Gig Workers Rising: Demand for Welfare and Protections

Q: What do the recent nationwide strikes in the services sector indicate about the evolving nature of India’s gig economy ?

The three nationwide strikes—in quick commerce, public-sector banking, and ride-hailing platforms—reflect the growing assertion of labour rights in India’s rapidly expanding services economy. Notably, two of the three strikes emerged from the gig economy, which has been projected as a cornerstone of India’s new-age growth model. This suggests that while the gig sector has expanded employment opportunities, it has also generated structural vulnerabilities such as income uncertainty, algorithmic control, and lack of bargaining power.The quick commerce strike during the peak holiday season highlighted concerns over intensified work pressure linked to the 10-minute delivery model. Similarly, ride-hailing drivers protested against fare-setting mechanisms and misuse of private vehicles, pointing to asymmetrical power between platforms and workers. These developments indicate that gig workers are no longer atomised individuals but increasingly organised and politically conscious stakeholders.Therefore, the strikes signal a transition phase in India’s labour market: from informal, fragmented gig engagements to a more institutionalised and rights-aware workforce. This evolution has significant implications for labour governance, industrial relations, and the sustainability of digital platform-based growth.

Q: Why are the Labour Codes’ provisions on gig and platform workers considered a landmark reform, and why do tensions persist despite formal recognition?

The Labour Codes, notified in 2025, marked a significant shift by formally recognising gig and platform workers within India’s legal framework. For the first time, such workers were promised social security benefits, including insurance coverage and the creation of a dedicated social security fund financed partly by platform aggregators. This legislative move acknowledged the structural transformation of India’s labour market towards digital and platform-based employment.However, tensions persist due to implementation gaps and structural concerns. The Economic Survey flagged that nearly 40% of gig workers earn less than ₹15,000 per month, underscoring precarious income conditions. Moreover, the categorisation of gig and platform workers under a single umbrella has been criticised as overly simplistic, given the sector’s segmentation by skill and earnings. A one-size-fits-all regulatory approach may fail to address differential vulnerabilities.Thus, while the reform is landmark in intent, its success depends on effective enforcement, transparent contribution mechanisms, and grievance redressal systems. Formal recognition alone does not eliminate power asymmetries between platforms and workers.

Q: How does the rise of worker-owned platforms like Bharat Taxi potentially reshape competition and labour relations in the gig economy?

The launch of Bharat Taxi, a driver-owned and government-backed cooperative ride-hailing platform, introduces a new institutional model in the gig economy. Unlike private aggregators that centralise decision-making, cooperative models promise greater worker participation in fare-setting, profit-sharing, and governance structures.Such competition could exert pressure on established platforms to revise commission structures and enhance transparency. If successful, Bharat Taxi may reduce income volatility by ensuring minimum base fares and more predictable earnings. Cooperative digital platforms have precedent globally, such as driver-owned initiatives in parts of Europe and the United States.However, sustainability will depend on technological scalability, consumer trust, and operational efficiency. Merely being worker-owned does not guarantee market competitiveness. The experiment thus represents a critical test case in blending cooperative principles with digital capitalism.

Q: What structural factors explain the recurring nature of strikes in the gig economy despite recent welfare announcements?

Recurring strikes in the gig sector stem from structural imbalances inherent in platform capitalism. First, income volatility remains high due to dynamic pricing algorithms and commission variability. Second, the concentration of decision-making power with aggregators limits workers’ bargaining capacity. Third, lack of clarity in employment status creates ambiguity regarding rights and protections.Even though the Union Budget 2026-27 introduced identity cards and healthcare coverage through e-Shram registration, such measures primarily address social security rather than income security. Workers’ primary grievances often revolve around fare fixation, incentive cuts, and arbitrary account deactivations.Therefore, strikes reflect a deeper demand for participatory governance and predictable earnings rather than mere welfare assurances. Without addressing algorithmic transparency and collective representation mechanisms, episodic industrial action may continue.

Q: As a case study, how does the banking sector strike over a five-day workweek illustrate the broader transformation of labour in a digitised economy?

The public-sector bank strike demanding a five-day workweek offers an interesting contrast to gig-sector protests. Unlike gig workers, bank employees operate within formal employment frameworks with union representation and structured service conditions. Yet, their demand reflects evolving expectations regarding work-life balance in a digitised financial ecosystem.Notably, the strike’s limited impact due to widespread digital transactions highlights how technological adoption alters labour leverage. With customers increasingly relying on online banking and UPI systems, physical branch disruptions had diluted systemic effects.This case demonstrates that digitalisation simultaneously empowers and constrains labour. While it enhances service efficiency, it reduces traditional strike power in certain sectors. The banking example thus complements the gig strikes in illustrating how India’s labour landscape is being reshaped by technological transformation and institutional reform.

Recent strikes in the gig economy highlight worker demands for better conditions and challenge new labour reforms in India.

pocketias team

•February 11, 2026•6 mins read

Gig Economy at a Crossroads: Strikes, Social Security Promises, and the Battle for Fair Work

Not Started

Nationwide Strikes and the Emerging Political Economy of the Gig Sector

1. Three Nationwide Strikes: Changing Nature of Labour Assertion

Within a span of less than three months, India witnessed three nationwide strikes in the services sector—in quick commerce, public-sector banking, and app-based mobility. Though coincidental in timing, the clustering of these protests reflects emerging tensions in India’s evolving service-led economy.

The first strike involved delivery workers of quick-commerce platforms during the 2025 holiday season, demanding better wages, improved working conditions, and an end to the 10-minute delivery model. The second was a strike by public-sector bank employees on January 27, seeking a five-day workweek. The third was a six-hour “All India Breakdown” by cab aggregator drivers demanding minimum base fares and regulatory enforcement.

The fact that two of these strikes occurred in the gig and platform economy underscores the growing visibility and assertiveness of non-traditional labour segments. This is significant in the context of India’s structural shift toward services and digital platforms as engines of growth.

As the economy transitions toward platform-based models, labour assertion is also adapting to new forms of employment. Ignoring these early signals could lead to deeper structural conflicts between labour flexibility and social protection.

2. Quick Commerce Strike: Platform Efficiency vs Worker Welfare

The strike by delivery workers targeted the 10-minute delivery model, now central to India’s quick-commerce boom. Workers sought better conditions and higher wages, arguing that hyper-speed delivery intensifies work pressure and safety risks.

The government responded by advising companies not to use “10-minute delivery” as a marketing or branding tool. However, the operational model largely continues, with companies more cautious in publicly committing to strict time bands.

This episode highlights the tension between consumer convenience, platform competition, and worker sustainability. While quick commerce fuels urban consumption and employment, its labour model raises questions about fair compensation and occupational safety.

Key Concerns:

Demand for improved wages and working conditions
Opposition to “10-minute delivery” model
Government advisory against marketing strict time promises

Efficiency-driven business models can generate growth but may externalise risks onto workers. Without calibrated regulation, technological innovation may outpace labour safeguards.

3. Public-Sector Bank Strike: Traditional Labour in a Digital Era

On January 27, the United Forum of Bank Unions called a nationwide strike demanding a five-day workweek. Currently, banks observe holidays on alternate Saturdays and all Sundays, with full Saturday closure pending government approval.

Although branch operations were affected, the strike’s impact was moderated by widespread digital transactions. This reflects how digitisation reduces vulnerability of essential services to labour disruptions.

The episode illustrates the coexistence of legacy employment structures and digital transformation. It also shows that labour demands in traditional sectors remain relevant despite technological shifts.

Key Issue:

Demand for five-day workweek in public-sector banks
Digital transactions diluted operational disruption

Digitalisation enhances systemic resilience, but workforce satisfaction remains crucial for institutional stability. Ignoring employee concerns in legacy sectors may affect service quality and morale.

4. Cab Aggregator Strike: Income Uncertainty and Platform Power

Drivers associated with Uber, Ola, Rapido, and similar platforms went on strike demanding minimum base fares and an end to the misuse of private vehicles for commercial rides. The agitation was led by the Telangana Gig and Platform Workers Union (TGPWU).

Despite the presence of Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines, platforms determine fares autonomously, leading to concerns about income volatility. At the core of the grievance was income uncertainty and the perceived concentration of power with platform owners.

The strike coincided with the launch of Bharat Taxi, a driver-owned, government-backed cooperative ride-hailing platform, potentially altering competitive dynamics in the sector.

Core Issues:

Demand for minimum base fares
Alleged platform dominance in fare-setting
Income unpredictability
Launch of government-backed Bharat Taxi

Platform economies centralise algorithmic control, often limiting worker bargaining power. Without transparent regulatory oversight, asymmetry between platforms and workers may intensify.

5. Labour Codes and Formal Recognition of Gig Workers

The labour Codes, notified in November 2025, granted formal recognition to gig and platform workers, five years after parliamentary approval. This marked a structural shift in India’s labour regulation framework.

The Codes promise social security benefits, including insurance coverage, and mandate that aggregators contribute a portion of their annual turnover to a social security fund. This institutionalises welfare within a previously informal segment.

The Economic Survey 2025–26 and Union Budget 2026–27 further reinforced this recognition. The Budget announced identity cards and healthcare coverage for gig workers, estimated at around 10 million.

“Gig workers on online platforms play a vital role in driving India’s new age services economy…..” — Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman

Legal recognition transforms gig workers from invisible participants to policy stakeholders. However, if implementation gaps persist, formal recognition alone may not prevent labour unrest.

6. Income Inequality and Segmentation within the Gig Economy

The Economic Survey 2025–26 highlighted structural vulnerabilities in the gig workforce. It noted that around 40% of gig workers earn less than ₹15,000 per month, underscoring income precarity.

The Survey also questioned the uniform categorisation of gig and platform workers under one legal category, arguing that the workforce is “highly segmented by skill.” This challenges the feasibility of a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach.

Additionally, it flagged concentration of power with platform owners, echoing worker grievances in recent strikes. Thus, economic vulnerability and structural asymmetry coexist within the gig ecosystem.

Key Data:

40% earn below ₹15,000 per month
Estimated 10 million gig workers
Uniform categorisation under labour Codes questioned

If segmentation and income disparities are not addressed, social security reforms may remain superficial. Differentiated policy frameworks may be required to balance flexibility and fairness.

7. Competition, Cooperatives, and Future Trajectory

The launch of Bharat Taxi, a government-backed cooperative platform, introduces a new model in the ride-hailing ecosystem. It signals potential state-supported competition aimed at correcting market imbalances.

In theory, increased competition could reduce platform dominance and improve driver bargaining power. However, sustainability of such models depends on operational efficiency, regulatory neutrality, and consumer trust.

The broader question remains whether labour welfare measures, combined with new competitive models, can make recurrent strikes unnecessary.

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.” — Franklin D. Roosevelt

Inclusive growth in a services-driven economy requires balancing innovation with equity. If welfare promises fail to translate into predictable incomes and fair conditions, labour unrest may become structurally embedded.

Conclusion

The recent spate of strikes signals a transitional moment in India’s services and gig economy. While the labour Codes mark a significant reform by formally recognising gig workers, implementation challenges, income insecurity, and platform power asymmetry remain pressing issues.

Going forward, calibrated regulation, differentiated policy frameworks, and competitive neutrality will determine whether India’s gig economy evolves into a stable pillar of growth or remains vulnerable to recurrent labour conflict.

Quick Q&A

Everything you need to know

The three nationwide strikes—in quick commerce, public-sector banking, and ride-hailing platforms—reflect the growing assertion of labour rights in India’s rapidly expanding services economy. Notably, two of the three strikes emerged from the gig economy, which has been projected as a cornerstone of India’s new-age growth model. This suggests that while the gig sector has expanded employment opportunities, it has also generated structural vulnerabilities such as income uncertainty, algorithmic control, and lack of bargaining power.

The quick commerce strike during the peak holiday season highlighted concerns over intensified work pressure linked to the 10-minute delivery model. Similarly, ride-hailing drivers protested against fare-setting mechanisms and misuse of private vehicles, pointing to asymmetrical power between platforms and workers. These developments indicate that gig workers are no longer atomised individuals but increasingly organised and politically conscious stakeholders.

Therefore, the strikes signal a transition phase in India’s labour market: from informal, fragmented gig engagements to a more institutionalised and rights-aware workforce. This evolution has significant implications for labour governance, industrial relations, and the sustainability of digital platform-based growth.

The Labour Codes, notified in 2025, marked a significant shift by formally recognising gig and platform workers within India’s legal framework. For the first time, such workers were promised social security benefits, including insurance coverage and the creation of a dedicated social security fund financed partly by platform aggregators. This legislative move acknowledged the structural transformation of India’s labour market towards digital and platform-based employment.

However, tensions persist due to implementation gaps and structural concerns. The Economic Survey flagged that nearly 40% of gig workers earn less than ₹15,000 per month, underscoring precarious income conditions. Moreover, the categorisation of gig and platform workers under a single umbrella has been criticised as overly simplistic, given the sector’s segmentation by skill and earnings. A one-size-fits-all regulatory approach may fail to address differential vulnerabilities.

Thus, while the reform is landmark in intent, its success depends on effective enforcement, transparent contribution mechanisms, and grievance redressal systems. Formal recognition alone does not eliminate power asymmetries between platforms and workers.

The government’s advisory against using 10-minute delivery as a branding tool represents a regulatory attempt to moderate excessive performance pressure in quick commerce. From a welfare perspective, such intervention seeks to reduce unsafe delivery practices, unrealistic deadlines, and exploitative incentive structures tied to algorithmic monitoring.

However, critics may argue that overregulation could dampen innovation and consumer choice. Quick commerce has thrived precisely because of speed-based differentiation. Curtailing marketing claims may affect competitive dynamics without necessarily altering backend operational expectations. Workers might still face delivery targets even if companies avoid explicit time-band guarantees.

The broader policy challenge lies in achieving regulatory balance—protecting labour rights without stifling entrepreneurial dynamism. International examples, such as the EU’s Platform Work Directive, show that transparent algorithmic management and collective bargaining rights may offer more sustainable solutions than piecemeal advisories.

The launch of Bharat Taxi, a driver-owned and government-backed cooperative ride-hailing platform, introduces a new institutional model in the gig economy. Unlike private aggregators that centralise decision-making, cooperative models promise greater worker participation in fare-setting, profit-sharing, and governance structures.

Such competition could exert pressure on established platforms to revise commission structures and enhance transparency. If successful, Bharat Taxi may reduce income volatility by ensuring minimum base fares and more predictable earnings. Cooperative digital platforms have precedent globally, such as driver-owned initiatives in parts of Europe and the United States.

However, sustainability will depend on technological scalability, consumer trust, and operational efficiency. Merely being worker-owned does not guarantee market competitiveness. The experiment thus represents a critical test case in blending cooperative principles with digital capitalism.

Recurring strikes in the gig sector stem from structural imbalances inherent in platform capitalism. First, income volatility remains high due to dynamic pricing algorithms and commission variability. Second, the concentration of decision-making power with aggregators limits workers’ bargaining capacity. Third, lack of clarity in employment status creates ambiguity regarding rights and protections.

Even though the Union Budget 2026-27 introduced identity cards and healthcare coverage through e-Shram registration, such measures primarily address social security rather than income security. Workers’ primary grievances often revolve around fare fixation, incentive cuts, and arbitrary account deactivations.

Therefore, strikes reflect a deeper demand for participatory governance and predictable earnings rather than mere welfare assurances. Without addressing algorithmic transparency and collective representation mechanisms, episodic industrial action may continue.

The public-sector bank strike demanding a five-day workweek offers an interesting contrast to gig-sector protests. Unlike gig workers, bank employees operate within formal employment frameworks with union representation and structured service conditions. Yet, their demand reflects evolving expectations regarding work-life balance in a digitised financial ecosystem.

Notably, the strike’s limited impact due to widespread digital transactions highlights how technological adoption alters labour leverage. With customers increasingly relying on online banking and UPI systems, physical branch disruptions had diluted systemic effects.

This case demonstrates that digitalisation simultaneously empowers and constrains labour. While it enhances service efficiency, it reduces traditional strike power in certain sectors. The banking example thus complements the gig strikes in illustrating how India’s labour landscape is being reshaped by technological transformation and institutional reform.