“It breaks my heart that instead of celebrating innovation (and startup success) coming from India, some of us stay cynical/envious of people trying to break the status quo. We need more people who dare, and less of those who pull them down.” Sounds like a quotable quote from a top business leader that perhaps MBA graduates would love to invoke in random conversations — but this statement by Grofers CEO Albinder Dhindsa hides facts in plain sight. The “cynical/envious” people who want to “break the status quo” are citizens who want Grofers to treat their delivery workers humanely, and not force them to risk their lives and sanity with their 10-minute delivery deadline. The biggest irony of course is that he believes ensuring human rights for workers is status quo-ist.
Albinder Dhindsa also said that, “not all companies are built on the exploitation of the poor,” and that many of those companies create employment. Where have we heard that one before? Well, only just every time a company — whether a startup or giant — has been called out for poor labour or environmental practices. From Toyota in Bidadi to Sterlite in Thoothukudi. Renault-Nissan’s employees in Chennai had to even take the company to court over the lack of COVID-19 safety compliance and the risk to their health. ‘Look what we’re doing for the nation!’ they scream, as if the workers whose rights are trampled upon are somehow not part of the nation except as a statistic to be added to the GDP.
Take, for example, the current crop of Twitter accounts from riders of Zomato and Swiggy raising their voices about poor working conditions, payouts, dangers of the job, and more. Previously, this has been heard from drivers for Uber and Ola as well.
Drivers and delivery workers on gig economy platforms have complained about long hours and low pay, about the algorithm always gaming them to make sure they earn less, not receiving help after accidents or incidents while on the job, lack of job security, mounting costs, and more. Workers continue to pay even for things such as the bag and t-shirts they are required to wear on the job and bear the cost of the wear and tear of their vehicles and devices as well.
It must be noted that at such a time, when several current and former delivery workers are raising their voices about these practices, Zomato released ads featuring Bollywood actors Katrina Kaif and Hrithik Roshan, which showed delivery executives not having the time to even wait for a selfie because they had to rush out to deliver their next order. And when the ads met with outrage, the company maintained that they were “well-intentioned, but were unfortunately misinterpreted”. However, what it made clear was that the well-being of delivery partners was definitely not at the top of the company’s agenda while making ads such as these. The company said that the ads had been conceptualised months before, but it ought to have read the room at the very least.
Zomato said the point was to make the delivery worker the hero and “demonstrate the pride” with which delivery executives work, but it fails to address the many questions about the well-being of the very people their business depends on.
“Our delivery partners, carrying and dressed in distinctive Zomato branded attire, enable us to offer a consistent experience to our customers, increase brand awareness and build positive brand affinity from which we believe that we could benefit with lower customer acquisition costs,” Zomato wrote in its Red Herring Prospectus while listing on the bourses, but failed to mention that the delivery workers are expected to pay for this attire and yet are expected to have a sense of ownership.
But this isn’t a gig economy problem alone. When there was labour unrest in the Toyota factory in Bidadi and Wistron’s iPhone plant at Narasapura, the finger was first pointed at labour conduct and the damage it would do to the companies themselves and the state’s investment prospects. In fact, the state government stepped in as well, and it wasn’t particularly looking out for the interests of the very people who were working for the companies whose investments they wanted to attract.
Then too, Toyota said it was “generating employment opportunities in the most cordial manner”.
There’s no doubt that India is a country that needs jobs, and the push for employment is made by several large companies, startups, and countries looking to invest in India. And yes, these are companies that generate employment with fairly low barriers to entry, but that does not mean an industry cannot be questioned for any kind of labour exploitation.
But thanks to the pandemic and increasing unemployment, these jobs are taken up by many. And if people are driven to jobs out of desperation, it is only fair to question what companies are doing to ensure that the people who come to them for a source of income are treated well.
This is even evidenced by the ratings of gig economy platforms by Fairwork in 2020, which showed that Swiggy, Zomato and Dunzo scored the least at 1/10, and Grofers scored 4/10.
Recently, Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal asked larger companies to play “a nationalistic role” and support MSMEs and startups, and the government itself has been trying to promote startups. This was only accelerated after India’s clashes with China and a more aggressive push for employment in the country, as well as making it and companies self-reliant.
Promoting the country’s startups and companies may be fair, but questions must be welcomed and not shunned. And if these companies truly are the companies they claim to be, answering questions from either the media or prospective customers shouldn’t be a problem.
Views expressed are the author's own.