Conference Agenda

Introduction

The regulation of platform work has become a key issue in labor law, with countries adopting divergent approaches. Latin America presents a unique landscape, as it includes both pioneering regulations and jurisdictions that have relied on judicial intervention in the absence of specific legislation. Chile was the first country in the region to enact a platform work law (Law 21.431, 2022), recognizing both independent and dependent platform workers. In contrast, Uruguay lacked regulation until February 2025, during which time its labor courts overwhelmingly classified platform workers as employees, granting them labor protections. This study examines whether these regulatory and judicial approaches have effectively ensured decent work for platform workers and explores ways to enhance their impact.

Research Questions

1. To what extent has Chile’s regulation achieved its objectives, and what enforcement challenges have emerged?

2. How has Uruguay’s judicial approach shaped labor protections, and what changes does the recent regulatory intervention introduce?

3. What lessons can be drawn from these cases to improve platform work regulation in Latin America and beyond?

Methodology

This study employs a comparative legal analysis of Chile and Uruguay, focusing on their regulatory trajectories and enforcement mechanisms. It examines legislation, judicial rulings, and administrative decisions, alongside reports from labor institutions and policy debates. By comparing a country with a formal regulatory framework to one where protections were primarily shaped by the judiciary, the study assesses the effectiveness of both approaches. It also identifies implementation challenges and broader implications for labor law.

Contribution to Literature

While much research has examined the legal classification of platform workers, little has assessed the effectiveness of existing regulations. This study fills that gap by systematically evaluating whether Chile’s regulatory model and Uruguay’s judicial approach have met their objectives. It also builds on prior research advocating for an international regulatory framework through the International Labour Organization (ILO), arguing that national enforcement challenges highlight the need for transnational solutions.

Findings and Policy Proposals

Preliminary findings indicate that while Chile’s law establishes clear rights, it faces enforcement challenges, particularly in ensuring compliance by platform companies. Meanwhile, Uruguay’s judicial approach provided strong protections but led to fragmented enforcement and uncertainty. These cases highlight the need for an international regulatory framework that sets minimum protections while allowing local adaptability. Drawing on previous research, this study outlines key elements such a framework should include, addressing worker classification, social protection, and enforcement mechanisms.

The rise of gig work and the platform economy is reshaping how we view work, blurring the lines between employment and entrepreneurship, while challenging traditional labour protections and regulatory frameworks. Despite employment policy and employment generation programmes, the majority of India’s workforce is informal. Recent advancements of the sharing economy and gig work reinforce informality in many occupations. This phenomenon goes beyond India wherein advancements in technology and artificial intelligence have led to a surge in gig and platform-based work. Thus, digital production sites have become key spaces, redefining employer-employee relationships, particularly in terms of control (both spatial and temporal), supervision, feedback mechanisms, and working conditions.

This paper borrows ideas from Labour Process Theory (LPT) (Braverman, 1974) to analyse these transformations but argues that the reality of gig work in the Indian context goes beyond LPT. The geographically tethered model as well as the cloudwork model (Woodcock and Graham, 2020) better explain these shifts. The changing labour process dilutes the employer-employee relationship and commodifies labour, raising critical questions about worker protections, regulatory oversight, and worker autonomy.

At the heart of these transformations is worker agency, since the platform economy has a conflicting promise of autonomy. Platforms categorise workers as independent contractors but exercise significant control similar to a more standard form of employment. However, unlike standard employment where labour protections and benefits are embedded in contracts, gig workers often lack access to basic entitlements like health insurance, pensions and workplace protections. Although the Government of India introduced four labour codes in 2020 to help create a more effective regulatory environment, addressing the gig-workspace is not straightforward owing to the complexities of identification and codification of occupations and employment relationships.

Drawing on examples from primary, secondary and tertiary sectors in India within the gig workspace, this paper focuses on: (a) disaggregating labour through definitions, (b) digital production sites and commodification of labour, (c) dilution of the typical employer-employee relationship and its role in labour protections, (d) algorithmic control and their connection to worker well-being, and (e) the dynamic movement between self-employment and gig work in the platform economy and the role of worker agency.

References

Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital. The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (New York: Monthly Review Press)

Woodcock, Jamie and Graham, Mark. (2020). The Gig Economy: A Critical Introduction, Cambridge: Polity

Digital platform work, characterized by on-demand labour, piece-rate wages, an asset-light model, network effects and algorithmic management, is now a feature of the global labour market. Based on these characteristics, some argue that platform work is but a continuation of traditional on-demand gig work models. Others suggest it is a very different work model due to the primacy of algorithmic management, and therefore necessitates new regulatory approaches. Avoiding this binary distinction, this paper identifies sectors where gig work predates platform work, but shares some of its characteristics. It examines the regulation of gig work in those sectors in order to trace the continuity and the novelty of digital platform work and the regulatory lessons from past practices.

Research Questions:

1. To what extent do digital labour platforms represent a continuation of gig work in other sectors, and how do the regulatory approaches for those sectors inform contemporary platform regulations?

2. How does algorithmic management in platform work compare with the management of gig work in older sectors, and what new regulatory challenges does it pose?

Methodology:

India, with its large and rapidly growing digital platform economy and a diverse unorganised sector, provides a compelling case study. This paper will compare gig work, and its regulation, in sectors in India including dock work, headload work, beedi (local cigarettes) and cigar production, rickshaw pulling, and street-taxi driving with contemporary digital platform work. The analysis will focus on the following aspects: the location of production, the source of capital, the organization of work, work skills, worker organisation, and the implantation of the legal framework and its outcomes. This paper will analyse how labour legislation passed by the central and the state governments on digital platforms draws on regulation of gig work in the older sectors. This paper will also examine how the gap between the intent and outcome of current digital labour-platform-related by examining the support and opposition from workers and platforms. Specifically, the paper will draw on interviews with 1369 platform workers between 2021 and 2024 in India and interactions with 13 platforms.

Contribution to literature and findings:

The paper contributes to the growing body of work on regulating the digital platform economy. By situating the Indian platform economy within its historical and legal context, it will illustrate how regulation of the platform economy can gain by looking to previous legislation regulating gig work, while clarifying where new initiatives will be required.

Introduction

Digital micro-task labor platforms have transformed global employment by offering on-demand, location-independent work. However, workers’ ability to receive fair and timely payments remains a critical regulatory challenge. Platform-dependent earnings, fluctuating pay structures, and opaque financial mechanisms expose workers to income volatility (Rani and Furrer, 2019), high transaction costs (Posada, 2024), and financial exclusion (Jian et al, 2024). While some regulatory measures have been proposed—including minimum pay thresholds, fee transparency requirements, and platform accountability mechanisms—their effectiveness remains limited due to weak enforcement, lack of international coordination, and platform circumvention strategies.

Research Question

This study investigates the structural barriers to fair payment in digital labor platforms and evaluates why existing regulatory approaches fail to ensure financial security for micro-task platform workers in Egypt. It asks:

1. How do digital payment structures (e.g., commissions, exchange rates, payment delays) shape Egyptian microworkers’ earnings and financial security?

2; What policy interventions could improve fairness, transparency, and protection for platform microworkers’ income? Would these be on the national level, institutional or platform level?

Methodology

This research employs a mixed-methods approach:

• Survey Data: Quantitative analysis of 600+ Egyptian microworkers’ earnings, payment methods, and financial constraints (Microworkers & Clickworkers platforms).

• Focus Groups: Qualitative insights from digital platform Egyptian workers on payment challenges, fee structures, and workarounds (conducted Jan 2025).

• Comparative Policy Analysis: Examination of existing regulations.

Findings & Contribution

Preliminary findings indicate that platform payment systems create structural disadvantages for workers, including:

• Opaque fee structures: High commission fees, hidden costs, and unpredictable exchange rate fluctuations.

• Delayed disbursements & restrictions: Payment holds, withdrawal limits, and cross-border transfer barriers.

These findings expose critical limitations of existing regulations, which fail to address the unique financial precarity of digital platform workers. This study contributes by highlighting specific financial failures and proposing actionable reforms.

Conclusion

By uncovering why good regulatory ideas fail to ensure fair digital labor payments, this study bridges the gap between policy intentions and real-world impact—offering evidence-based recommendations for more effective regulation of platform-based work.

References:

Jiang, L., Deng, X. N., & Wagner, C. (2024). Understanding the individual labor supply and wages on digital labor platforms: A microworker perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 79, 102823.

Posada, J. (2024). Deeply embedded wages: Navigating digital payments in data work. Big Data & Society, 11(2), 20539517241242446.

Rani, U., & Furrer, M. (2019). On-demand digital economy: Can experience ensure work and income security for microtask workers?. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 239(3), 565-597.