San, Singapore country manager at Gigacover, which provides financial services for independent workers. 

Grab, Gojek and Deliveroo have each come up with various initiatives to cover their drivers and riders, but these come tied to certain conditions and even performance tiers.

Fair earnings is also a key issue when it comes to ride-hailing drivers and delivery riders. Ms Yeo said that the NPHVA and NDCA are looking to work with platforms to be consulted on planned changes to base rates and incentives, as well as to push for transparency in incentive structures. 

“Such consideration would help ensure that gains to market share and margins are not at the expense of fair earnings to drivers and riders, given that they are price-takers and their earnings need to factor in essential needs such as insurance and retirement savings, which are largely borne by the individuals,” she said. 

Everyone should have the assurance that they can go about their daily jobs with sufficient coverage for any injuries that they may sustain over the course of it, agreed Seha Yatim, senior policy manager at public policy consultancy Access Partnership. 

“Additionally, they should also be able to take the necessary time off to recuperate from illnesses without having to worry about their day-to-day expenses,” she added.

An employee by any other name?

On a more philosophical level, there is also the question of whether Singapore should count these gig workers as employees – or even institute some form of wage floor in this sector. 

This debate is raging globally. Last week, a California judge ruled that Proposition 22 – a measure allowing the likes of Uber to classify gig workers as independent contractors, rather than employees – is unconstitutional.

In Singapore, the main difference between gig workers and employees is that the former group is not covered under the Employment Act, noted Associate Professor Walter Theseira of the Singapore University of Social Sciences. 

This exclusion made sense when such workers were mostly independent contractors or tradespeople, he noted. But many delivery and ride-hailing gig workers now rely on tech platforms to provide and coordinate jobs. 

“They have become extremely dependent on the platforms, and the platforms also regulate and control their work to a large extent. This raises the question of whether it is appropriate to still consider them independent workers, or whether the span of control exercised by a technology platform is actually more similar to that of an employment relationship,” Assoc Prof Theseira said. 

However, foodpanda believes that “changing the employment relationship does not necessarily translate to more benefits for freelancers or riders”. 

“The proposition to remove flexibility which is the core essence of the gig economy may ultimately hurt what riders value, which is, more-than-fair compensation and work autonomy,” a spokesperson for the food delivery platform said. 

The debate over classification comes as calls grow for Singapore to institute a minimum wage. Over in the UK, Uber had to guarantee its drivers minimum wage in March, after it lost a legal battle over the drivers’ status. 

Chinese regulators too in July ordered online platforms to ensure food delivery riders earn above the country’s minimum wage and have access to insurance coverage.

Asked if it would support a minimum wage for gig workers, if someday possible in Singapore, the foodpanda spokesperson said that this would not be the “best way forward”. 

“Instituting a minimum wage takes away flexibility and does not take into account the other costs it imposes on the rest of the ecosystem, such as customers who may have to pay more for delivery fees,” she said. 

A Deliveroo spokesperson said that the company is open to new ideas, but “any such mechanism should respect the fact that riders are self-employed and overwhelmingly want to remain such”. 

Gojek said that its drivers value flexibility and stability, but did not address the question otherwise. Grab would only say that it is in discussions with stakeholders, when asked about the minimum wage and other policy issues. 

To be sure, a minimum wage for gig work is in itself difficult to compute, given variations in incentives and timing. Assoc Prof Theseira reckons that the more attainable step is simply to ensure that the Employment Act extends to those who should not be “inappropriately treated as contract workers”, as well as strengthening labour protections for gig workers. 

He also believes that retirement, medical, and insurance benefits should be included in service contracts for gig workers, because that is how employees are already covered. Such a system could be organised via a mandatory national programme, rather than being left to the market as it is now.

Assoc Prof Theseira acknowledges that such steps will likely drive costs up. Workers themselves may not see an earnings rise, as part of the money they would otherwise earn goes to their CPF account or medical benefits. 

“But without this, what you have is an unsustainable system where many gig workers are only one accident or illness away from being unable to support their family,” he said.

READ MORE:

• Is the Progressive Wage Model progressing?
• Gig economy: legal framework needed to avert social costs