What an Australian union teaches us about regulating platform work

20 May 2026

Over the years, I have had countless discussions about, and conducted research into, platform work. The conversation often revolves around the same question: are platform workers employees or self-employed workers? It is an understandable question. After all, legal classification determines rights, obligations, representation and protection.

But the longer I follow this market, the clearer it becomes that this focus can sometimes be a pitfall. The employment contract may well be the norm for labour markets in the Global North, but in the ‘Majority world’, where 80 per cent of the global population lives, this is not the case. And whilst lawyers argue over definitions, the market is changing at a rapid pace. Platforms adapt procedures and introduce new schemes before regulations even take effect. Furthermore, in practice I see that a shift from freelancer to employee yields less for the worker than hoped for. Platforms evade their responsibility by working with subcontractors or simply ignore a court ruling. 

How can you make binding agreements with platforms regarding minimum standards for platform workers? This question was central to a recent WageIndicator webinar, where researcher Alex Veen from the University of Sydney and Jack Boutros from the Transport Workers’ Union (TWU) in Australia shared their experiences. Their story offers an interesting alternative perspective. Not because Australia has found the answer – nobody has got that far yet – but because there, partly due to the nature of the organisation of the labour market, a fundamentally different choice has been made.

For many years they were bogged down in the question of whether platform workers are employees or self-employed and it was left primarily up to the industrial tribunal - the Fair Work Commission - and the courts to determine the appropriateness of classifications. In the end Australia has opted for a more pragmatic approach: what minimum standards are needed to ensure a sector functions sustainably and safely? That may sound like a subtle difference, but it has major consequences.

A typically Australian solution

To properly understand the Australian approach, you first need to know something about the Australian labour market tradition. Whereas many European countries rely heavily on collective agreements or legislation driven by politics, Australia has had a system for over a century in which labour tribunals play a central role.

The Fair Work Commission – the labour tribunal – is deeply embedded in the Australian system. The idea that the state actively sets minimum standards for sectors is much more common there than in many other countries.

According to Alex Veen, this is essential to understanding current developments.

Australia has not attempted to squeeze a Silicon Valley model into a traditional labour law framework. Instead, the country has built upon an existing tradition of sector-specific regulation. This gave rise to a new intermediate category: ‘employee-like workers’. Not a full employee status, but not the traditional self-employed model without protection either.

An important detail: this category does not apply to all self-employed workers. It is specifically designed for groups of workers who are formally self-employed but have little bargaining power in practice. This is an important detail, given that attempts elsewhere in the world, such as the AB5 legislation in California, failed in part due to their generic approach.

Under AB5, many freelancers, such as journalists who wrote a monthly column for a newspaper, would have been taken on as employees. Meanwhile, the platforms had adapted their model so that they would no longer fall under this legislation. 

The approach in Australia is therefore much more targeted and ensures that the discussion shifts from legal classification to industrial relations.

Why the transport sector in particular has been affected

The reason why many legal cases concern the legal classification of workers is that the employment contract is seen as the ‘standard’ form of work. Traditionally, the representation of workers is also organised around this, which means that trade unions generally pay relatively little attention to workers who are not employees.

Only in sectors where ‘self-employment’ is common do I see more focus on this group of workers. This was discussed, for example, in an earlier webinar with the Dutch Association of Journalists, which managed to agree on a binding minimum tariff for self-employed journalists. For the Australian transport union TWU, these market dynamics also play a key role in securing minimum standards for platform workers in food delivery, taxi and last-mile logistics.

Jack Boutros explained during the webinar that the union was founded over 140 years ago by workers who bear a striking resemblance to today’s platform workers. Coachmen, delivery drivers and hauliers who were paid per gig, had no fixed wage and were treated by clients as ‘self-employed’. The argument that they were ‘their own bosses’ was already being used back then to avoid social protection.

History seems to be repeating itself with the platform ecomomy. According to Boutros, this is precisely where the strength of the Australian approach lies. The TWU has always had experience organising non-standard workers: owner-drivers, couriers and other contract workers in transport. As a result, the union took a fundamentally different view of platform work than many traditional trade unions. The focus was not on the type of contract, but on the question: do workers have sufficient power to enforce decent conditions?

The race to the bottom was already visible

When Uber entered Australia in 2012 and food delivery later grew explosively, the TWU immediately saw familiar patterns emerging. Fragmented work, intense price pressure, individual workers without bargaining power and, above all, safety coming under pressure.

The figures collected by the union in 2018 are striking. Research by the TWU revealed that, after deducting costs, delivery workers earned on average less than half the minimum wage. Seven out of ten delivery workers worried daily about serious injury or death whilst at work, and one in three reported having already been seriously injured. 

What is remarkable is that the Australian debate was conducted largely from a sector-specific perspective, rather than solely from the standpoint of labour rights. Which hasn’t always been the case but become the focus over time. The transport sector in Australia has been one of the country’s most dangerous sectors for years. According to Boutros, transport workers are ten times more likely to be victims of a fatal workplace accident than the average.

Platformisation was therefore seen not only as a problem for individual workers, but also as a risk to the sustainability of the entire sector. A perspective that is often missing from discussions.

Technology changed the scale and intensity of control

Many elements of platform work in the logistics sector are not new. What is new, according to Boutros, is the combination with algorithmic and data-driven management. Platforms in on-demand logistics and transport have used technology to add an extra layer of control via complex pricing mechanisms, constant monitoring, automated performance management, rating systems, information asymmetry between the platform and users, and a constant threat of deactivation. 

For example, workers often received insufficient information about journeys, waiting times or earnings before accepting a gig. This may seem like an operational detail, but it goes to the heart of power relations, because whoever controls information controls behaviour. That is precisely why the new Australian proposals also include regulations on transparency: workers must be given better insight into payments, routes and conditions in advance. This shows that platform regulation is no longer just about pay or contract status. Increasingly, it is about power and access to information.

Eight years of campaigning

What struck me most about the TWU’s story is its long-term approach and its ability to play on multiple fronts. The current reforms did not come about via a single court case or political breakthrough. They were the result of eight years of intensive campaigning. The union combined various strategies simultaneously, such as surveys among workers, public campaigns, legal cases, direct action, lobbying politicians, collaboration with researchers and putting pressure on the platform companies themselves. Boutros calls this ‘comprehensive campaigning’. A key insight here is that legal cases were never the end goal for the union. Of course, legal proceedings were brought to enforce employee status. But primarily because those cases created public pressure and highlighted how platforms actually operated.

The lesson from Menulog

Whilst Uber Eats and DoorDash stuck to the contractor model, Menulog, part of Just Eat Takeaway, experimented with the employee model. On paper, that seemed like good news, but the TWU ultimately opposed that approach.

Not because the union is against employment status, but because a solution for one platform does not solve anything for an entire sector. Furthermore, there was a risk that the less stringent working conditions required to make the Menulog model work would have a negative impact on conditions for workers outside the platform economy. By establishing standards not through employment law but via Industrial Relations, the standards apply to all workers to whom they are applicable, which prevents platform companies from circumventing them by structuring the employment relationship differently.

Menulog eventually withdrew from Australia: it could not compete with the freelance model.

The biggest lesson here is that individual agreements with a platform company are fine, but that sector-wide regulation is ultimately needed. If one player introduces higher standards whilst competitors do not, a competitive disadvantage arises. Or as Jack says: “It is not individual companies that should ‘set a good example’; the market floor needs to be raised.”

How the new system works

As Alex Veen, who monitors platform work across several countries, emphasises in this webinar, it is important to recognise that this case study takes place within a specific context. In the Australian system, trade unions negotiate minimum standards with companies, which are assessed by the Fair Work Commission. These standards are then imposed across the sector. This is a process that involves consultation between trade unions, platforms and other stakeholders.

It is interesting to note that the system explicitly considers multiple interests simultaneously: worker safety, fair pay, business sustainability and sector stability. This last element is rarely seen in European discussions. There, platform work is often framed as a conflict between innovation and protection. The Australian approach, is based on a different premise: a market without minimum standards is ultimately bad for businesses too. It is important to note that here too, the situation is more complex than it first appears.

What do the minimum standards entail?

The initial proposals focus on the food delivery (Uber Eats and DoorDash), last-mile delivery (Amazon Flex) and taxi (Uber) sectors. Although each sector has its own set of minimum standards, the proposals generally concern minimum rates, transparency and representation. With regard to minimum rates, consideration is given to, amongst other things, compensation for work-related costs and insurance. The trade union has extensive experience in calculating minimum rates for self-employed workers.

Transparency is enforced by mandating transparency regarding pricing and algorithms, which should, amongst other things, lead to protection against unfair deactivations of workers. Representation is a comprehensive package, comprising, amongst other things, dispute resolution procedures, consultation rights, rights for worker delegates and access for trade unions to workers. Regarding representation, the trade union appears to have combined the concept of the German Crowdsourcing Code with Article 20 of the Platform Work Directive, whereby platforms are obliged to facilitate a communication channel between workers through which workers’ representatives must also be able to reach the workers. This may sound minor, but in a fragmented platform market, access between and to workers is a crucial factor of power.

The debate on waiting time remains complex

Discussions regarding the calculation of minimum rates primarily concern working time. For now, the Australian agreements only compensate for ‘engaged time’: the period from acceptance of an assignment to its completion. Waiting time is not compensated for under the minimum standards, which means that platforms have no incentive to prevent too many workers from accessing the platform at the same time. After all, even after the introduction of the standards, the cost of waiting time remains with the individual worker.

Boutros is realistic on this point: under the current minimum standards, the income of platform workers – which, prior to the introduction of platforms, stood at half the Australian minimum wage – has risen by 20 to 30 per cent. He realises that a ‘fair’ minimum rate, such as that calculated using the WageIndicator Foundation’s Living Tariff, is still a long way off. The standards are therefore a first step and certainly not an end point. 

To conclude

Although it is important to realise that the Australian case must primarily be viewed within the Australian context and cannot be copied one-to-one to other countries, there are still plenty of lessons to be learnt from this case.

1. The focus on job classification makes sense, particularly in Global North countries, but it is also wise to look beyond this. This is especially true in markets where a sectoral approach is necessary;
2. Improving conditions for platform workers takes time, as does building up a base of platform workers to represent;
3. A diverse approach, such as that in Australia, shows that you can play on several fronts at once; 
4. Non-binding agreements are all good, but ultimately agreements must be sector-specific and legally enforceable; 
5. Minimum standards work best when they are contract-neutral; this prevents platform companies from selectively shopping around to evade their responsibilities.

What particularly stuck with me from the conversation with Alex Veen and Jack Boutros is that the debate on platform work is ultimately not a technological or legal debate, but primarily a debate about power and counter-power. Who sets the terms, who bears the risks, who has access to information, and who can negotiate collectively? And thinking about institutional alignment and complementarities: how do you harness the technological innovation while addressing the externalities

In this case, certainly not all the answers have been found yet, and the current standards are far from perfect. But the union has done something that has barely been achieved in many other countries: shifting the debate from legal definitions to the fundamental question of how a sector can be organised sustainably. And perhaps that is precisely the most important lesson.