‘Logged in, Left out’: Algorithmic ableism and the Myth of Flexible Work in India’s Platform Economy By Surabhi Duggal

As quoted by Neil Marcus, a disability artist and activist, “Disability is not a brave struggle or ‘courage in the face of adversity’- it is an art and an ingenious way to live.”

Introduction

Somewhere in the rush and chaos of a metro city, a delivery worker with a hearing impairment logs onto a platform, to begin his shift. However, he cannot hear the phone ring when a restaurant tries to contact him; he is unable to receive the automated voice alert when an order is reassigned. This is because there is no accessible alternative built into the interface- no haptic cue, visual notification and even no way to flag the limitation to anyone who can work their way around it to bring about a change. In this way, the delivery worker is logged in but, is structurally left out. India’s gig economy is estimated to employ nearly 23.5 million workers by 2029-30, approximating 6.7% of all non-agricultural workers (NITI Aayog, 2022). On the surface level, this invites optimism due to the potentiality of more “inclusive work” for people with disabilities. However, the reality might be far away from this expectation. This article argues that because the digital platforms are managed by rigid and “black box” algorithms, the discrimination instead of being eliminated is rather automated. Rather than taking a neutral role for empowerment, the algorithm acts as an inflexible boss that ends up penalizing workers whose “body-minds” don’t fit a standard, fast paced mould.

The “Ideal Worker” goes Digital

Critical disability studies have interrogated the figure of the “ideal worker”, an assumption held of the one with a body that is productive, consistent, non-disruptive and available (Wolbring, 2008; Kafer 2013). The gig economy, at first glance, appears to shatter this myth. Flexible hours, task-based work, no fixed office would make one think that the workers must be liberated from the tyranny of the “ideal worker” norm. The truth is that it does not. Gig platforms operate through rating systems, completion metrics, response time windows and surge algorithms. Each of these operate on a particular body standard; a delivery partner must respond within seconds of an order ping, a driver must maintain high acceptance rate or face deactivation, a freelance worker must receiver perfect rating across jobs to remain visible in the search results. These are not neutral operational requirements, they are ‘disabling environments’ (Oliver, 1990), in the sense that they are designed around a body that is always up and about, always responsive and physically consistent which results in the natural exclusion of workers with chronic fatigue, sensory disabilities or mobility impairments. Additionally, the opaqueness of the algorithm is a further complication as workers with disability can be penalised for their slow response times with no mechanism to bring this issue up. This can be categorised as a “broken chain”; unfortunately, in the gig economy, the chain was not merely broken, it was just never built.

The Digital Accessibility Deficit

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities ACT, 2016 (RPWD Act) mandates accessibility in workplaces, but its enforcement is weak and almost entirely untested in the context of platform companies (Kumar et al., 2012). Platform companies, by  placing the workers in the position of independent contractors instead of employees have conveniently placed themselves outside the arena of most disability employment laws. Digital accessibility simply demands for appropriate inclusion for all gig workers- not just on paper but practically and thoughtfully applied. This means, a driver with a hearing impairment needs visual and haptic alternatives to audio alerts, a worker with dyslexia needs an interface that does not only rely on rapid text-based instructions. However, none of India’s major gig platforms currently offer these features in any meaningful form. None of India’s major gig platforms currently offer these features in any meaningful form. Inaccessible platforms in addition to creating inconvenience for disabled workers, produce deactivation, income loss and effective expulsion from the labour market. The issue here started with the building of an interface that was designed, tested and applied with one kind of body in mind.

Beyond “Divyangjan”

Disability in employment has moved along the continuum with the extremes of charity and tokenism. The renaming of persons with disabilities as “Divyangjan”, literally, “divine bodied” by the Government of India in 2015 was presented as a gesture of respect. However, from a critical disability perspective, no matter the intention, this action ultimately translates into a gesture of evasion. To frame disabled people as ‘spiritually special’ is to exempt the state and the market from the political obligation to build accessible structures. It is, as Ghai (2015) points out, a way of managing disability without changing the conditions that produce discrimination and disadvantage. The RPWD Act, 2016 applies staunch accessibility mandated to the “establishment” which is category that platform companies have legally argued that they are not. This results in a huge legislative gap within the fastest growing sector of India’s labour market that operated almost entirely outside the disability rights framework that took decades of advocacy to build.

Rethinking Accessibility from the Margins

The question remains- what would it imply to consider the gig economy seriously as a site for rethinking workplace accessibility? At the design level, gig platforms being built from the ground up with varied body-minds in context, would be the most desirable approach. This means adjustable response times windows, accessible rating dispute mechanism and granular availability controls At the legal level, the classification of gig workers as independent contractors must be challenged on disability grounds. If a platform controls the conditions of work sufficiently to determine a worker’s income, rating and engagement, it exercised employer like power and should also bear employer like obligations. At the political level, the most generative move is one that critical disability studies has always insisted on; positioning disabled workers not as passive recipients of inclusion programmes but as knowledge producers about what accessible systems actually require and doing a comprehensive need analysis.

Conclusion

The gig economy is unfortunately resembling an ableist structure in a new form- one that has learned to perform flexibility while encoding the ideal worker norm deeper into the infrastructure and design of work that ever before. Despite having promised a democratic work environment, it has constricted a reality far from the ideal. However, the broader question remains- even if accessible platforms are built, will we have learnt to build an accessible society alongside it, or we would have simply constructed an elegant cage, yet again?

References

Ghai, A. (2015). Rethinking disability in India. Routledge India.

Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, queer, crip. Indiana University Press. 

Kumar, A., Sonpal, D., & Hiranandani, V. (2012). Trapped between ableism and neoliberalism: Critical reflections on disability and employment in India. Disability Studies Quarterly, 32(3).

NITI Aayog. (2022). India’s booming gig and platform economy: Perspectives and recommendations on the future of work. Government of India. 

Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Macmillan Education UK. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, No. 49 of 2016 (India).

Wolbring, G. (2008). The politics of ableism. Development, 51(2), 252–258.