Uber drivers and delivery riders play a vital role in Hong Kong’s service sector, offering essential modern conveniences. Despite their significance, the legal standing of these platform workers remains uncertain, leaving them exposed and unshielded. 

With ride-hailing and food delivery services alone engaging over 110,000 individuals in digital platform work in Hong Kong, constituting 3.4 percent of the workforce, immediate attention is crucial. The increasing dependence of gig workers on platform intermediaries is set to expand further with technological advancements, underscoring the pressing need for proactive intervention.

The repercussions of this classification are profound. Hong Kong’s regular employees benefit from minimum wage assurances, paid rest periods, and safeguards against unilateral pay reductions — essential protections ensuring stability and security. In contrast, platform workers lack these fundamental rights, though positive shifts are on the horizon. Recent court rulings in Hong Kong have shed light on the distinction between employees and independent contractors. The legal status of platform workers has long been shrouded in ambiguity, with laws struggling to keep pace with the rapid evolution of gig work, often leading to misclassification and inadequate protection for workers. Addressing these complexities, Hong Kong’s courts have started to elucidate the intricate nature of employment relationships within the gig economy.

A landmark ruling in the Poon Chau Nam vs Yim Siu Cheung case introduced critical criteria for differentiating contractors from employees, focusing on the extent of control exerted by employers over work procedures and schedules. This evolving legal landscape is reinforced by a seven-item checklist employed by courts to discern between employees and independent contractors. These criteria are pivotal for legal practitioners and platform workers to effectively navigate their rights and responsibilities within the current legal framework. The Labour Department has issued a guidance framework, titled Clarify Your Employment Status, to assist workers and employers in comprehending their contractual terms, echoing the essence of court judgments. While these guidelines offer clarity, they also underscore the intricacies of platform work and emphasize the necessity for targeted reforms.

Hong Kong is not alone in grappling with this issue. Globally, governments have adopted various strategies to tackle challenges in the platform economy. Spain’s Riders’ Law reclassified delivery workers as employees, extending full labor protections to them. In contrast, the United Kingdom introduced an intermediate “worker” category, balancing minimum wage entitlements and paid leave while preserving flexibility. Singapore adopted a sector-specific approach, providing protections such as injury coverage and collective bargaining rights without mandating full employee status. These global examples underscore the importance of tailoring solutions to local contexts. A universal approach is unlikely to yield success, but Hong Kong can draw lessons from these reforms while leveraging its legal frameworks and judicial precedents.

To address the challenges inherent in platform work, Hong Kong must adopt a pragmatic and progressive approach, possibly in phases. The initial step involves clarifying employment status through binding guidelines that help employers and workers comprehend the application of existing legal principles to platform work. Factors such as algorithmic control, financial risk, and equipment provision should be clearly defined to ensure consistency and transparency. This phase can be initially focused on ride-hailing and food delivery platforms.

The subsequent priority is to ensure fundamental protections for other platform workers. In today’s digital era, consumers have access to a plethora of services via various platforms, ranging from plumbing services to yoga lessons. Sector-specific measures should address critical vulnerabilities, including injury coverage, equitable deactivation procedures, and minimum earnings standards. These protections can be implemented without compromising the flexibility that makes platform work appealing.

Lastly, Hong Kong should establish an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism. This mechanism would provide a convenient and effective avenue for workers to address issues such as unpaid earnings or unfair account deactivations. By swiftly and fairly resolving disputes, this mechanism can minimize disruptions to businesses while providing workers with the recourse they need. Given the nature of digital platform workers, such an ADR mechanism should embrace technology as much as possible.  

Organizations worldwide are exploring the necessity of ADR in digital platform gig work. A recent study by the University of Oxford revealed that prevailing labor laws in European countries often overlook independent contractors, leaving them with limited legal remedies. Policymakers should mandate that all labor market intermediaries, including gig platforms and staffing agencies, implement an ADR process. The International Labour Organization recently issued a call for proposals from institutions specializing in labor research and India’s platform economy to conduct a study on grievance-handling and labor dispute resolution mechanisms for platform workers in India. In the dynamic realm of digital platform work, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s advocacy for formalized alternative dispute resolution processes is a significant step toward ensuring equity and consistency in resolving disputes between service providers and intermediaries. By advocating for transparency and standardized procedures, policymakers can enhance trust and efficiency in the gig economy, benefiting both workers and platforms.

Platform work is not a passing trend; safeguarding platform workers is a universal concern that transcends geographical boundaries. While the challenges faced by platform workers are universal, Hong Kong’s aspiration to emerge as the region’s dispute resolution hub provides an opportunity to proactively address these issues. Organizations like the International Labour Organization advocate for legal safeguards for all platform workers, emphasizing the need for a convention covering diverse forms of platform work and upholding workers’ rights, including freedom of association, safe working conditions, and protection from violence. By enhancing capacities in dispute resolution, Hong Kong can play a crucial role in fostering transparency, consultation, and bargaining rights before algorithm deployment, guaranteeing a living wage, universal social protection, full data rights, fair deactivation practices, and clear contractual terms for platform workers.

The timing of ADR could not be more appropriate with Hong Kong’s recent establishment of the International Organization for Mediation, which underscores the city’s dedication to promoting harmonious conflict resolution on a global scale. This significant development positions Hong Kong as a pivotal hub for facilitating peaceful dispute settlement, leveraging its esteemed legal system and skilled professionals. By embracing this new organization and capitalizing on its mediation expertise, Hong Kong can further enhance its reputation as a preferred destination for resolving disputes, ultimately benefiting platform workers and fostering stability in the dynamic gig economy.

The author is a senior lecturer at the Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, and co-chair of the Advocacy and Policy Research Committee at the Hong Kong Institute of Human Resource Management.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.