(Image: rawpixel)
There may soon be serious changes in South Africa's labor laws. The Minister for Employment and Labor has published proposed amendments to the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, the Employment Equity Act and the National Minimum Wage Act – a comprehensive package aimed at modernizing workplace rules and tightening protections.Or the workers who fall through the cracks.
The goal is simple: improve job security, promote fair treatment, and provide basic labor rights to workers who have historically been excluded.
One group in the spotlight are gig-economy workers, who are making money through digital platforms and apps that provide short, task-based jobs.
A major proposal, Amendment 50A, expands how the law defines both “employer” and “employee”. If adopted, this could mean that platform workers would have access to the protections that traditional workers already have, including a minimum wage, paid leave, social security, workplace safety protections, and the right to collective bargaining.
It would mark a major change for an industry that has largely sidestepped labor laws by describing itself as a neutral “middleman” between workers and customers. In other words: We're just the app, not the boss.
But that argument is facing increasing scrutiny around the world as governments move to regulate the platform economy.
South Africa's proposed changes are part of a broader global effort. In Africa, countries such as Kenya, Egypt and Nigeria have already introduced regulations for ride-hailing services. At the international level, member states of the International Labor Organization are expected to adopt new standards for platform work later this year.
Still, the debate is anything but quiet. As one South African negotiator recently said, “the discussion about the platform economy… (is) like a battlefield”.
Researchers from the Southern Center for Inequality Studies' Future of Workers group have spent the past five years examining how digital platforms are reshaping employment across Africa. Their research shows that although South Africa's approach is broader than some countries, it may still miss workers who are technically self-employed.
And this is where the fight over definitions begins. How someone is classified – employee or independent contractor – determines what rights they can claim and who must provide them.
Under South African labor law, workers are entitled to a range of protections, including a minimum wage, overtime pay, paid leave, parental benefits, workplace health protections and access to collective bargaining. Platform companies have largely avoided these obligations by labeling workers as independent contractors.
The reality for many workers appears to be far less flexible than the term suggests. Platform employees often work long hours for unpredictable pay, cover their own operating costs and take on-the-job risks while paying commissions to the platform.
At the same time, companies exercise significant control through algorithmic systems that assign tasks, monitor performance, and enforce rules through ratings, suspension, or account deactivation. In a recent survey by the International Labor Organization, the platforms also argued that although workers were self-employed, they should not be allowed to refuse tasks or disconnect from the app.
If South Africa moves to classify more platform workers as employees, legal opposition from companies is likely.
In Kenya, similar rules sparked a wave of court challenges. Platform firms argued that the government lacked jurisdiction, that labor standards interfere with competition law, and that the rules discriminate against migrant workers.
The courts ultimately rejected those claims.
Interestingly, the proposed change does not directly regulate platform companies. Instead, it introduces a legal presumption: unless proven otherwise, a person providing services to another party is considered an employee, regardless of what their contract says. The burden then falls on the employer to prove to the employee that he or she is indeed self-employed. To qualify, the employee must have genuine autonomy over how they work and operate independently of the company structure.
There are two main ways labor protection platforms can reach workers. The first is through regional determinations issued by the Minister of Labor. These are often used in industries where unions are weak and can set minimum standards consistent with a specific sector. However, traditional sector rules do not always correspond to the realities of platform work. For example, workers may appear to earn above the national minimum wage on paper, but once expenses such as fuel, equipment and commissions are deducted, their actual earnings may fall well below this.
Existing rules also struggle to deal with issues unique to digital platforms, such as: algorithm management, who owns and controls employee data, the role of third parties such as fintech services, cuts, commissions and service fees.
Another option is to create a bargaining council for the platform economy, where workers and companies negotiate terms for the sector. Given how rapidly technology is reshaping work, researchers argue that collective bargaining can generate more flexible and innovative rules than traditional regulation alone.
Designing effective regulations will require a careful balance. The platform economy involves a variety of functions with varying levels of freedom and control. As the researchers emphasize in their latest paper, working people need to be part of the conversation.
After all, as the study argues, deciding who counts as “activists” is political, above all, a matter of technical legality.
(Source: Conversation)