Workers organizing in the platform economy: Local forms and global trends of collective action
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Distinctive features of the on‐demand work platforms made it theoretically improbable for workers to organize and for collective forms of protest to emerge. Their business model and work arrangements spatially isolate and socially individualize workers, subjectivizing them as competing micro‐enterprises rather than co‐workers. However, faced with the flood of the platforms on a global scale, collective actions of platform workers surged like a backwash, especially in the ride‐hailing and food delivery sectors, during the last decade. Observers witnessed a great variety in the combination of actors involved and repertoire of actions mobilized worldwide. Despite this diversity, some common global trends can be sketched out. Through a literature review focused on Europe, Latin America, North America and Asia, this article shows that workers struggle globally to build a collective actor, through an original combination of new and old forms of protest. They ought to compensate for their weak marketplace bargaining power by leveraging their discursive, associational, coalitional and workplace bargaining powers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it