Living Wages and Platform Work: What Companies and the Self-Employed Workers Need to Know

24 April 2026

What does a Living Wage actually mean for someone paid per delivery, per task, or per piece? And why is the upcoming Draft Platform Convention at the International Labour Congress (ILC) at 1-12 june this year so important for self-employed workers? In this conversation, Paulien Osse, co-founder and global lead for Living Wages, sits down with Daniela Ceccon, Director of Data at WageIndicator and platform specialist Martijn Arets. They focus on the practical realities: how piece rates, social security obligations, and in-kind benefits interact with Living Wages.

Living Wage and Piece-rate work

Paulien: Dani, what if a company wants to work with piece rates? Can we still talk about a good Living Wage strategy, or is that a bridge too far?

Dani: My first reaction is that piece rate is not the most elegant way of paying people. I would always prefer to pay per hour for the job. Why? Because a Living Wage is really about earning enough in normal working hours.

So yes, you can still talk about a Living Wage strategy when piece rates exist, but only under one clear condition: workers must be able to reach at least the Living Wage within normal working hours. If that is not possible, the piece-rate system is simply not fair. My advice is to translate the piece rate back into an hourly reality. What does a worker actually earn in a normal week or month? If that amount falls below the Living Wage, there is a problem. If the worker is contracted as self-employed, you can compare their hourly rate with a Living Tariff.

Social security responsibility: employer, platform or individual

Paulien: Dani, who is responsible for social security, the person or company giving the gig or job, or the individual worker?

Dani: It depends on the person's status. If someone is an employee, the employer clearly carries part of the responsibility. In most systems, social security is shared: one part paid by the employer, one part by the employee. That is also how we approach it in our methodology. For employees, the Living Wage includes the employee-side contributions, while for self-employed and platform workers the Living Tariff must include both sides, since there is no employer covering that other part.

Then there is the informal situation. I would be quite direct here: informality does not cancel social rights. If an employer says "we are informal, so social security is not needed," that is simply not acceptable. It is a way of pushing business costs and risks onto workers. In reality, someone still has to carry those costs, which is why we recommend the Living Tariff for informal workers too, so they can ensure they earn enough to cover all necessary expenses.

Managing social security as a self-employed worker

Paulien: Dani, let’s say a person has to take care of their own social security. How does that work in practice?

Dani: In practice, it means setting part of your income aside for social security, pension, health cover, or sick days, depending on what exists in your country. The key is to build those costs into your rate from the start. That is exactly why a Living Tariff is higher than a Living Wage. It should cover not only daily living costs, but also taxes, social security, and the risks that an employer would otherwise partly carry. In some countries there are public schemes for this; in others, people have to organise much more themselves. But in all cases, it has to be treated as a real cost of working, not something optional. WageIndicator is also working to make more of this practical information easier to access. By the end of the year we will have a Living Pension framework in place.

Bonuses, allowances and in-kind benefits

Paulien: Dani, when we deal with Living Wages, we have a lot of implementation rules, especially on how to deal with bonuses, allowances and in-kind benefits. How does that work for the self-employed, or even for piece-rate workers?

Dani: For employees, we have rules on bonuses, allowances and in-kind benefits because there is an employer paying a wage, and you need to be clear about what really counts as pay and what does not. WageIndicator’s approach is to start from the basic wage, not from all kinds of extras. Some benefits can be counted, but with limits. For the self-employed, we include all the extras in the calculation because normally the employer doesn't provide bonuses or in-kind benefits, but if that happens, I think the same approach can be used. For example, if the Living Tariff assumes the cost of a laptop for the self-employed, but the client gives it, then its value can be added to the rate that is compared with the Living Tariff.

For piece rates, I believe it works the same as for employees: piece rate workers can get bonuses, allowances and in-kind benefits. If these are eligible, they can be added to the calculated monthly or hourly wage, before comparing it with the Living Wage or the Living Tariff.

What can we expect from the ILO Platform Convention

Paulien: Martijn, the ILO will discuss its draft Platform Convention in early June. What is your view so far, will it deliver for self-employed platform workers?

Martijn: Agreeing on global standards is a challenge, particularly when it requires consultation between representatives of employers, workers and governments. The question is how robust the agreement that is eventually reached will be; there are concerns about a watered-down agreement or, possibly, no agreement at all. Furthermore, whatever is agreed must also be implemented at national level. And as we see with the European Platform Work Directive (which is currently at that stage), that still entails a great deal of uncertainty.

Although there are still significant challenges, the positive aspect of this development is that the topic of platform work is on the international agenda. This means there is a good reason for stakeholders to reflect on this, conduct research, consult workers, form an opinion and more. Not just for platform workers, but potentially for a wider group of workers. This momentum is unique: workers’ representatives are actively organising themselves and exchanging knowledge.

Furthermore, everyone, certainly on the side of worker representation, seems to agree that any agreements reached must benefit all workers. So regardless of what emerges from the final convention, the momentum is already a major gain in itself. It is up to the stakeholders involved to capitalise on this momentum, even after the International Labour Conference in June.

Is it better to be an employee or self-employed?

Paulien: Martijn, what do you think? Is a platform worker better off as an employee or as a self-employed person with a Living Tariff?

Martijn: From the perspective of what is ideal, we see that in ‘on-demand work’, such as delivery and taxi services, many risks and costs are shifted onto the individual worker. However, the worker has no influence on the conditions under which the work is carried out. Think of waiting time, but also rising fuel costs. When the worker is paid per gig and not per hour, the full risk lies with the worker. When the worker is paid per hour, the platform also has an incentive to organise work more efficiently, because the costs of no work (waiting time) are then borne by the platform. They did this in New York with great success. So in theory self-employed could work very well, but it is not easy to organise. It is not straightforward to say in which situation the worker is better off, and it is also important to consider the local context of the market in which platform work takes place.