On a Wednesday afternoon, Kishor*, a BluSmart driver in his late 40s, held the door of his white SUV open with a pronounced look of nervousness on his face. “Ma’am main gate tak nahi aa paaya, thik hai na?” (Is it alright that I was not able to come all the way up to the gate?). Kishor has much to worry about. According to BluSmart policies, 1,000 rupees will be deducted from his wage if there’s a single complaint against him.
Decode asked Kishor if the penalties were the same irrespective of the nature of the offence and whether the platforms consider the gravity of the situation. “The nature of the complaint doesn't matter to them. They cut our wages as soon as they see one against our name. And when we call to clear the matter, we get pulled up instead."
In BluSmart, each driver is assigned a Hub Manager, but their concerns, whenever raised, have fallen on deaf ears, the drivers said. Some drivers have reportedly had their accounts removed or banned when protesting against unfair complaints or allegations. “Why would a driver want to deliberately make mistakes when they know what it could cost them?”
Halfway through the 13 km ride, Kishor is more comfortable and has opened up more about his work conditions. According to him, a BluSmart driver has to book 6 days working with one day off a week. The off days have to be bid for in advance, and no emergency leaves are allowed.
What happens if there is a medical emergency? Kishor said, “If we miss checking in, we are not assigned any trips for the day”. A couple of BluSmart drivers also mentioned that they are charged 118 rupees for any delay beyond 30 minutes when getting to work, and the penalty rate increases with time.
Such ad-hoc deductions and unpaid shifts can bring significant disruptions to these below-minimum-wage workers. “Since Covid lockdowns, job opportunities have shrunk for drivers who don’t own cars. So we have to stick it out here.”
We reached out to BluSmart for comments but did not receive any. The story will be updated if and when we receive a response.
Amid soaring profits for BluSmart
Founded by Anmol Singh Jaggi and Punit Goyal in 2019, BluSmart provides an EV fleet that promises clean energy operations to reduce carbon emissions. Their green model claims that sustainability is at the core of their values, and their 5.8 million+ completed clean rides have saved 13,000+ tonnes of CO2 emissions so far.
Last month, BluSmart Mobility raised $42 million (around ₹342 crores), with nearly 50% of the funding being subscribed by BluSmart’s founders and leadership team. According to the founders, this fresh capital is meant to be used to expand BluSmart’s fleet. The firm currently operates 3,500 all-electric vehicles in Delhi-NCR and Bengaluru and has plans to deploy 10,000 EVs in 2024.
This June, Tata Motors Finance, one of India’s leading automotive financiers, extended a credit facility of around Rs 25 crore to BluSmart Mobility as an umbrella financing cum lease solution to allow BluSmart to expand its fleet by 200 electric vehicles. Anmol Singh Jaggi, CEO and co-founder, BluSmart, said, "We are excited to partner with TMF to further strengthen the growth of BluSmart and enhance our presence in the market.”
The platform business model uses tech to connect customers within an ecosystem in exchange for services and value creation. But a peculiar feature of the market is that there is limited product differentiation as players only compete on the ride price and wait time until pick-up. Ride-hailing drivers are not in long-term contracts. Hence, they can easily switch between providers.
Speaking to the drivers, it was revealed that a lot of them use multiple apps including Ola and Uber. On the other hand, BluSmart drivers are expected to make a greater commitment to the platform because they don’t own personal cars.
Clause 8.7 of BluSmart’s terms and conditions strictly outlines the behavioural expectations of a user, including but not limited to, “Smoking and/or drinking in the Vehicle, misbehaving with Driver, disturb or distract the Driver while driving, make unnecessary noises, leave without paying, jump out of the Vehicle, abuse the Driver in any manner.” And clause 8.8 outlines the penalty to users on failure to comply as “a fine and the right to terminate the Rider’s account”.
But the first-hand accounts of its drivers tell a different story.
Odds stacked up against drivers
Lalu*, a new joinee at BluSmart, recalled an incident where he protested against a customer who had brought their pet dog for a ride. “BluSmart explicitly states on their app that their cabs are ‘100% sanitised’ and that pets are not allowed”. So when Lalu requested the passenger not to carry their pet along, they insisted on getting in the cab, promising to help clean up later. At drop-off, when Lalu asked the passenger for the dog’s brush so he could wipe the back seat, the passenger refused and left a bad review for Lalu, claiming that he had asked them to clean the car. The complaint cost Lalu 1,000 rupees and the next assigned trip which he could not make in time with having to clean the car.
Anwar*, another driver standing with Lalu, pointed at the screen to show BluSmart’s promise for ‘incentive-based employment’ and scoffed, “They say they have a dashboard where we can message our grievances. But we rarely get responses. We are not given numbers, nor a point of contact for grievance redressal. What the customer wants, they get. ”
Renuka, a female driver with BluSmart echoed, "One day, another speeding car crashed into me and I had to incur the cost of repairs. On top of that, BluSmart asked me to stay home the next day, which meant I couldn't hit the weekly target and made very little money that week."
Amrita S Nair, Human Rights Lawyer and Editor-in-Chief of The Silent Sexism Project reiterates, “Indian government’s newly introduced labour codes also affect the ability of gig workers to engage in collective bargaining. While the Industrial Relations Code of 2020, allows for the formation of trade unions, the classification and recognition of gig workers as employees can pose challenges in their participation in collective bargaining activities.” According to Nair, the absence of explicit provisions for gig workers' collective bargaining rights hinders their ability to negotiate fair terms and conditions of work.
Kumar Paramjeet, Associate Dean at JGLS, said, “Oral contract is as valuable as a written contract under Indian Contract Act.” This would mean that if a driver has agreed to the terms and conditions conveyed by the platform, they don’t have a choice but to comply with the platform’s demands. “They should still have some basic rights. But presently, there is no law protecting these rights,” Kumar Paramjeet added.
Platforms frequently use independent contractors or workers in place of hiring employees. This enables businesses to forego benefit payments and compliance with labour rules, such as those governing minimum wage and social security contributions.
When asked whether they’re aware of these terms and conditions when they sign their employment contract, Shalu said, “We’re just asked to submit documents at the time of onboarding. We’re not handed any contract copy.”
“The larger issue is that the gig workers who are entering into these contracts may not be able to fully comprehend their obligations and rights under these contracts. These contracts are quite lengthy and complicated and gig workers may simply not have the wherewithal to understand them,” said Arjya Majumdar, Professor & Dean, of Centre for Global Corporate and Financial Law and Policy, JGLS.
Unorganised sector workers don’t have the same employment relationship as the factory owner and labourer, they are left at the behest of their platform employers who utilise institutionalized power dynamics. Lawyer and author Gautam Bhatia believes gig workers have been difficult to box into a specific category because of the nature of their work being atomised and fragmented. “The balance of power is skewed–with the economic strength lying with the platform,” Bhatia said. What binds the platform company to the worker is the service app, through which the employers choose who they select to assign duties.
Other drivers echo these concerns. Anmol*, a two-year-long BluSmart employee, said he was once charged 1,000 rupees for a customer failing to pay him for a trip. Anmol had been assigned a trip to Mahipalpur, but midway through the trip, the rider had asked to be dropped off. In a rush, the rider had left their phone number with Anmol and promised to pay later. When Anmol called back later that evening, the rider rejected the call.
The next day Anmol decided to make a visit to the rider’s house to request the money. Aware that was a step too far, Anmol added, “I know I shouldn’t have gone to their house, but he refused to take my calls and 700 rupees is a lot of money. Instead he threatened to hit me while standing in his bungalow”. In the end, not only did Anmol forfeit the money, but BluSmart also charged him 1,000 rupees without hearing his side of the story.
“Jab pet pe baat aati hai, toh insaan kaise kissi ko samjhaye ki 1700 ka nuksaan nahi jhela jaata. (1700 rupees is a lot of money for us workers who have to constantly worry about putting food on the table.)"
“Universalisation of labour laws has not occurred. This is why when Uber was brought to court in the UK or France, they claimed that they’re not traditional employers who hire or fire drivers, and instead are mere aggregators that do not validate any law,” said Kumar Paramjeet Singh, Advocate and Associate Dean at Jindal Global Law School (JGLS). “Because these platforms don’t recognise themselves as employers, there is no legal recourse for workers’ demands in labour courts,” he added.
Platforms open to meeting in the middle
Amid growing concerns about social security for gig workers, some platforms have made efforts to integrate workers’ issues. Soujanya Sridharan, Researcher and Manager at Aapti Institute, spoke to Decode about their work with Uber India on the creation of the Uber Driver Advisory Council. “We set up the framework for governance, and structure, and defined the roles of the driver advisors. We started with 60 appointments to the first council,” Sridharan said.
“Drivers put forth requests for additional payments for fuel and vehicle maintenance, along with proof that they are tax-paying citizens so that they could make claims for loans to banks. Uber and Ola began sending notifications to drivers about signing up for e-Shram and other state health schemes,” Sridharan continued. “Soon Uber is going to generate Form 16 and 16A for their drivers who cross rides worth more than 5 lakhs per annum.”
However, it is entirely at the discretion of the platform company to make redressal efforts for their workers. Some platforms have a greater abstraction that hurts the drivers, including ones where drivers have to borrow vehicles for rides–leaving them entirely at the mercy of the platform’s policies.
“Uber and Ola allow switching between apps because they don't want the responsibility of assuring employee-specific benefits. But for other ride-sharing apps, the absence of jurisprudence and legislation leaves no avenue for drivers to secure their rights,” Sridharan added.
On the other hand, BluSmart’s vehicle ownership model serves as an enabler to solve the challenge of drivers finding it difficult to afford monthly instalments for electric cars. In fact, BluSmart argues that its leased-vehicle model removes a major hurdle for drivers who cannot bear the financial burden of owning the vehicle. “Ride-hailing platforms with a driver-ownership model have little control over the customer experience, as drivers are private contractors, taking rides and maintaining vehicles as per own preferences and hygiene standards,” as BluSmart quotes in their EV Report. However, it’s this battle over the best customer service, that costs the driver their daily wage security.
Lack of Labour Laws for Commissioned Workers
The Social Security Code of 2020 promised better social security benefits to India's 7.7 million gig workers. It planned to extend welfare measures to gig and unorganised workers and implored the Central Government to set up social security funds. However, three years later, the Code although enacted, has not been entirely effective. At this time, these gig workers do not fall under any formal labour regulation.
According to Gautam Bhatia, “Economically more powerful platforms make use of the legal vacuum. You don’t have to look at the law in binaries. One can split up labour law obligations between consumer, worker and platform. Hence, even if straightforward labour law doesn’t apply, efforts can be made to be more nuanced.”
“While the new labour codes in India provide a framework for labour regulations, they currently lack explicit provisions addressing the specific needs and challenges faced by gig workers,” says Amrita Nair.
The burgeoning industry of gig and platform work directly correlates with policies that ignore the concerns of the unorganised working class. The same Niti Aayog’s report recommends further platformization and booming aggregators as the solution. But the question of better working conditions and social security for the unorganised sector still remains and the platform companies continue to exploit the workers' vulnerabilities.
But there isn’t a paucity of material for solutions. In February, the Rajasthan state government gave its mandate to set up a 200 crore rupees welfare fund and enactment of the Gig Workers Welfare Act. “Currently no other country is talking about such labour codes. So if the Centre shares a model for setting up similar funds and the states follow suit, the situation can be remedied,” Paramjeet Singh believes. Alongside this, implementing transparent and fair rating and feedback systems within gig platforms can help mitigate power imbalances.
Amrita Nair echoes that this could involve mechanisms to address unfair rating practices, ensure transparency in algorithms, and provide recourse for workers facing unjustified negative ratings or arbitrary penalties.
