打工经济、平台工作与社会政策:香港送餐员的职业福利困境

IF 1.9 3区 社会学 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
T. Au‐Yeung, Chris King-Chi Chan, Cham Kit Keith Ming, Wing Yin Anna Tsui
{"title":"打工经济、平台工作与社会政策:香港送餐员的职业福利困境","authors":"T. Au‐Yeung, Chris King-Chi Chan, Cham Kit Keith Ming, Wing Yin Anna Tsui","doi":"10.1017/s0047279423000673","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Previous literature suggests that the gig economy and platform work pose challenges to social policy, including the welfare entitlement issues caused by workers’ ambiguous occupational status. Focusing on the government’s regulatory role, this study investigates platform workers’ occupational welfare (OW) by conducting in-depth interviews with forty-six food delivery workers in Hong Kong. The evidence reveals workers’ occupational risks resulting from platforms’ algorithmic devices and the misclassification of independent contractors. The denied access to private occupational pensions was considered acceptable by workers because of the perceived irrelevance of OW. While interviewees emphasised time-based flexibility as a key intangible benefit, the shifting business costs to self-employed workers was highlighted as a disadvantage. A policy dilemma appears between strengthening state regulation/protection and maintaining workers’ temporal autonomy. Arguably, the platformisation of work is translated into the gigification of OW, disentitling platform workers’ employer-provided welfare and labour protection. Platforms possess monopolising power over workers, the state displays weak regulatory power to monitor platforms, and workers’ occupational citizenship is undermined by the government’s minimal intervention. This study contributes to the literature by linking OW to platform work and revealing how the gig economy reshapes social policy, empirically offering a worker-centred analysis of OW in Hong Kong.","PeriodicalId":51438,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Policy","volume":"33 22","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The gig economy, platform work, and social policy: food delivery workers’ occupational welfare dilemma in Hong Kong\",\"authors\":\"T. Au‐Yeung, Chris King-Chi Chan, Cham Kit Keith Ming, Wing Yin Anna Tsui\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0047279423000673\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Previous literature suggests that the gig economy and platform work pose challenges to social policy, including the welfare entitlement issues caused by workers’ ambiguous occupational status. Focusing on the government’s regulatory role, this study investigates platform workers’ occupational welfare (OW) by conducting in-depth interviews with forty-six food delivery workers in Hong Kong. The evidence reveals workers’ occupational risks resulting from platforms’ algorithmic devices and the misclassification of independent contractors. The denied access to private occupational pensions was considered acceptable by workers because of the perceived irrelevance of OW. While interviewees emphasised time-based flexibility as a key intangible benefit, the shifting business costs to self-employed workers was highlighted as a disadvantage. A policy dilemma appears between strengthening state regulation/protection and maintaining workers’ temporal autonomy. Arguably, the platformisation of work is translated into the gigification of OW, disentitling platform workers’ employer-provided welfare and labour protection. Platforms possess monopolising power over workers, the state displays weak regulatory power to monitor platforms, and workers’ occupational citizenship is undermined by the government’s minimal intervention. This study contributes to the literature by linking OW to platform work and revealing how the gig economy reshapes social policy, empirically offering a worker-centred analysis of OW in Hong Kong.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51438,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Social Policy\",\"volume\":\"33 22\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Social Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279423000673\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279423000673","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以往的文献表明,"打工经济 "和 "平台工作 "给社会政策带来了挑战,包括工人的模糊职业身份所带来的福利待遇问题。本研究以政府的监管角色为重点,通过对 46 名香港送餐员进行深入访谈,调查了平台工人的职业福利(OW)问题。研究证据揭示了平台的算法设备和独立承包商的错误分类给工人带来的职业风险。由于认为职业福利金无关紧要,工人们认为无法获得私人职业养老金是可以接受的。虽然受访者强调基于时间的灵活性是一项关键的无形利益,但将商业成本转嫁给自营职业者则被视为一项不利因素。在加强国家监管/保护与维护工人的时间自主权之间,政策出现了两难选择。可以说,工作平台化已转化为工作岗位的巨型化,剥夺了平台工人由雇主提供的福利和劳动保护。平台拥有对工人的垄断权,国家对平台的监管力量薄弱,工人的职业公民权因政府的极少干预而受到损害。本研究将 "OW "与平台工作联系起来,揭示了 "打工经济 "如何重塑社会政策,并对香港的 "OW "进行了以工人为中心的实证分析,从而为相关文献做出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The gig economy, platform work, and social policy: food delivery workers’ occupational welfare dilemma in Hong Kong
Previous literature suggests that the gig economy and platform work pose challenges to social policy, including the welfare entitlement issues caused by workers’ ambiguous occupational status. Focusing on the government’s regulatory role, this study investigates platform workers’ occupational welfare (OW) by conducting in-depth interviews with forty-six food delivery workers in Hong Kong. The evidence reveals workers’ occupational risks resulting from platforms’ algorithmic devices and the misclassification of independent contractors. The denied access to private occupational pensions was considered acceptable by workers because of the perceived irrelevance of OW. While interviewees emphasised time-based flexibility as a key intangible benefit, the shifting business costs to self-employed workers was highlighted as a disadvantage. A policy dilemma appears between strengthening state regulation/protection and maintaining workers’ temporal autonomy. Arguably, the platformisation of work is translated into the gigification of OW, disentitling platform workers’ employer-provided welfare and labour protection. Platforms possess monopolising power over workers, the state displays weak regulatory power to monitor platforms, and workers’ occupational citizenship is undermined by the government’s minimal intervention. This study contributes to the literature by linking OW to platform work and revealing how the gig economy reshapes social policy, empirically offering a worker-centred analysis of OW in Hong Kong.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
89
期刊介绍: The Journal of Social Policy carries high quality articles on all aspects of social policy in an international context. It places particular emphasis upon articles which seek to contribute to debates on the future direction of social policy, to present new empirical data, to advance theories, or to analyse issues in the making and implementation of social policies. The Journal of Social Policy is part of the "Social Policy Package", which also includes Social Policy and Society and the Social Policy Digest. An online resource, the Social Policy Digest, was launched in 2003. The Digest provides a regularly up-dated, fully searchable, summary of policy developments and research findings across the whole range of social policy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信