The Gig Economy Debate: Why the Future of Work Is at a Crossroad

The gig economy once celebrated as a flexible, tech-driven answer to rising unemployment has become one of the most contentious battlegrounds in India’s labour market. At the heart of the debate is the question: Can a work model premised on speed and flexibility coexist with fair pay, safety, and dignity for millions of workers? Recent events involving platforms like Zomato have brought these tensions into sharp focus, forcing India to confront the structural challenges of the future of work.

What is Gig Economy?

The gig economy is a system of work where individuals earn income through short-term, flexible, task-based jobs rather than traditional full-time employment. Enabled largely by digital platforms and apps, it includes work such as food delivery, ride-hailing, freelancing, and on-demand services. Gig workers are usually classified as independent contractors, allowing them to choose their working hours. Although this flexibility often comes at the cost of job security, stable income, and social benefits like health insurance or paid leave.

The Rise of the Gig Economy in India

In the past decade, India’s gig economy has exploded, driven largely by app-based services. From food delivery and quick commerce to ride-hailing and freelance tasks, gigs now employ millions of workers across urban and semi-urban areas. Estimates suggest that platform-based jobs could reach over 23 million by 2030, a nearly threefold jump in less than a decade. 

For many workers, gig jobs offer short-term income opportunities without the barriers of traditional employment. Yet this very flexibility has become a double-edged sword — prized by some, exploited by others.

Latest debates and controversies

Late December and early January saw a flashpoint in the gig debate when Zomato’s founder and CEO Deepinder Goyal made public comments defending the company’s labour model, sparking widespread backlash. 

Goyal emphasised earnings and benefits, claiming that delivery partners can make up to ₹25,000 a month working full-time and citing company insurance initiatives and welfare measures such as accident and health coverage. 

However, his remarks were met with criticism from unions and public commentators who argued his portrayal of “decent work” did not match the lived reality for many riders. The Telangana Gig and Platform Workers Association rebutted that the figures touted by Zomato fail to consider fuel costs, vehicle maintenance, unpaid leaves, and unpredictable incentives that dramatically reduce actual take-home earnings. 

Furthermore, Goyal’s description of striking workers as a small number of miscreants drew ire from labour advocates and social media users alike, with critics accusing him of dismissing legitimate concerns and framing labour activism as disorderly behaviour.

A core complaint from workers — amplified in viral videos and union statements — is that payment structures and delivery incentives have become harsher over time. Some riders report earning as little as ₹763 for nearly 15 hours of work, a striking example of how algorithm-driven task allocation and pay scales can yield extremely low effective wages. 

Compounding this, the widely marketed 10-minute delivery promise — championed by quick-commerce brands — places intense pressure on riders. While platforms argue that fast deliveries are possible due to dense store networks, workers and critics insist that such timelines force unsafe riding, risking lives and breaking traffic rules.

A grim byproduct of today’s gig model is the safety risk for workers. In recent days, a 25-year-old delivery rider lost his life in a road accident in Hyderabad — an incident that has reignited public concern about how ultra-fast delivery targets push riders into dangerous situations on overloaded city streets. 

Although the company involved later stated that the victim was not on duty for them at the time of the crash, union leaders pointed out that the same road pressures and economic vulnerabilities persist across platforms, demanding more robust safety systems and accountability. 

Beyond fatal cases, gig workers often face injuries, violent assaults, and harsh weather conditions, all without guaranteed access to medical care or paid sick leave — realities that traditional salaried workers rarely endure. 

The debate peaked around New Year’s Eve, when platform workers called for nationwide strikes demanding fairer pay, safer conditions, and the removal of unrealistic delivery deadlines. While the impact on service delivery varied across regions, the action highlighted the growing discontent among gig workers and the need for structural reform.

For many delivery workers, the pressure is not abstract but deeply personal. Riders often speak of working 12–15 hours a day to qualify for incentives, skipping meals and rest, while constantly monitoring app notifications that dictate their earnings. A single low rating, delay, or cancelled order can reduce pay for the entire day, reinforcing a sense of powerlessness in a system governed by algorithms rather than human managers.

Politicians have taken notice. Aam Aadmi Party MP Raghav Chadha publicly condemned the 10-minute delivery model as exploitative and urged companies to treat delivery workers as human beings with rights, not mere gears in a machine. Others in the government have raised concerns about unsafe working conditions and systemic challenges facing gig labourers. 

Meanwhile, prominent voices within the policy establishment, such as Amitabh Kant, have argued against framing the gig model as inherently exploitative, warning that over-regulation could jeopardise job creation and push workers back into even more insecure informal roles. 

Why This Debate Matters for the Future of Work

India’s labour laws are still struggling to catch up with platform-based work. While the Code on Social Security, 2020, formally recognises gig and platform workers, its implementation remains limited and uneven. Most gig workers continue to exist in a legal grey zone—neither fully classified as employees nor adequately protected as independent workers. Social security benefits such as pensions, paid leave, and healthcare remain largely optional and dependent on platform goodwill rather than enforceable rights. This regulatory gap is one of the core reasons the gig economy debate has intensified, as the workforce grows faster than the laws meant to protect it.

The controversy over gig work asks a fundamental question: can a model built on flexibility and market logic sustainably support millions of livelihoods without formal protections?

1. Labour Rights and Social Security

Gig workers currently lack many basic protections that formal employees enjoy — from paid leave and pensions to health insurance and workplace safety standards. Addressing these gaps would require legal recognition and stronger labor laws.

2. Economic Inclusion vs. Exploitation

For many, gig work is a necessary source of income amidst limited traditional job opportunities. Yet without clear standards for pay and conditions, this necessity can easily slide into exploitation.

3. Corporate Responsibility

Companies like Zomato and others must balance growth with human cost. Their response to worker concerns, and transparency around pay and safety policies, will shape public trust and future regulations.

4. Gender Inequality

While the gig economy is often presented as gender-neutral, its impact on women workers reveals deep structural inequalities. For many women in India, app-based gig work offers rare access to paid employment and flexibility, especially for those balancing caregiving responsibilities or limited mobility. However, this flexibility often comes at the cost of safety and security.

Women gig workers—ranging from delivery partners to ride-hailing drivers and home-service providers—face heightened risks such as harassment, unsafe delivery locations, night shifts, and limited emergency support. Many avoid working late hours despite higher incentives, directly affecting their earnings. Algorithm-driven systems reward speed and availability without accounting for personal safety, while safety features like panic buttons remain largely reactive.

Earnings are also uneven. Since pay depends on hours logged, distance, and customer ratings, women—who often work fewer hours due to domestic responsibilities tend to earn less. Gender bias in ratings and hidden costs further worsen income insecurity. Crucially, the absence of maternity benefits, paid leave, childcare support, and healthcare leaves women gig workers especially vulnerable, reinforcing inequalities the digital economy promised to dismantle.

As India stands at this crossroads, the challenge is not to dismantle the gig economy, but to redesign it—one where flexibility does not come at the cost of safety, dignity, and survival. The choices made today by lawmakers, companies, and society will determine whether the future of work empowers workers—or quietly exhausts them.