Every few months, another jurisdiction has a fresh round of the same argument: should gig workers be reclassified as employees, entitled to the full suite of labour protections, or do they remain independent contractors, as most platforms currently classify them? Both answers are wrong for the same reason — they assume platform work has to be squeezed into one of two categories designed for a very different kind of workplace.
This is an opinion piece, not a case report: everything that follows is the author's argument, not a neutral summary of settled law.
Why 'just make them employees' doesn't fit either
Full employee status assumes a degree of exclusivity and fixed scheduling that doesn't describe how most platform workers actually work — many work across multiple platforms, choose their own hours, and value that flexibility specifically. Forcing full employee status onto that arrangement risks platforms responding by restricting exactly the flexibility that made the work attractive in the first place, a trade-off workers themselves are frequently not asking for.
Why 'leave them as contractors' doesn't fit either
Independent contractor status assumes a level of control the worker has over the terms of their own work that platform work, in practice, doesn't grant. A platform that sets prices, controls the app through which all work is routed, and can deactivate an account algorithmically is exercising the kind of control the contractor category was never meant to describe. Calling that relationship 'independent contracting' is a legal fiction that happens to be convenient for one side.
The honest description of platform work is that it is neither. Pretending otherwise, in either direction, serves whichever side benefits from the pretence.
What a third category should actually contain
- Portable, platform-funded social security contributions that follow the worker across platforms, rather than being tied to a single employer relationship.
- A guaranteed process before account deactivation — notice and a right to contest — without requiring full 'unjust dismissal' protections designed for fixed employment.
- A floor on effective per-task earnings, calculated transparently, without mandating fixed hours or exclusivity the worker didn't ask for.
- Some form of collective voice or representation mechanism, distinct from traditional trade union structures built around a single employer.
The Code on Social Security is a start, not an answer
India's Code on Social Security, 2020, already creates statutory 'gig worker' and 'platform worker' categories — proof that a third box is achievable, not a radical ask. What it hasn't yet done is fund and implement the welfare mechanisms attached to that category with any urgency. The right next step is building out that category's substance, not relitigating whether gig workers should instead just be reclassified as ordinary employees.
References
- [1]Code on Social Security, 2020 — Statute.
- [2]Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Statute — traditional employment protections.
Meera writes on labour and employment law and on the practical mechanics of dispute resolution — how disputes actually move through courts, tribunals and arbitration in India.