The Platform Question: Power, Accountability and Global South operational risks onto the individuals who actually perform the labour while retaining total control over pricing, access to work, and incentives. The so-called partnership is deeply unequal. A genuine partnership implies shared decision making, profitsharing, and autonomy over work. In reality, platform workers have none of these. Algorithms decide when and where they can work, what rates they are paid, and whether they will be penalized or deactivated. Drivers and delivery workers cannot negotiate their pay, contest unfair ratings, or appeal suspensions easily. Yet they are responsible for fuel, vehicle maintenance, insurance, and other expenses—essentially subsidizing the business models of billion-dollar companies. This misclassification has far-reaching implications. It enables platforms to evade the payment of Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF), Employees’ State Insurance (ESI), gratuity, paid leave, maternity benefits, and accident compensation. It also denies workers the protection of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which safeguard workers’ rights to fair remuneration and collective bargaining. From the union’s perspective, we view this as a form of disguised employment. Platforms exercise employer-like control without accepting employer-like responsibility. 106 The result is a situation of “wage-less growth” where digital platforms thrive and expand, while the very people powering them live with economic insecurity and debt. From the union’s perspective, we view this as a form of disguised employment. Platforms exercise employer-like control without accepting employer-like responsibility. Across jurisdictions, from the UK to California, courts and regulators are increasingly recognizing this contradiction and reclassifying gig workers as employees or “dependent contractors.” India too must move in this direction, to ensure that digital innovation does not come at the cost of basic labour rights. Given that workers often face sudden income and incentive changes due to unclear algorithms,what forms of transparency are needed to make these systems fair? Algorithmic management has replaced human supervisors in the gig economy, but it has done so without accountability or transparency. Workers wake up one morning to find their per-order rates reduced, incentives slashed, or working zones altered without any notice or explanation. This opacity fuels insecurity and mistrust. As part of the union, we feel, to create The Gig Economy and Platform Workers: A View from the Ground The Platform Question: Power, Accountability and Global South fairness, algorithmic transparency is essential in at least three dimensions: a. Transparency in pay determination: Workers must have access to clear information on how their earnings are calculated as in what portion goes to the platform, what deductions are made, and how dynamic pricing or surge rates apply. Currently, workers have no visibility into the “black box” of fare computation. A driver may complete ten trips under similar conditions and still find different payments for each, with no explanation. We demand that platforms publish a standardized and comprehensible pay formula accessible within worker apps. b. Transparency in performance evaluation and ratings: Ratings are used to control workers’ behaviour and determine access to jobs, incentives, and even continued employment. Yet these systems often amplify customer bias or technical glitches. A single low rating, possibly from a customer with unrealistic expectations, can damage a worker’s livelihood. Platforms must disclose how ratings are weighted, provide workers the right to contest unfair reviews, and ensure that no automated decision like “deactivation” is taken without human oversight. c. Transparency in work allocation and disciplinary actions: The allocation of orders or rides, as well as decisions on suspension or termination, should be subject to clear, appealable rules. Currently, workers are often “logged out” or “temporarily blocked” without explanation, effectively fired by an algorithm. Fairness demands that such decisions be transparent, accompanied by written notice and an opportunity to appeal through a grievance redressal mechanism. At IFAT and TGPWU, we advocate for Algorithmic Accountability Guidelines as part of India’s digital labour regulations. Platforms must be required to disclose the logic behind automated decisions, ensure fairness audits, and involve worker representatives in the design of incentive systems. Without algorithmic transparency, the promise of technology-driven empowerment will remain hollow. The Gig Economy and Platform Workers: A View from the Ground Platforms must disclose how ratings are weighted, provide workers the right to contest unfair reviews, and ensure that no automated decision like “deactivation” is taken without human oversight. 107