• No results found

Flexible side-job or the reorganization of precarious work?

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Flexible side-job or the reorganization of precarious work?"

Copied!
41
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Flexible side-job or the reorganization of precarious work?

-about the employment conditions and employment prospects in Deliveroo and Foodora-

Bachelor thesis 734301500Y

Supervisor: dr. N.P.C. Beerepoot Anne Crijns (11014199)

Daniël Stalpertstraat 95-1, 1072XD, Amsterdam annecr@live.nl

0629111147 17-06-2018

(2)

2

Table of contents

1. Introduction P.4

2. Theoretical framework P.6

2.1. Platform economy; trends, features and typologies P.6

2.2. Labour conditions P.9

2.3. Exit-Voice-Loyalty-Neglect model P.9

2.4. Concluding remarks P.11

3. Research methodology P.13

3.1. Data collection P.13

3.2. Ethics and positioning P.16

4. Research results P.17

4.1. Research context P.17

4.1.1. Deliveroo P.17

4.1.2. Foodora P.17

4.2. Respondents P.18

5. Perceived employment conditions P.22

5.1. Bike food delivery sector P.22

5.2. Wage P.23 5.3. Shifts P.24 5.4. Social security’s P.25 5.5. Practicalities P.26 5.6. Concluding remarks P.27 6. Employment prospects P.28 6.1. Exit P.28 6.2. Voice P.29

6.3. Loyalty and/or Neglect P.31

6.4. How employment prospects are regarded P.32

6.5 Concluding remarks P.33

7. Conclusion and discussion P.34

8. References P.36

9. Appendix P.39

A. Interview Questions P.39

(3)

3

Abstract

Platform economy is a medium created to connect supply and demand by means of algorithmic management. Two companies that make use of the platform economy are Deliveroo and Foodora. Within Deliveroo employees get paid per delivery, have no social securities and have to do the administrative work of a freelancer. At Foodora, on the other hand, employees get paid per hour and are offered basic social securities. The aim of this research is to determine how employees working in Deliveroo and Foodora perceive employment conditions and how they regard the longer-term employment prospects in this domain of the platform economy. In this research it can be concluded that Foodora riders perceived the employment conditions as slightly better than Deliveroo employees. However, riders working for either of these companies still perceive a lot of negative employment conditions. Riders working at Foodora and Deliveroo mostly regard this job as a temporary (side-)job and are therefore not very critical when it comes to the employment conditions. Riders mostly neglect dissatisfying employment conditions or resign from the job when confronted with dissatisfying changes. However, while riders accept the –sometimes poor– working conditions, it is important to note that all riders did want to be appreciated for their work

(4)

4

1. Introduction

Platform economy is a medium created to connect supply and demand by means of algorithmic management. Many traditional business models are radically transformed by the platform economy (Kenney & Zysman, 2015). Where the platform economy could therefore be positioned as a disruptive model, this does not limit the popularity of these platforms (Mckee, 2017). Already in 2009, millions of workers were operating within these platforms (Aloisi, 2015), not to mention customers who use the services of platform economy. Those workers, who are hired as independent contractors, have the advantage of unlimited flexibility but are also responsible for arranging their own social security and pension funds (see chapter 2.2.). For the employer, this limits transaction costs and creates fixed costs per transaction, hereby transferring the business risks to the independent contractors.

One sector that started to use the platform economy model is the home food delivery market in The Netherlands. Where the home food delivery market in The Netherlands used to be dominated by Thuisbezorgd; a company which offers restaurants a platform for finding possible consumers. Today other food delivery companies which make use of the platform economy model, like Foodora and Deliveroo, are entering the Dutch playing field. Whereas Thuisbezorgd mainly provides a platform to restaurants which have a delivery service, the companies Foodora and Deliveroo also take care of delivering the food themselves. Next to this, Thuisbezorgd mainly offers traditional delivery meals such as pizza, Chinese or shawarma while Foodora and Deliveroo offer “quality meals from good restaurants” (Foodora, 2018 & Deliveroo, 2018). In this research the focus will be on the latter two companies; Foodora and Deliveroo. Where Foodora hires the people who deliver the food on the basis of a contract, Deliveroo makes use of freelance contracts. The company decided in August 2017 to only hire freelance delivery workers and to stop renewing contracts. People who start to work for Deliveroo are, from that moment onward employed as a service instead of paid per hour. The company has had a lot of criticism on this decision and multiple strikes took place (Osborne, Hillary & Farell, 2016). By comparing Deliveroo and Foodora, valuable insight will be gained of different kinds of platform economics and how workers perceive these different kinds of platforms.

While platform economics is a recent phenomenon, there is not enough knowledge about the functioning of this kind of economics (Greenwood, Burtch & Carnahan, 2017).

(5)

5

Especially on the level of the individuals working in platform economy, important questions remain. Two important aspects that will be highlighted in this research will be the views of employees on their employment conditions and the longer-term employment prospect. Recent media articles have criticized employment conditions of platform economy workers (see e.g. The Financial Times, 2018; The Guardian, 2017; The Irish Times, 2018). However, it is unclear how employees in the platform economy perceive employment conditions themselves and what the reasons of workers are to either continue or resign from these jobs. This will be the focus of the first part of this research. It is also unclear how working in the platform economy effects career outcomes (Greenwood et al., 2017). Promotion opportunities within this sector seem to be limited. However, to draw these conclusions, the longer-term employment prospect in the platform economy must be investigated. This will therefore be the focus of the second part of this research.

Within this research, a comparison is made between the perceived employment conditions and the longer-term employment prospects of people working for Deliveroo and people working for Foodora. The main question of this research is: How do employees perceive employment conditions in Deliveroo and Foodora and how do they regard the longer-term employment prospects in this domain of platform economy? Information is gathered by semi-structured in-depth interviews with employees of Deliveroo and Foodora in which the experience of employment conditions within Deliveroo will be analysed using the Exit-Voice-Loyalty-Neglect model. This model is explained in the theoretical framework (see chapter 2.3.).

First a theoretical framework will be given explaining trends, features and typologies related to platform economy, labour conditions in platform economy and the Exit-Voice-Loyalty-Neglect model. Second, the research design will be described in which the methodology and the conceptualisation of the Exit-Voice-Loyalty-Neglect model will be explained. Third, background information will be provided about Deliveroo and Foodora which includes the employment conditions of both companies. Fourth, the results of the research will be interpreted and visualized and finally, a conclusion and discussion will be given.

(6)

6

2. Theoretical framework

This theoretical framework consists of four paragraphs. First, trends, features and typologies related to the platform economy will be explained. Second, labour conditions of the people working in the platform economy will be described. Last, information will be provided about the Exit-Voice-Loyalty-Neglect model which will be related to employees in the platform economy.

2.1. Platform economy; trends, features and typologies

A great deal of literature is written about platform economy, from disciplines varying from economics to legal studies to anthropology (Codagnone, Abadie & Biagi, 2016). This research will primarily focus on the economic-geographic side of platform economics but will also include other alternative disciplines, which will be used complementary to this. Platforms are especially interesting for economic geography considering the reshaping nature of employment by platforms in the urban economy. Traditional employment is characterized by long-term employment contracts, which includes different kinds of social securities. These are reformatted to platform employment contracts, which are characterised by short-term engagements with independent workers where almost no social securities are offered.

In this research, platform economy is defined as a medium created to efficiently connect supply and demand. In platform economy there are always three stakeholders; the platform providers, the (independent) contractors and the platform clients. To really understand platform economy, it is necessary to look at the broader trend; work flexibilisation (Schmidt, 2017). Employment relations are increasingly made a-typical and work is decreasingly bound to a specific location. Platform economy makes use of this shift in labour landscape, where labour should be flexible, temporary and tentative (Schmidt, 2017) and makes new forms and constructions of flexibilisation possible.

An important feature of the platform business model is the disruptiveness of the model in relation to the traditional business model (Evans & Gawer, 2016). Platforms work with algorithms to determine prices and to connect supply and demand. Hereby, platforms radically change the way the economy works (Kenney & Zysman, 2016; Wessel, 2018), disrupting established businesses. Also, the legislative framework can be circumvented by platforms, making them also disruptive for the welfare state. At the same time, another feature of platform economy, namely the increase in the growth of the power

(7)

7

of the platform economy, is at stake. Platform economy is emerging in an increasing number of sectors (Dobson, 2017). Next to this, the size of the platforms is also increasing (Dobson, 2017). These two features reinforce each other; more disruptiveness means more room for the growth of the power of the platform economy means more disruptiveness.

Digitization, which enables the optimal use of information, made the enormous growth of platform economy possible (Kenney & Zysman, 2016). The role of the digital environment in platform economy differs between platforms, but all platforms are dependent on a form of digitization of value-creating activities (Kenney & Zysman, 2016). The web can therefore be seen as an important facilitator of platforms (Fabo et al., 2017). Now, with the growth of digitization, the use of platforms is slowly being institutionalised as traditional institutions are replaced with platform institutions.

Different categorizations of platforms have been made (see e.g. Kenney & Zysman, 2016; Schmidt, 2017). In this research the categorization of Schmidt (2017) will be used (see figure 1). Schmidt first distinguishes between cloud work and gig work. Cloud work is non-location-based work whereas gig work is location-based work. Cloud work can be further subdivided in: freelance marketplaces, micro tasking crowd work and contest-based creative crowd work. For more information see Schmidt (2017). Gig work is subdivided in three categories: accommodation, transportation and delivery services and lastly, household and personal services. Food delivery companies Deliveroo and Foodora belong to the category gig work in delivery services.

Within platform economy there are three different kinds of employment contracts; freelance, payroll and based on a permanent or temporary contract. This is where Deliveroo and Foodora. Deliveroo makes use of freelance employments contracts (Deliveroo, 2018) whereas Foodora hires its employees (Foodora, 2018).

(8)

8

Figure 1. Categorisation of digital labour markets in the platform economy (Schmidt, 2017)

(9)

9

2.2. Labour conditions

There are a few favourable labour conditions in the platform economy. First, working in the platform economy is highly flexible (Schmidt, 2017). People working in the platform economy can choose to accept or decline a task and can influence when, for whom and for how long they perform this task. Hereby, workers can control a large part of their working conditions. Besides, the flexibility of platform economy creates an opportunity for some people who are unable to work within a permanent employment structure (Dobson, 2017). Examples include; people who have the responsibility to care for someone else, people who suffer from ill health themselves, single-parent families and students with irregular periods of free time.

Whereas the platform economy increases worker flexibility and gives an opportunity for disadvantaged people to participate, it also has some downsides (Fabo et al., 2017). Firstly, most people working in the platform economy are badly compensated (Fabo et al., 2017) but, the pay does tend to be somewhat higher in platforms related to physical locations than the pay in online labour markets (Fabo et al., 2017). Another argument made is that, instead of creating new job opportunities, the platform economy reorganizes precarious work and negatively affects traditional labour markets (Schmidt, 2017). However, this view can be challenged. Furthermore, workers in the platform economy have ‘no social protection, unfavourable information, power asymmetry and no protection of privacy’ (Codagnone et al., 2016). Lastly, because of the lack of a regulatory framework, discrimination can be omnipresent in platforms, for example in online job marketplaces like ODesk (Beerepoot & Lambregts, 2015). Platforms therefore, seem to resemble pre-industrial laissez-faire standards (Codagnone et al., 2016) when also no regulatory framework was in place (Agrawal et al., 2013 cited in Fabo et al., 2017).

2.3. Exit-Voice-Loyalty-Neglect model

In the second part of this research the focus is on how employees from Deliveroo and Foodora regard their employment prospects. The Exit-Voice-Loyalty-Neglect theory will help to analyse and categorise different employment reactions within Deliveroo and Foodora.

In 1970 Hirschman wrote the book; Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, in which he explained the concepts exit, voice and loyalty. According to Hirschman (1970) there are two responses to dissatisfying changes; exit and voice. Exit

(10)

10

includes trying to leave the organization and voice refers to any attempt to change the situation. Exit and voice interact with each other. For example, greater opportunity for voice leads to less change of using exit whereas too many dissenting opinions leads to more change of using exit (Hirschman, 1970). Exit and voice on their own interact with a third concept; loyalty. Loyalty is defined as waiting for the improvement of conditions. The interaction between exit, voice and loyalty can influence whether exit or voice is used. For example, when given more attention to voice, employees become more loyal towards the organization and more loyalty can reduce the probability of exit (Hirschman, 1970).

Later authors have added the concept of neglect to this theory (for example see, Rusbult et al., 1988; Hagedoorn & al., 1999). Neglect means allowing conditions to worsen. The subsequent model is called the Exit-Voice-Loyalty-Neglect model (EVLN model). This model is shown in figure 2 and in this research the focus will be on this model. In this model neglect and loyalty are seen as passive responses compared with exit and voice which are positioned as active responses. The response options exit and neglect have a destructive impact on the employment conditions, whereas voice and loyalty have a constructive impact on the employment conditions (see figure below).

Figure 2. Exit, Voice, Loyalty and Neglect Typology of Responses to Job Dissatisfaction. (Rusbult et al., 1988)

(11)

11

Workers in the platform economy are younger than workers in other sectors (Joyce et al., 2016 cited in Fabo et al., 2017). This means the amount of time employees work within the platform economy tend to be shorter than in other sectors. The longer the employee works for a specific organization, the less likely he will use exit (Allen et al., 1993 cited in Grima & Glaymann, 2012). However, Grima and Glaymann (2012) also suggests that employees are also less likely to use the constructive options of voice and loyalty related to the destructive options of neglect and exit, whenever employees work longer in a specific organisation. Employees in the platform economy are better educated compared to the rest of the population (Codagnone et al., 2016). Employees who have better career prospects are more likely to respond with voice when confronted with dissatisfying changes (Grima & Glaymann, 2012). For most workers in the platform economy, especially in less developed countries, this is the primary income source. Workers from more developed countries seem to regard this type of work more as a side job (Fabo et al., 2017) for example in the UK more than 75 percent of workers in the platform economy do not regard this job as their main source of income (Chartered Institure of Personnel and Development, 2017 cited in Dobson, 2017). This is in line with the fact that less than ten percent of platform workers in the European Union pay for social securities (Eurostat, 2016 cited in Fabo et al., 2017). When an employee has a lot of perceived job alternatives, he is more likely to use exit as a response to dissatisfying changes whereas absence of perceived job alternatives leads to loyalty or neglect (Grima & Glaymann, 2012). Low satisfaction and low exit costs are also factors that contribute to using exit (Grima & Glatymann, 2012). finally, most workers tend to work in multiple different platforms (Codagnone et al., 2016; Fabo et al., 2017) which might make the threshold for using voice or exit in one job lower. However, it is important to take into account that the EVLN model needs to be understood as a dynamic model and that responses to dissatisfying changes are mainly a combination of options (Grima & Glaymann, 2012).

2.4. Concluding remarks

In the previous sections a theoretical framework has been provided which will serve as a clear structure for this thesis. The disruptiveness and the reshaping nature of employment relationships of the platform economy have been explained. Also, the growth of the platform economy has been placed in the broader trends of work flexibilisation and

(12)

12

digitization. Next, the favourable and unfavourable labour conditions of working in the platform economy have been discussed and the Exit-Voice-Loyalty-Neglect model has been explained. In the last section, characteristics of platform economy workers have also been given.

(13)

13

3. Research methodology

The research methodology consists of two parts. In the first part the data collection will be explained and in the second part the focus will be on the ethics of the research and the positioning of the researcher.

3.1. Data collection

The aim of this research was to discover how employees in Deliveroo and Foodora perceive employment conditions and how they regard the longer-term employment prospects in this domain of platform economy.

The nature of this research was qualitative which means that words were considered to be of more importance than numbers (Bryman, 2012). The research design was cross-sectional because different characteristics are measured for several cases at one point in time. Data was collected by the means of in-depth semi-structured interviews with employees of Deliveroo and Foodora. In this research an interpretivist epistemology and a constructivist ontology was used. This means that within this research it is assumed that the reality is socially constructed and that social phenomenon cannot be understood independently of our interpretation of them (Furlong & Marsh, 2010)

The research consists of two parts. The focus of the first part of the research was on identifying how employees perceive employment conditions. The second part of the research focusses on how employees regard their options of using exit, voice, loyalty and/or neglect as a reaction to the changes in employment conditions and in extension thereof, how employees regard their longer-term employment prospects within the company. In total, fifteen interviews have been conducted; fourteen interviews with riders for either Deliveroo or Foodora and one expert interview with Amrit Sewgobind of the Dutch labour union (Dutch: FnV). Sewgobind has been closely involved in the worker resistance of Deliveroo employees as a reaction to the freelance model. The interview with Sewgobind helped to gain more knowledge about the exit, voice, loyalty and neglect initiatives of the riders of Deliveroo and Foodora. All interviews are recorded and transcribed. One rider who was interviewed worked at both Deliveroo and Foodora. Therefore, seven riders who work at Deliveroo and eight riders who work at Foodora were interviewed. The interviewees were between nineteen and thirty-four years old. Nine out of fourteen respondents were still studying, two respondents were in a gap year and the remaining two respondents had finished their study and considered this job as their main

(14)

14

source of income. Most interviewees were male; eleven males and three females were interviewed. Five respondents did not speak Dutch and four of them were in The Netherlands for their university course. Of the fourteen respondents, twelve live in Amsterdam and the other two live in Haarlem or ‘s-Hertogenbosch.

When this research was set up, snowball sampling was identified as the best sampling technique to find new respondents. Snowball sampling is a sampling technique in which future respondents are found by the acquaintances of existing respondents. On the 7th of April a message was placed on Facebook in order to get in touch with people working in either Deliveroo or Foodora. In first instance, most people who responded to the message had worked for Deliveroo but had resigned. Luckily, by means of snowball sampling six more respondents were found, in either Deliveroo or Foodora, still working there. None of these respondents were able to help find new respondents working in the same company. During the job, these respondents said, you do not easily get in touch or become friends with your colleagues. Although all respondents did place a message in their rider WhatsApp group, no new respondents were found this way. Therefore, it was decided that, to find enough respondents, the research should not proceed with the snowball sampling technique. The remainder of the respondents were found with opportunity sampling, a convenience sampling technique in which only respondents are found who are available at the time and who are willing to take part in the research. On the 13th April at 14:00 a protest action of Deliveroo took place at the Museumplein. Approximately twenty riders from Deliveroo protested against the fact that freelance riders are not insured in any way when an accident takes place. Two riders, one from Foodora and one from Deliveroo, who participated in this protest were willing to do an interview. The 22nd April between 18:15 and 19:45 was another moment when respondents were reached out to. During this time the researcher cycled through Amsterdam and approached every person that was seen wearing a Deliveroo or Foodora outfit. This cycling tour included all the busy restaurant areas in Amsterdam centrum, Amsterdam East and The Pijp; around the Albert Cuijp street, Beukenplein, Dappermarkt, Leidsepein, Rembrandtplein and in the red-light district. Only those riders were approached that were standing still and were picking up deliveries at the restaurant, dropping them off at the customer or waiting for a new order. The riders were informed about the research and asked for their contact information, so that a phone interview could take place. This is how the remainder of the interviewees were found.

(15)

15

Questions were asked related to reasons to start working for Foodora/ Deliveroo, their dependence on the job, satisfaction with the job, satisfaction with the working conditions and future within this company. The item list can be found in appendix A. The date, time and place of the interviews is laid out in appendix B. The information gained in the interviews was used to create a good understanding of the employment conditions and employment prospects of people working for above-mentioned companies. Whenever, during an interview, it turned out that respondents were not satisfied with their working conditions, the EVLN model was applied (explained in theoretical framework). Questions were then asked about whether the interviewee has enacted voice, exit, loyalty or neglect as response to the change in working conditions. The operationalisation of these concepts is shown in table 1 where it is clarified how the concepts of the EVLN model were measured. It is important to take into account that only workers that presently work at Deliveroo and Foodora were approached and that only planned (instead of planned and actual) exits are measured. Respondents working at Foodora and Deliveroo who are satisfied with their working conditions are only asked questions related to the first part of the interview.

Table 1. Operationalization concepts EVLN-model

Exit Voice Loyalty Neglect

Planned: intention to leave the organization

Appeals to higher authorities about discontent

Sustained action with a positive perspective about the future

Sustained action with a negative perspective about the future Actual: quit the job at

the organization

Work resistance in the form of strikes or protest tactics No change of behaviour E.g. lateness, absenteeism and/or error rates

The data collected in the interviews is transferred to the statistical computer program ATLAS.ti and analysed. In ATLAS.ti, transcript can be encoded, which ultimately simplifies finding useful information. In this research interviews have been held in Dutch and in English. Quotes from Dutch interviews are translated as carefully as possible. With these coded interviews, the main question is answered, and a reflection is made between the broader discussion described in theoretical framework and the insights gained by the workers from Deliveroo and Foodora.

(16)

16

3.2. Ethics and positioning

In this research informed consent is used, which means all respondents were given as much information as needed to make a deliberate decision about wanting to collaborate in this research or not (Bryman, 2012). Before conducting the interviews, information was provided about the institute for which this research was conducted, which information was to be gathered during the interview and what this knowledge would be used for. The respondent always had the opportunity to refuse to cooperate in the research. Another part of the informed consent is related to the recording of the interviews. In this research all the interviews are recorded, which means every respondent taking part in the research agreed to being recorded. It is however important to consider that the information given to the respondent to ensure informed consent is achieved, could influence the answers the respondent gives in the interview. For example, the respondent could have given socially desirable answers. Next to this, informed consent is very time-intensive (Bryman, 2012).

All respondents were processed anonymous and were given fake names. This is especially difficult in qualitative research (Bryman, 2012) where very specific information is collected. Data will be treated confidentially, and harmful data will not be published. In order to minimize harm in this research, sometimes the names of cities have also been changed.

With Dutch respondents the interview was also in Dutch to get as much information from the respondent as possible. Whenever a part of a Dutch interview is cited a * will be added. In appendix C the original Dutch text from the citation can then be found.

In this research a combination of snowball sampling and probability sampling was used which means the respondents will be non-random and it is unlikely that the respondents in the sampling will be representative of the entire workforce at Deliveroo and Foodora (Bryman, 2012). This research therefore tried to be critical in type of respondent and tried to make sure the sampling group is divers.

Lastly, it is important to consider that the interviewer also influences the research field. The way the interviewer speaks and dresses, the gender and the colour of the skin of the interviewer are all examples of factors that could possibly change the research field and cause adverse effects like for example socially desirable answers. In this research, the researcher tried to wear neutral clothes, pay attention to language use and adapt to the research field.

(17)

17

4. Research Results

In this section an overview of the different employment conditions will be given. The wage, the shifts, the social securities and the practicalities related to the employment conditions will be discussed (see table 2). Shifts, social securities and practicalities are further subdivided in subcomponents. This classification and the information gathered is based on in-depth interviews in combination with the study of secondary literature. Hereafter, based on the same categorization, an overview of how employment conditions are perceived will be provided. First however, some general information about Deliveroo and Foodora will be given.

4.1. Research context of Deliveroo and Foodora 4.1.1. Deliveroo

Deliveroo is a British start-up company founded by William Shu and Greg Orlowski in London in February 2013. In the spring of 2015 the company was launched in The Netherlands. There, Deliveroo switched from paying employees per hour to a freelance scheme where employees get paid per delivery in August 2017. From this time onward no new contracts were granted to employees other than freelance contracts. This entails that right now, only a handful of riders still work at Deliveroo on based on an hourly pay contract. Whereas the company mainly makes use of bikes in the Netherlands, in other countries mainly scooters are used to get the deliveries to the right place. Deliveroo nowadays operates in 100 cities in 12 countries. Within a period of ten years, Deliveroo grew to a company with around 30.000 riders delivering food worldwide (Titcomb, 2017). This embodies the potential of companies using the platform economy for growth and innovation. The company charges between 20 and 25 percent fees of restaurants for the food delivery. In The Netherlands, Deliveroo delivers food in twelve cities including Amsterdam, Utrecht and ‘s-Hertogenbosch. The employment conditions of Deliveroo are shown in table 2.

4.1.2. Foodora

Foodora is originally a German company, founded in February 2014 in München with support of Rocket Internet (Foodora, 2018). Foodora is the biggest food delivery company in the Netherlands which hires its food riders. Foodora operates in ten countries and delivers food from more than 9000 restaurants. The company only delivers by bike and

(18)

18

pays its employees per hour. Since May 2015 the company is operating in The Netherlands with its first delivery service in Amsterdam. Delivery Hero bought Foodora in April 2015 from Rocket Internet. Foodora charges a 30 percent fee from the restaurants for food deliveries (Foodora, 2018). The company operates in seven cities in The Netherlands. The employment conditions of Foodora are also shown in table 2. These employment conditions will be further explained in the next chapter.

Table 2. Employment conditions Deliveroo and Foodora

Deliveroo Foodora

WAGE

Pay  Standard amount of money per delivery (5 euro)

 Whenever a shortage of riders is expected, this amount is raised

 Standard amount of money per hour

 Minimum wage

SHIFTS

Getting shifts  Riders can reserve shifts per hour, this is just like reserving in a restaurant, you can do it, but it is usually not necessary.

 Reservations can be made on Monday from either 11 AM, 3 PM or 5 PM depending on three statistics of the rider; availability, late cancellation and working in peak hours.

 On Tuesday before 8 PM riders have to submit their

unavailability for the next week

 Shifts get assigned to riders based on unavailability

Maximum distance and check-in

 Deliveroo makes use of different zones where you deliver the food and where you need to check-in

 The maximum distance that needs to be cycled is four kilometers between the restaurant and the customer

 Riders need to check-in near the entrance of the Vondelpark Breaks  Riders can stop or take a break

during the shift whenever they want

 During the shift riders can ask for a break

Not showing up  Riders can not show up for a shift or log out during a shift without any consequences except that they might only be allowed to reserve shifts later than the others

 Account gets deactivated and will only be activated after visiting a no-show-meeting

SOCIAL SECURITIES

Pension  No pension  No pension

Insurance accidents

 Riders need to submit a claim when getting into an accident

 Foodora is responsible for whatever happens to the rider during a shift and must cover all

(19)

19

 Unclear what will be covered by Deliveroo

costs

Bike costs  No costs will be covered  No costs will be covered Sickness  No costs will be covered  After the second day of illness

riders have a legal right to 70 percent of their income Annual leave  No annual leave  Eight percent of the income PRACTICALITIES

Administration  Register at the Chamber of Commerce

 File tax return every quarter of the year

 File income tax declaration once a year

 No extra administrative work has to be done besides the income tax declaration once a year

Duration contract  No end date  Riders get temporary contracts with a maximum of two years after this period riders are usually fired

Equipment  Riders need to be in possession of a bike or a scooter, a telephone with the Deliveroo app and should have enough data on their mobile phone to get orders

 Riders get the Foodora jacket and bag riders for free

 Riders need to be in possession of a bike or a scooter, a

telephone with the Foodora app and should have enough data on their mobile phone to get orders

 Riders need to pay a security deposit of one hundred euros for the equipment you get from Foodora

Contact  When there is a problem you can contact riders support in the app

 Employees share a WhatsApp group which is managed by a team captain

 This team captains can answer the riders’ questions, or the rider can send an email to the

company Source: Personal communication riders Deliveroo and Foodora (Appendix B)

4.2. Respondents

In order to understand the perceived employment conditions and employment prospects in Deliveroo and Foodora, it is important to gain insights in the kind of people working at these companies. In this research no representative sample from the Foodora and Deliveroo workers population was taken. This implies that a critical view is necessary when generalizing this data to the entire Deliveroo and Foodora workforce. In this research fifteen people have been interviewed of whom fourteen people are riders from Deliveroo and Foodora. The information of the respondents is shown in table 3.

(20)

20

Table 3. Information Respondents

Source: Personal communication riders Deliveroo and Foodora (Appendix B)

This table clearly shows that most respondents are relatively young. The average age of the respondents interviewed is 23. This corresponds with the theoretical framework (see 2.3.) in which it was claimed that workers in the platform economy are mostly younger than workers in other sectors. Eleven out of fourteen respondents were either doing a bachelor or already had a bachelor’s degree. This indicated that people working at Foodora and Deliveroo are higher educated, compared to the rest of the population, which also corresponds with the literature (see 2.3.). Platform workers tend to work in multiple platforms (see 2.3.). This is only partly true for the respondents in this research. Approximately half of the respondents have, next to working at either Foodora and Deliveroo, another job. Besides, most repondents started working at Deliveroo or Foodora no longer than a year ago, which might indicate that riders do not work long for these organisations. Next, only three riders work at Deliveroo and Foodora for more than 12 hours per week, which might imply that the job is seen as a side-job. Lastly, five

Name Age Education Other jobs? Months worked Hours per week Dutch native language? D E L I V E R O O Neil 22 Bachelor student Yes 22 8-9 Yes Karen 19 Bachelor student No 1 8-12 No Seth 19 Bachelor student Yes 8 4 Yes Mark 24 Bachelor degree Yes 3 3 Yes Nino 21 Bachelor degree No 3 5 No Daniel 19 Bachelor student Yes 7 3 Yes F O O D O R A Levi 22 Bachelor degree Yes 4 4-6 Yes

Samantha 34 High school No 30 20 Yes

Susan 29 Bachelor degree Yes 25 17-19 Yes Lars 23 Bachelor degree No 3 5 No Sarah 22 Bachelor student No 4 12 No

Tom 21 High school Yes 4 20 Yes

Frank 29 High school No 5 20 No

Sam 26 Bachelor

student

(21)

21

respondents did not speak Dutch which suggests that a large part of the Deliveroo and Foodora workers are internationals. Sewgobind from the Dutch labour union confirmed this view. According to him, working at Foodora or Deliveroo is a perfect job for people whose native language is not Dutch.

(22)

22

5. Perceived employment conditions

Both in Foodora as in Deliveroo, there are some employment conditions that are perceived as positive and some employment conditions that are perceived as negative. In this section an overview will be given of how employment conditions are perceived in Deliveroo and Foodora. First, the perceived employment conditions of Deliveroo and Foodora related to the bike food delivery sector will be described. Hereafter, the perceived employment conditions related to wage, shifts, social securities and practicalities in Deliveroo and Foodora will be discussed.

5.1. Bike food delivery sector

The most important positively perceived employment conditions, which all interviewed riders mentioned, is related to the bike food delivery sector. All riders working in either Deliveroo or Foodora, liked the fact that they are biking during the job. Arguments why people liked biking varied from working outside, keeping fit or exploring the city. Neil: “but I noticed that it is also very sporty and [I] can lose weight”. Sarah: “you are a tourist that gets paid for it”. Two other positive aspect, mentioned by Deliveroo and Foodora riders is firstly that the work is not difficult which means riders can “dream away, fantasize about your life or think about to do lists” (Susan). Lastly, this job is quite easy to get “I ehm had back problems… no experience in another sector, could not find work in another sector… and then this [Foodora] came along” (Samantha). The latter corresponds with the literature where it is also acknowledged that platforms can create opportunities for some people who are unable to work within a permanent employment structure (Dobson, 2017).

There are also negatively perceived employment conditions in both Deliveroo and Foodora related to the bike food delivery sector. First, riders need to work in bad weather. Second, this job can get monotonous and boring. Frank “since you don’t have a lot of responsibilities, after two hours… you have the chance to get bored… you just have to press pick up, go to the customer and drop off then you wait for another order, picked up, go to another customer, drop off”. Third, riders work mainly evenings which is named as another disadvantage of the food delivery sector for some riders. Sarah: most of the shifts are always in the evening between like say 5 to 8 and I would prefer working more during other times but I mean that is just the peak-demand time so”.

(23)

23

Altogether, people working in the bike food delivery sector recognize biking, the easiness of the job and of getting the job as positive aspects of this sector. People regarded the chance of working in bad weather, the monotonousness or boringness of the job and the fact that riders mainly have to work evenings as negative aspects related to the bike food delivery sector.

5.2. Wage

Riders for Foodora get a standard amount of money per hour, while riders working for Deliveroo get paid per delivery (see table 2). Most people working in the platform economy are badly compensated for the work (Fabo et al., 2017). However, the pay does tend to be somewhat higher in platforms related to physical location like Deliveroo and Foodora (Fabo et al., 2017). This partly corresponds to the insights gained in the interviews where some riders perceive the wages as not that high. “You obviously do not earn a lot, it’s really something extra” (Levi). Other riders perceive the amount of money which is earned as fair or comfortable. Sophie “[The pay] is sort of like comparable to a job in a restaurant… but they don’t pay higher but these are jobs where you get paid eight or nine Euros, so I am also kind of happy with that”.

Whereas Foodora pays its employees the minimum wage (see table 2), Deliveroo pays its freelancers per delivery. The amount of money paid per delivery differs and can be more when there is a shortage of employees. Next to this, there is also no certainty whether and how many deliveries riders get daily. This uncertainty is perceived as a negative employment condition by most riders interviewed. Seth about having no minimum wage: “what is really shit because you just want to earn when you work”. Daniel: “But with us it [the amount of money earned] is now slowly reduced from 10 euros to 5 euros. But this is not really an agreement of we are all going to earn 5 euros now. There is nothing really in writing and everything can change. And anyway if you say they pay a lot per order then you do not know whether you are going to earn something because it is possible that there are no orders.”.

Riders working for Deliveroo and Foodora differ in how the amount of money earned is perceived. While Foodora pays its employees a minimum wage and within Deliveroo this amount is variable, it can be concluded that earning a satisfactory and stable amount of money can be hard with this kind of job.

(24)

24

5.3. Shifts

Both Deliveroo and Foodora riders named flexibility as a positive employment condition. This corresponds with the literature where flexibility is also positioned as one of the main advantages for workers in the platform economy (Schmidt, 2017). Within Foodora, shifts are planned one week in advance. According to Samantha it is quite easy “to adapt this job to your life”. With the swap system in the app it is manageable to get and to offer new shifts. Susan: “because you have a big pool of riders, it is very easy to find a replacement for those shifts”. Levi: “you just say swap shift now and then everybody can see that and take over your shift”.

Within Deliveroo shifts can be planned or cancelled last minute. Mark: “the plus points are for me at least is that I can plan when I want to work”. Karen “and it is also really comfortable ... I do like university and then like whenever you have free time you can work”. Although, according to the riders interviewed, Deliveroo is not as flexible as would be initially expected. Two reasons are named for this. Firstly, riders need to book their shifts. Seth: “so they decide when you are allowed to work because they say there is time free now or there is no time free now”. Nino: “the bad things might be less flexible than other companies… like Uber because you need to schedule you own week”. Secondly, riders working for Deliveroo must deal with a booking system in which they are awarded or punished based on three factors (see table 3). If riders do not go to their shifts or take too long to deliver their orders, they are only allowed to reserve later which can result in less shifts. Daniel: “but actually I think it’s just a bad system, a freelancer can work when he wants and this is actually proof that you cannot work whenever you want”.

There are also some negative aspects related to the shifts according to Foodora riders. One important disadvantage is that riders can end up at the other side of the city. Foodora makes use of a maximum cycling distance for getting new orders, whereas Deliveroo makes use of zones in which riders deliver orders. The distance the rider needs to cycle between the place he/she ends up and the home of the rider, is not paid for. Lars: “for example I got my last order at the other side of the city so I had to bike home for 45 minutes and I weren’t paid and kind of annoying sometimes”. Samantha: “So … if you end up 10 kilometers from your home you do not get paid to cycle home”. Within Deliveroo on the other hand, riders work in the same area (see table 2). Karen: “you just get a lot of… places in the same area so you don’t have to drive so far”.

(25)

25

Another negative aspect Foodora riders named related to the shift system is that it is hard to get enough hours per week. Lars: “but the problem of Foodora is, when it is your full-time occupation you are never going to win cause you are never going to get enough hours”. This is especially the case for riders who work a lot of hours per week at Foodora and see this job as their main income source. There are two main reasons behind this issue. Firstly, Foodora plans your shifts, which means riders cannot plan themselves to work all day. Tom: “and at Foodora you can only give your availability, so you can say I can work from 10 AM to 6 PM and then you may have to work from 10 to 6 but you can also work from 12 to 2”. Secondly, the shifts have become shorter whereas the average shift used to be three hours, now the shifts are only two or two and a half hours. Sam: “I did not like it very much because I have to work more days to get the same amount of hours”.

Flexibility is by both Deliveroo as by Foodora riders seen as a positive employment condition. However, Deliveroo riders do indicate that they are flexible within certain limits. Foodora riders regard the possibility of ending up at the other side of the city and the difficulty in getting enough shifts per week as negative employment aspects of Foodora related to the shift system.

5.4. Social securities

Working at Deliveroo or Foodora, riders are constantly surrounded by traffic. Therefore, it is especially interesting for the riders what costs will be reimbursed when an accident takes place. According to Codagnone et al. (2016) platform workers have no social protection. In this research this is only true for the company Deliveroo which offers no social securities (see table 2). This is seen as a negative employment condition. When Deliveroo riders have an accident, they have to submit a claim and provide evidence for that claim. The company will then decide whether costs will be (partly) covered or not. Mark: “and especially … imagine you are being hit I do not really know how that is arranged ehm but I hear stories from people that it is not too good”. Next to this, other social securities such as annual leave, being paid out during illness or pensions are not offered. Neil: “previously with Deliveroo I could arrange that I maybe got some compensation… I would like to see that back”.

Foodora on the other hand, is legally obligated to cover for costs when a rider suffers from an accident during a shift. Sick days will also be paid after the second day of absence for a period of two years and employees of Foodora get eight percent annual leave

(26)

26

on top of their salary (see table 2). However, riders do not automatically get paid when an accident takes place, or a rider gets sick “and unless you ask for it, illness will not be paid out” (Samantha). This is perceived as a negative employment condition. Bike costs such as a flat tire or pensions will not be covered by Foodora. Frank feels as if he would be more appreciated if there was a pension schema. Last, Foodora riders almost never get offered a permanent job. Samantha: “to people, we do not give a permanent contract, so after 23 months you are just out of it”.

To conclude, Deliveroo offers no social protection which is seen by the riders as a negative employment conditions. Foodora on the other hand, does offer some social securities but these are still very minimal. Therefore, in this research it became evident that riders working for both Deliveroo and Foodora would like to have more social securities.

5.5. Practicalities

Foodora riders must file tax declaration only once a year, Deliveroo riders also have to sign up at the Chamber of Commerce and file a tax return every quarter of the year (see table 2). Deliveroo riders therefore have more administrative responsibility than Foodora riders. According to the riders from Deliveroo that were interviewed, the administration which needs to be done when being a freelancer, can be difficult. Seth “I am never quite sure if I have done it right and I am a little scared by people who say if you do not do well you get really big fines”. Daniel even reasons that Deliveroo does not alert its employees to doing tax reports. “you really have to look up yourself that you should file tax returns”. Deliveroo does offer a company to the riders that can take over the administrative work at a reduced rate. This company asks four percent instead of the regular six percent of the income of the riders. Nino: “you pass through a platform and these platforms give all the administration stuff you know”. Neil: “but what Deliveroo did and I regarded that as a plus point of Deliveroo, they have said look we offer a company for you … they basically arrange all your administrative things”

Deliveroo riders are in general satisfied when it comes to getting in touch with management. The communication between management and the riders in Foodora on the other hand, is often not optimal. Sarah: “sometimes there are issues with our scheduling system or with the payment… takes some time to respond, to get to the right address to people who will actually help you out”. Lars “very lack of talking to management, there is no way you could actually call them or complain other than through an email, they say

(27)

27

they take three days but sometimes they take even longer, they say they hear your complaint, but nothing ever changes”. Next to this, Foodora recently introduced a new app for the riders which has had a lot of problems. Lars: “they have made themselves a new app which is the worse app ever ehh everyone hates it”.

In this section it became clear that Deliveroo riders have more administrative responsibility and that most of the interviewed Deliveroo riders regard the administrative work as a negative employment condition of the job. This is not the case with Foodora riders. Foodora riders considered the communication between management and the riders as a negative employment condition which could be improved.

5.6. Concluding remarks

For both Deliveroo and Foodora riders, the main positive aspect of the job is being paid to bike outside. In Deliveroo, riders are mostly negative about the fact that they did not have any social securities and no certainty when it comes to the amount of wage. Other negative employment conditions named were; having to do all the administrative work and the work not being totally flexible due to the booking system as well as and the fact that the algorithm rewards and punishes certain kinds of behavior. The negatively perceived employment conditions of Foodora riders are more diffuse. Negative aspects were named related to bad communication between management and the riders, few social securities, hard to get enough shifts per week and chances of ending up at the other side of the city. This indicates that riders working for Foodora do not –contrary to Deliveroo workers– unanimously disagree with parts of the employment conditions and might therefore be more positive than Deliveroo riders about their employment conditions.

(28)

28

6. Employment prospects

In the previous chapter it became clear that although both Deliveroo and Foodora riders experience both positive and negative employment conditions, it might be concluded that Foodora employees might be more positive about their employment conditions than Deliveroo employees. In this section insights from the previous chapter will be combined with the EVLN model (explained in theoretical framework) to really understand employment prospects of Deliveroo and Foodora riders. There are four reactions as a response to dissatisfying changes in employment conditions; exit, voice, loyalty and neglect. The operationalization of these concepts is explained under theoretical framework and the corresponding table is (again) shown in table 4. These four options will be separately investigated.

Table 4. Operationalization concepts EVLN-model with quotes from the interviews

Exit Voice Loyalty Neglect

Planned: intention to leave the organization

Appeals to higher authorities about discontent

Sustained action with a positive perspective about the future

Sustained action with a negative perspective about the future Actual: quit the job at

the organization

Work resistance in the form of strikes or protest tactics No change of behaviour E.g. lateness, absenteeism and/or error rates 6.1. Exit

All riders who were interviewed had a different opinion related to the employment conditions. In general, employees from Deliveroo and Foodora were satisfied with their employment conditions. That makes sense because if employees are dissatisfied with an important part of the employment conditions, exit of the job is often used. Exit includes trying to leave the organization (see section 2.3.). This is line with the literature where low satisfaction is a factor that contributes to using exit (Grima & Glatymann, 2012). This also emerged in this research where most of the initial response to the WhatsApp and Facebook message, were Deliveroo and Foodora employees who already resigned. This falls under the category actual exit. Also, two interviewees confirmed it. Neil “I see a lot of new colleagues and I can recognize them because they have a new bag and in principle I only see new colleagues I barely see old colleagues, I think I am one of the older employees

(29)

29

now”. Sewgobind even states that the loss of employees by Deliveroo with the implementation of the freelance model “can be seen in the street scene”. This indicates that a lot of people consider working at Foodora and Deliveroo as a temporary job and resign from the job whenever they find something better. More information about planned exits will be provided in section

6.2. Voice

Besides exit, there were also respondents in this research who made use of the option voice. Voice refers to any attempt to improve the situation (see section 2.3.). Employees with better career prospects are more likely to respond with voice when confronted with dissatisfying changes in the employment conditions (Grima & Glaymann, 2012). This did not correspond with this research whereas both employees with little and employees with good career prospects used voice. In this research mainly respondents who work at Deliveroo made use of this option (Seth, David and Thomas). Only one respondent working at Foodora has actively used voice (Samantha). Whenever respondents from Foodora were confronted with dissatisfying employment conditions, loyalty or neglect was usually used.

A short reconstruction will be given about the voice initiatives of the riders based on the interviews. As a reaction to the intention of Deliveroo to implement freelance contracts, the riders union was founded in September. In order for the riders union to be able to conduct collective labor agreement negotiations, it had to exist a few years. For practical reasons, the riders union therefore became part of the FnV which is the largest trade union in The Netherlands. The goal of this union was to stop the implementation of the freelance system. Whereas the riders union was established with main focus; riders working for Deliveroo, it had, from the start, also expanded its focus to everyone who delivers food on a bike. Seth, Daniel, Tom and Samantha all joined the riders union. Both types of voice, appeals to higher authorities about discontent and work resistance in the form of strikes or protest tactics, emerged in this research. The riders union has namely tried to conduct talks with Deliveroo and after this failed, to organize strikes and demonstrations against Deliveroo. In December protests were organized and in January four large strikes took place in Amsterdam, Haarlem, Utrecht and The Hague. Tom was the manager of the trade union in Haarlem and was present at all the protests and strikes. The main reason why he was so involved in the actions against Deliveroo was “the

(30)

30

frustration towards Deliveroo, I really do not feel I was heard, I thought that they made a really arrogant move”. Tom also contacted BOOS, a program in which Tim Hofman tries to solve issues people are angry about. With BOOS a YouTube video has been made, which has 400.000 views. According to Tom “I do not know exactly why, but I do feel that that was the decisive factor to say and do something about it in the Parliament”. Around the same time Seth got in contact with Gijs van Dijk of the Dutch political party PvdA and was offered to do a crowdfund campaign to start and finance a lawsuit against Deliveroo on the base of false self-employment. Right now Seth is still in the middle of the lawsuit but he is positive about the outcome. Seth: “I sincerely believe that I have a good case”. Seth believes that there should be action now against Deliveroo because if right now nothing is done about false self-employment “Foodora will follow in a year and Thuisbezorgd the following year and then it all comes down as dominoes”. Daniel has just gotten involved in the actions related to Deliveroo. Daniel works at Deliveroo in ‘s-Hertogenbosch and after the fee per delivery dropped from 10 euros to 5 euros, he decided to get involved in the Riders Forum which is a forum designed by Deliveroo to give all riders a voice within the company. Daniel is the one of the newest members of the Riders Forum. He does not believe Deliveroo will change the freelance model, but he hopes he can help the other riders: “what I hope for the riders union is some more information and hope to really learn something about the company and how it all goes and mean something for the other riders”. Tom now works at Foodora and feels like he has done his part for the riders union. He is no longer an active member of the labour union.

Samantha has been involved since the start of the riders union. Samantha works in Foodora and could therefore only participate in the protests and not in the strikes. She also has attended an international Foodora conference for international Foodora riders who are organized in unions. Samantha sees great potential in the labor union and argues that labor unions are necessary these days.

To conclude, both Deliveroo and Foodora employees have enacted voice but the extend in which voice has been used seems to be larger amongst Deliveroo employees in comparison to Foodora employees. This indicates that Deliveroo employees are less satisfied with their working conditions than Foodora employees. However, an important note has to be made. In this research respondents who enacted voice have been actively searched. This means the amount of people who enacted voice compared with the total amount of respondents is not representative for the whole Foodora or Deliveroo

(31)

31

population. When Sewgobind was asked what amount of people participated in the strikes, he responds that at the biggest strike 70 to 80 riders were present. In reference, Deliveroo claims to have 1750 to 2000 riders in The Netherlands which means no more than four percent of the employees participated in the biggest voice action against Deliveroo.

6.3. Neglect and/or loyalty

Neglect is also clearly visible in a lot of the interviews with both Deliveroo and Foodora employees, as a reaction to dissatisfying employment conditions. Neglect means allowing conditions to worsen (see 2.3.). When asking Mark whether he thinks Deliveroo offers enough social securities, Mark answers “ehm no they do not, not at all but that really does not matter because… I will do this for two months and then I am gone again”. All interviewed Foodora employees were to a larger extent aware of their social securities. Most Foodora employees enacted neglect when employees were dissatisfied with certain employment conditions. When for example asking Foodora employee Samantha what is refraining her to take action: “make the effort and then create expectations and then wondering am I going to get in, am I going to go through with that legal stuff or not, that is what is holding me… back”. This is therefore an example of neglect. On the other hand there are also a few instances of loyalty. Loyalty is defined as waiting for the improvement of conditions (see 2.3.). For example Susan is relatively positive about Foodora and is more loyal towards the company “well the thing I want to add is that Foodora really improved over three years, back then they were so new and more things that were really annoying and not really nice for the riders and I feel like they really tried to address that and I am relatively satisfied actually”.

Two Deliveroo employees who were interviewed stated they were not really aware of the employment conditions. These respondents were both international students. After asking Karen whether Deliveroo offers enough social securities she responds with “I think yes because whenever there is a problem you can contact them… I haven’t had to write to them in the app but it seems like that something that works really quickly”. Nino indicates that he has not read the contract before signing it and says he is not aware of what happens when you are sick or when your bike breaks down. Deliveroo employees that were interviewed who were aware of the social securities and who have not enacted voice, indicated that they made a consideration between flexibility and social securities. Hereby social securities are thus neglected. Neil: “yes I preferred the flexibility, I noticed I am a

(32)

32

young boy, this is just a side job, but I know if this was my full time job I might have thought otherwise”. Mark: “I just opted for the benefits of flexibility and I knew that this was at the expense of a number of social securities and other matter, but I made a conscious choice for that”. These riders suggest that this job should be seen as a side job or at least as a temporary job. Although most riders are aware some employment conditions are lacking, they accept them, knowing they will not work here forever.

In this section it became evident that most Deliveroo and Foodora employees are critical of the employment conditions. To a larger extend, these riders enacted the passive response option(s) of neglect and/or loyalty in comparison to the active response options of voice and exit, while they regarded this job as a temporary job and/or side job.

6.4. How employment prospects are regarded

In this section will be discussed how employees from Deliveroo and Foodora regard their employment prospects. Table 5 and 6 shows how long respondents intend to stay at Deliveroo and Foodora and whether they are interested in promotion opportunities. The intention to stay is a way to measures planned exits (see table 4 of the operationalization of the EVLN model). In these tables it becomes immediately clear that most respondents are either not sure how long they will stay or do not intend to stay longer than six months at these companies. Only Tom and Samantha intend to stay for a period longer than six months but both employees are still not planning to get a promotion or work at this organisation for the rest of their lives. This is in line with the theoretical framework where it was claimed that workers tend to work in the platform economy for a shorter period of time related to working in more traditional workplaces. Next to this, most riders are not interested in promotion opportunities (see tables 5 and 6). Even Susan, who in the past was promoted from rider to team captain, doubts whether she wants to continue to grow within this company.

Table 5. Intention to stay and interest in promotion opportunities Foodora Name respondents: Intention to stay: Interest in promotion

opportunities:

Levi 4 months No

Samantha 2 years No

Susan Not sure how long Unclear

(33)

33

Sarah 4 months No

Tom 1,5 years No

Frank At least two months No

Sam At least two months No

Source: Personal communication riders Deliveroo and Foodora (Appendix B)

Table 6. Intention to stay and interest in promotion opportunities Deliveroo Name respondents: Intention to stay: Interest in promotion

opportunities:

Neil 4 months No

Karen Not sure how long No

Seth Not sure how long No

Mark 5 months No

Nino 2 months No

Daniel Not sure how long No

Source: Personal communication riders Deliveroo and Foodora (Appendix B)

6.5. Concluding remarks

When applying the EVLN to the riders at Deliveroo or Foodora it is evident that riders regard this job as a temporary (side-)job. First of all, even though in this research only people have been interviewed who still work at Deliveroo or Foodora, exit was omnipresent. Second, only a limited amount of riders participated in the voice actions against Deliveroo. Third, most riders who have been interviewed enacted with neglect as a response to dissatisfying employment conditions. This view is also confirmed when looking at the intention of riders to stay at Deliveroo or Foodora and whether they are interested in promotion opportunities. It can therefore be concluded that most riders regard this job as a temporary (side-)job. Riders accept the –sometimes poor– working conditions knowing that whenever they find a better job, they will resign at Foodora or Deliveroo

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

To conclude this section we return to Bremmer's series,and we show that indeed Bremmer's series is the steady state resulting from a monochromatic wave incident

(a) The results for summer, where no individual was found to be significantly favoured, (b) the results for autumn, where Acacia karroo was favoured the most, (c) the results

Our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that FDG-PET/CT is a valuable tool for establishing or excluding the diagnosis of device specific infection in patients with a

2 the temperature evolution of the five segments inside the Ecovat buffer is shown for both the ILP model and the heuristic for the PP case, using energy price data from 2014 and

study, patients made fewer overall and critical errors with the Ellipta device compared with five commonly used types of inhaler.. 15 Furthermore, patients showed a

Having seen that the three motivational factors influence the willingness to change and sometimes also directly the change related behaviour, one can understand that the attitude of

Above that, the interviewees also indicated that the boundary between work and non-work life is continuously fading because of this pressure to use work- related social media

Despite advances in understanding enabling and coercive management in recent years, there are no studies that have explicitly tested the dependence of goal congruence between