Protecting "Gig Economy" workers

We should not treat gig economy workers as employees. (Unless they want to and their "employers" are willing to - mutual consent.) 

The current set-up provides a lot of flexibility for the workers as well the platforms (ersatz "employer") that offers the gigs. And changing that would affect that flexibility and advantage of that business model. (Which may well destroy that business model and business.)

BUT (and this is a VERY IMPORTANT BUT), these workers MUST HAVE BASIC PROTECTION!

Certainly, they need more protection than what they currently get. So there should be mandatory, basic protection for these gig economy workers.

But why? Why can't they just work in a regular job?

This assumes that regular jobs are a) still available in the future, and b) what the new economy workers want. And c) what new business models want or need.

So let's take it as a given that in the future there may be many "gig economy" jobs, and that some people may prefer "gig economy" jobs for the freedom or the fit with their life or needs.

Basic Protection

But under current legal framework, such work (and workers) are not protected (adequately) by law. 

At a minimum, the law should provide basic protection for these gig economy workers. 

By "gig economy workers", I am referring to Grabfood delivery, Food Panda, Deliveroo (are they still around?), and probably a lot of other small food delivery services and other "non-independent" contractor. An "independent" contractor would be private tutors, or a tennis coach, or an independent music teacher. For me, the distinction is, does the "independent contractor" or gig worker get to contract directly with the customer, or do they have to operate through a platform or agency that assigns or offers specific tasks or jobs? 

If they are "non-independent" contractor (gig workers), then the platform that organises or facilitates their job or task assignment (each food delivery order for example), is their ersatz "employer". They may not be legally their employer because there is no contract of employment. However, we should pass a law that requires such platforms or agency to provide basic protections and some minimum benefits. 

One basic protection should be insurance for all gig workers for work-related accidents. Currently, if you get hurt while on a gig, it's your problem. You are considered an "independent contractor" providing a service, and not an employee. Therefore there is no employer who owes a duty or responsibility to you.

Plus if you are unable to work, there is no income. Worker's Insurance should cover medical treatment and compensation for missed work (fixed daily allowance for loss of income) from a work-related incident. The mandatory insurance could provide basic protection, and there could be an option for the gig worker to enhance the insurance - cover more medical costs, lower the deductible, increase the daily loss of income payment, extend the payment for more than the basic number of days of the allowance payment, etc. That can be up to insurance companies to propose/provide. But the govt can require insurance companies to provide a basic plan covering $X of medical fees (Say $5,000? $10,000? $20,000? 

A quick google search of the average cost of a hospital stay in Singapore is about $2500 for B2 or C ward). There could be a deductible of say, $500 that the gig worker would have to pay first. Loss of income payment could be based on the average of the last 7 days of earnings, subject to a cap of (say) $120 per day. Or it could be a base rate of (say) $80 a day. And if the gig worker wants a higher base rate, he can enhance the insurance (i.e. pay more premiums).

Any enhancements to the basic insurance has to be mutually agreed between the insurer and the gig worker. 

Such platforms or agency should also provide some (basic) CPF contribution. Perhaps just to their Medisave Account (MA). And the contribution would be less than the full 17% (current Emp'er's contribution rate, IIRC) - maybe prevailing age-based rate for MA and SA (which may disadvantage older Gig workers), or just a simple flat base rate - say 7% that all goes to their MA. 

CPF Allocation rates (for those earning > $750 a month):

Up to age 35:     23% to OA, 6% to SA, and     8% to MA (total 37%)

From 35 to 45:   21% to OA, 7% to SA,          9% to MA

From 45 to 50:   19% to OA, 8% to SA,         10% to MA

From 50 to 55:   15% to OA, 11.5% to SA,     10.5% to MA

From 55 to 60:   12% to OA, 3.5% to SA,     10.5% to MA (total 26%)

From 60 to 65:   3.5% to OA, 2.5% to SA,     10.5% to MA (total 16.5%)

Above 65:          1% to OA, 1% to SA, and     10.5% to MA

To keep things simple, the platform may just be required to provide a flat 7% that goes to a gig worker's Medisave Account. Regardless of age. This is less than the 17% employers are required to contribute for true employees. And less than the 8% (see CPF Allocation above) that goes into the MA of a young CPF member.

Besides medical protection and CPF contributions to Medisave, gig workers should have access to dispute resolution. This could be dispute over pay, hours, orders, route, customer complaints, or any other working conditions and terms. The dispute resolution should have several levels of complexity. At the simplest level, a dispute between the gig worker and the platform might be resolved with a meeting between the gig worker, and a representative of the platform, an perhaps an advocate for the worker. An ombudsman. Other parties might be included if they could help provide information or resolution, but it should not have extraneous third party. If the issue or dispute cannot be resolve with this discussion, it may be raised to an impartial third party agreed upon by both parties for a decision. This could be the Arbitration court or Small Claims Court. Both parties must agree to accept the decision of the impartial third party.

OPTIONALLY, platforms may offer to provide MATCHING CPF CONTRIBUTIONS up to x% - that is, every dollar the gig worker contributes to CPF, the platform will match dollar for dollar capped at x% of the gig worker's income that month. This could be a basis for attracting gig workers. Platform A might offer an optional matching CPF contribution (this goes to the OA and can be used to purchase housing), capped at say 5%. Then Platform B could offer CPF matching capped at 7% to attract more gig workers. 

This is on top of the platform's mandatory contribution to the MA. If platforms offer matching CPF contributions, the contributions would be tax deductible for the Platform.