Opinion | Gig Workers Need More Protection: Analysing The New Years' Strike

On December 31, as cities across India prepared to welcome the New Year, lakhs of delivery workers were out on the roads, navigating traffic, pollution, and algorithmic pressure during one of the busiest days of the year. For many, this meant riding continuously for long hours under tight delivery timelines, with heightened risks of accidents and serious health strain.

This was also the day when gig workers across multiple cities called a flash strike – not by blocking roads or disrupting public life, but by staying offline. The action emerged from a growing sense among workers that everyday working conditions had crossed a threshold of risk and exhaustion.

As one of the organisers of this action, I want to shift the focus away from whether the strike disrupted deliveries or not, and instead ask a more urgent question: what kinds of risks are being normalised in the name of speed, efficiency, and progress – and who bears their cost?

Dangerous Work as the Everyday Norm

The strike was not primarily about pay. It was rooted in the everyday dangers that increasingly define gig work.

Ultra-fast delivery models, particularly the 10-minute delivery promise, have quietly reshaped how risk is distributed in Indian cities. Delivery partners are pushed to ride faster, cut margins on congested roads, and remain constantly available under algorithmic surveillance. This pressure does not ease when conditions worsen – whether due to poor air quality, extreme weather, or traffic congestion. Rain or shine, cold or wet, the delivery partner must weather all storms. 

On days when air quality reaches hazardous levels, when schools shut and construction is halted, delivery workers continue to work for 8–12 hours, inhaling toxic air without pollution allowances, protective equipment, or health monitoring – while still being required to meet 10-minute delivery deadlines or face penalties. The costs of speed are transferred directly onto workers’ bodies: their lungs, reflexes, and lives.

In a gig economy, what recourse do workers have? One worker described it simply: “App sab decide karta hai – order, paisa, penalty. Agar kuch galat ho jaaye, toh sunwai ka koi system nahi hai.”(The app decides everything – orders, pay, penalties. If something goes wrong, there is no system to be heard.)

It is this accelerating accumulation of risk – not a single incident – that pushed many workers to log off, despite knowing the financial cost they would bear.

Repeated Actions, Not a One-Off Event

The New Year’s Eve strike did not emerge out of the blue. Over the past year, gig workers across many cities have repeatedly spoken out about falling earnings, longer and more physically demanding workdays, sudden ID blocking, lack of social security, and worsening health conditions.

Workers are engaging in collective action under difficult and evolving conditions. In a platform economy where livelihoods are controlled by faceless algorithms, street protests are often replaced by collective log-offs as a more effective way to signal dissent. Even when only a section of workers participates, the distress and danger they describe are real – and consumers and lawmakers must heed these signals rather than treating workers as platforms’ algorithms do.

“Choice” in an Unequal Economy

It is true that many workers continued to work on December 31 despite the call for a flash strike. One worker told me bluntly: “Aaj peak day hai. Normally 30–40 rupaye milte hain, aaj triple mil raha hai. Hum pet paalne ke liye strike karein ya kaam?” (Today is a peak day. Normally we earn 30–40 rupees per order; today it’s almost triple. Should we strike or feed our family?)

This reality is often presented as evidence of choice. It is not. It is evidence of economic compulsion.

India is among the most unequal countries in the world, with the top 1 per cent holding roughly 40 per cent of the nation’s wealth. In such an economy, the ability to refuse unsafe or degrading work is itself a privilege. For most delivery workers, logging out even for a single day can mean unpaid rent, missed EMIs, or food insecurity.

History shows that this is not new. From factories to mines to plantations, exploitative systems have always ‘attracted’ workers – not because conditions were just, but because people needed to survive.

Gig Workers Need More Protection

Platform-based gig work has become a central part of everyday life in Indian cities. Yet the laws meant to protect gig workers remain limited. Most gig workers still lack basic protections such as fixed working hours, enforceable road safety measures, regular health checks, or assured compensation in case of injury.

The notification of rules under the Code on Social Security, 2020 is a positive step. It formally recognises gig and platform workers and opens the door to welfare schemes. The rules focus on registration, the creation of welfare boards, and the establishment of social security funds, including contributions from aggregators. These measures may help in the long run if implemented effectively. At present, however, the benefits remain uncertain and largely dependent on future schemes and timelines.

At the same time, social security alone does not address many of the daily risks gig workers face. There are still no clear legal protections against excessively long working hours, unsafe roads, high pollution exposure, or the intense pressure created by delivery apps and their algorithms. While gig and platform workers are recognised under the Code on Social Security, other labour codes must also recognise them as workers and provide a genuinely protective legal framework.

What Workers Are Actually Demanding

Despite claims about “vested narratives”, workers’ demands are concrete and consistent:

• an immediate rollback of the 10-minute delivery model

• fair and transparent pay linked to actual working hours and real costs

• assured work without opaque penalties or algorithmic bias

• social security and health protection

• an end to arbitrary ID blocking without due process

These are not excessive demands. They are minimum conditions for dignity in a digital economy that profits from informality while denying responsibility.

Why “Limited Impact” Misses the Point

Some have pointed to continued deliveries and “limited disruption” as evidence that the strike failed. This misunderstands how collective action functions under platform capitalism.

Gig-worker strikes are shaped by fear of retaliation and income loss. Even partial log-offs reveal how dependent platforms are on uninterrupted labour availability – and how fragile the promise of seamless convenience truly is.

Rethinking Progress

The gig economy is often described as one of India’s largest organised job-creation engines, with assurances that its benefits will keep increasing over time. But progress cannot be measured only in orders delivered, valuations achieved, or minutes shaved off delivery times.

It must be measured by whether workers can earn a living without risking their health, dignity, or survival. It must be measured by whether cities can function without treating some people as disposable labour.

The real question is not whether the gig economy is growing—but who it works for, and who pays the price to keep it running.

Nitesh Kumar Das is the Organising Secretary at the Gig Workers Association  

Views expressed are personal