The Gig Workers Bill, which was tabled for first reading at the Dewan Rakyat on Aug 25, has avoided many of the concerns I raised last year about killing the gig-economy.The new bill has four key elements: to clarify the definition of a gig economy worker, to set up a tripartite consultative council to review terms and conditions of gig work, to create a clear mechanism for dispute resolution in the gig economy sector and finally to provide social protection on par with formal employees.
Importantly the bill does not interfere with the market mechanism. It actually strengthens the market by providing clear legal parameters in which gig workers and platform providers can negotiate decent, balanced contracts which can be enforced in law.
The bill protects a large and growing group of gig workers who are citizens or permanent residents of Malaysia in flexible occupations and remain in those as a way of earning a living.
The definition helps to clarify the legal distinction between employment as a worker under a “contract of service” and employment as an independent provider under a “contract for services”.
A gig worker is anyone who enters into a service agreement with a contracting entity for the performance of any service with a platform provider or services provided for non-platform providers under a list specified by the legislation. This includes skilled professionals such as actors and musicians, film producers, journalists, caregivers and others.
Provided the gig worker receives income for the services, which must be formally recorded by the person buying the service, they will be protected.
This appears, in principle, to have avoided the rather stupid decision in the UK to turn gig workers into quasi-formal employees which raised costs and created more work for lawyers than for anyone else.
Hopefully the lawyers, who are also gig workers by the way, will not have a field-day because there is a clear process for industrial disputes which mirrors the system available for formal employees.
This requires platform providers to have an internal grievance mechanism. If this fails, there will be an independent conciliation process to mediate disputes and a formal gig workers tribunal for more difficult cases.
Details of the exact balance of rights and responsibilities will emerge over time on a case-by-case basis which will eventually provide settled law through the gig workers tribunal decisions and the tripartite consultative council. This is a better approach than trying to anticipate problems or providing remedies in advance for issues that have not arisen.
The social protection provisions put gig workers on an equal footing with those in formal employment with a tiny 1.25% Socso payment deducted after they get paid. This provides accident insurance and income protection for industrial injuries.
The impact on gig workers is minimal and in line with everyone else. Also, with this scheme there is no cost to platform providers so consumers should not face higher prices, but if they do they should be smart and complain or switch provider.
Overall the Gig Workers Bill guarantees a safer, consistent, stable and ethical environment for gig-economy workers without being too prescriptive.
Over time we would hope that the list of occupations covered will extend to include more professional occupations that are increasingly becoming gig economy work.
With luck the light touch market solution will also remove the need for the Malaysian Gig Economy Commission (SEGiM) which looks increasingly redundant. The budget already allocated to SEGiM can find better use elsewhere.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
