On December 31, over one lakh gig and platform workers across India went on strike, drawing national attention to the human costs of ultra-fast delivery models. In a memorandum to Union Labour Minister Mansukh Mandaviya, workers’ unions demanded the immediate withdrawal of 10–20 minute delivery systems, citing serious risks to safety and livelihoods. While the Union government points to the new Labour Codes as a long-term solution, the strike has exposed deeper tensions between growth, employment, and worker protection in India’s platform economy.
Why 10-minute delivery has become contentious
At the heart of the protest lies the rapid expansion of “quick commerce”, where groceries and essentials are delivered in as little as 10 minutes. Platforms such as Zepto, Blinkit, Swiggy Instamart and Amazon have embraced this model, not because of a consumer necessity, but as a competitive strategy.
For workers, the difference between a 10-minute and a 30-minute delivery window is not marginal but existential. Speed is not generated by software alone; it is extracted from human labour. Delivery workers operate under unstable pay structures, constantly changing incentives, and the ever-present threat of app-based ID deactivation. The pressure to meet tight timelines often translates into unsafe driving, longer working hours, and heightened stress.
Jobs versus job quality: a core dilemma
Supporters of quick commerce argue that these platforms have filled a crucial employment gap. India adds nearly 20 million people to its workforce each year but generates only around two million new jobs annually. In this context, platform work has absorbed large numbers of low- and semi-skilled workers who might otherwise remain unemployed.
Industry data suggests that quick commerce has grown threefold in recent years, with market size projected to touch ₹1–1.5 lakh crore by 2027 and annual growth rates nearing 30%. From this perspective, the key question posed is pragmatic: is some job better than no job?
Critics counter that this framing ignores job quality. Studies indicate that nearly 80% of gig workers depend on platform work as their primary livelihood. For them, unpredictability of income, arbitrary penalties, and lack of basic safety nets make “some job” a fragile and often exploitative arrangement.
What the Labour Codes promise — and what they don’t
The Union government sees the four Labour Codes as a pathway to social security for gig and platform workers. For the first time, gig workers are formally recognised as a category and brought under a social security framework. Registration through the e-SHRAM portal is meant to enable access to schemes such as accident insurance and maternity benefits.
However, the protections remain limited. The Codes:
- Do not mandate social security benefits; they merely enable them.
- Explicitly exclude gig workers from being classified as employees.
- Provide no statutory rights to minimum wages, regulated hours, paid leave, or collective bargaining.
Funding mechanisms are also vague, with no clarity on contribution rates, enforcement, or allocation. As a result, many registered workers report having an ID but no tangible benefits such as pensions or medical coverage.
The algorithmic blind spot in regulation
One of the most serious gaps in the current framework is the absence of rules governing algorithmic management. Platforms decide pricing, task allocation, ratings, incentives, and deactivations through opaque algorithms. Workers can lose access to work overnight, often without explanation or appeal.
The Labour Codes do not mandate transparency, accountability, or grievance redressal for algorithmic decisions. This leaves workers exposed to income shocks and arbitrary punishment, while platforms exercise control without corresponding legal responsibility.
Competing visions for regulating gig work
One school of thought warns against turning gig work into full-time employment by law, arguing that excessive regulation could “kill the model” and reduce job creation. High attrition rates, they argue, reflect worker choice rather than coercion, and flexibility is the core appeal of gig work.
The opposing view stresses that control determines responsibility. If platforms control prices, access to work, and penalties, they must also carry obligations — predictable minimum earnings, insurance, due process before deactivation, and data transparency. These demands, proponents argue, are not radical but align with emerging global norms.
AI, automation and the future of gig work
The debate gains urgency in light of artificial intelligence and automation. According to projections by NITI Aayog, nearly 2.35 crore workers could join the gig economy by 2029–30. Yet AI threatens to intensify control while reducing human discretion.
Algorithmic systems can more efficiently replace, rotate, or sideline workers, making livelihoods increasingly fragile. Without stronger rules, workers risk becoming disposable — living one software update away from losing their income.
What to note for Prelims?
- Gig workers are recognised under the Social Security Code, 2020.
- e-SHRAM is a national database for unorganised workers.
- Quick commerce is among the fastest-growing segments of the gig economy.
- Gig workers are not classified as employees under Labour Codes.
What to note for Mains?
- Trade-off between employment generation and job quality in the gig economy.
- Limitations of Labour Codes in ensuring enforceable social security.
- Challenges posed by algorithmic management and lack of transparency.
- Impact of AI on labour precarity and regulatory design.
The strike has underscored that the debate over 10-minute delivery is ultimately a debate about how India values labour in a platform-driven economy. Whether policy evolves to balance growth with dignity will shape not just the future of gig work, but the nature of work itself.
