[The View]The Day You Can't Order Delivery: What the Presumption of Employment Will Leave Behind

The Push to Turn "Gigs" into "Jobs"
Platform Workers Resemble Freelancers
Traditional Employment Means Loss of Flexibility
Rising Delivery Fees and Reduced Services in Certain Areas

Korean society is currently experiencing growing pains as both the government and labor groups push to convert “gigs” into “jobs.” This shift is especially evident in the platform labor sector.

Platform workers such as riders for Baemin or Coupang Eats have traditionally been more like independent freelancers, choosing when to work through an application (app), rather than employees in the conventional sense. However, there is now a growing movement to recognize freelancers and platform workers as employees under the “presumption of employment” policy, granting them entitlements such as severance pay, minimum wage, social insurance, and collective bargaining rights.

Delivery gigs are associated with higher risks of accidents and income instability compared to other occupations, making a minimum level of safety net and regulation necessary. The problem arises when such protections are implemented by forcing platform labor into the mold of traditional full-time employment without fully considering its unique characteristics. The key feature of platform work is flexibility: workers can turn on the app whenever they want, work as much as they can, and quit at any time. If this is converted into a traditional employment relationship, companies will face fixed labor costs, which may lead to reduced hiring, while riders lose their flexibility.

Internationally, attempts to convert gigs into jobs have already resulted in significant social costs. Spain, for instance, reclassified platform riders as employees, but in response, some platforms withdrew from the market altogether. Paradoxically, riders could then only work fixed hours, resulting in lower earnings. In parts of Canada, discussions about converting platform workers into employees are ongoing, but actual implementation has stalled amid debates about potential market contraction. These cases demonstrate the severe side effects that can arise when the unique nature of the industry is ignored and platform work is absorbed into a traditional employment framework.

Another concern is the growing power of labor unions across industries. If the union-centric culture dominant in manufacturing is applied wholesale to platform labor, platforms—which must adapt quickly to market changes and technological innovation—could be hit even harder. For example, demand for orders and deliveries fluctuates dramatically depending on the time of day, weather, and other factors. As union bargaining power increases, companies will find it harder to respond flexibly. This could lead to higher delivery fees, increased burdens on small business owners, and ultimately, reduced services in certain times and areas. On days when delivery is unavailable or early-morning delivery is suspended, it is consumers who bear the full brunt of the inconvenience.

A more serious issue is the potential weakening of the buffer function that platform work provides in the labor market. For heads of households needing short-term income, job seekers juggling other work, or young people who have been out of the workforce, platform jobs have served as a stepping stone into the labor market. They are gigs that anyone could easily participate in when needed.

However, if such gigs are incorporated into traditional employment relations, companies will maintain only the minimum number of jobs, and opportunities for the most vulnerable to work will actually diminish. Laws meant to protect the disadvantaged could end up pushing them into even more precarious situations.

Platform workers do need a minimum safety net. However, excessive regularization must not undermine labor flexibility. Policymakers must carefully consider the possibility that protection, in the name of security, could instead reduce labor market access for those out of work or unemployed, while increasing costs for consumers and small business owners. Rather than forcing platform work into the mold of traditional employment, practical safeguards tailored to the realities of gig work are needed.

Now is the time for a balanced policy design that preserves market vitality and opportunities for entry, while ensuring meaningful protection can coexist.

Kyungna Kyung, Professor, Department of Business Administration, Sungkyunkwan University

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.