Context:

• Recurring strikes, protests and terminations, for example, Urban Company terminating workers (2023), Blinkit workers strike in Varanasi for better pay and uniforms (April 2025), significant driver protests after BluSmart closure (April 2025), highlights the growing crisis in India’s Platform economy.
• The dispersed/ localised nature of these protests across cities has prevented them from becoming a national conversation (limiting a broader policy response) and highlights the need for safeguards in the platform-based sector. 

The BluSmart Case - A Tipping Point:

• Nature of the protest: Sudden job loss with no severance pay or alternative employment, workers demand state intervention in the absence of platform accountability.
• Irony of the “Better Platform”: BluSmart provided company-owned cars, women driver training, and guaranteed income, yet failed to protect workers during closure.

Platform Economy and the State - A Misaligned Relationship:

• The platform economy in India:
  • It is a rapidly growing sector, offering numerous job opportunities (in sectors like ridesharing, delivery, logistics, and professional services) and economic benefits, but also raising concerns about worker welfare and regulations.
  • NITI Aayog estimates the gig workforce (platform workers are a subset of gig workers, who specifically utilize online platforms to connect with clients and complete tasks) will expand from 7.7 million in 2020-21 to 23.5 million by 2029-30.
  • This growth is fueled by increasing urbanization, internet access, and the proliferation of digital technologies.
• Construct of self-reliance and entrepreneurship:
  • State and platforms promote gig work as entrepreneurial.
  • Workers are termed as "partners", not employees - avoiding legal employer obligations.
• Practical contradictions:
  • Worker responsibilities: Cost of equipment, uniforms, phones, data, and commission burdens fall on workers.
  • Employer-like control:
    • Platforms impose strict schedules, uniforms, rating-based job allocation.
    • Restrictions on cancellations, even under health or family emergencies.

Structural Vulnerabilities of Platform Workers:

• Misclassification of labour:
  • Workers labelled as independent partners, but platforms act like employers via app-based control.
  • Lack of protection from caste, gender, or religious discrimination.
  • Women’s safety, sanitation, and equitable access are largely ignored.
• Harsh working conditions:
  • Long hours: Often 12+ hour workdays.
  • High performance benchmarks: Many platforms have impossibly high standards that they expect workers to maintain (a rating of 4.7 out of 5); retraining at personal cost if failed.
  • Physical and mental toll: Weather exposure, stress, financial insecurity.
  • Low wages and job insecurity persist: Despite platform claims that workers are well paid, with the freedom to decide when to work and for how long.

Legal and Cooperative Alternatives - Emerging Policy Responses:

• Legal frameworks for social security:
  • Rajasthan and Karnataka: Passed laws recognising platform workers’ rights.
  • Telangana: Prepared draft bill on gig worker protections.
• An alternative cooperative platform model: Earnings passed directly to workers in entirety (with no commission cuts), promoting economic democracy.

Need for Fundamental Reform:

• What remains missing: Everyday working conditions are still neglected by both legal and alternative models.
• Best practice: Chennai corporation to construct air-conditioned rest areas along important roads for gig workers.
• Platform model needs overhauling:
  • Recognition of workers as employees.
  • Enforcement of existing labour laws.
  • Greater accountability and transparency from platforms.

Conclusion:

• The crisis at BluSmart is a wake-up call. Without structural reform, platform capitalism will continue to exploit a vulnerable labour force.
• The state must intervene, uphold labour laws, and stop enabling the misclassification of workers as entrepreneurs.