Platformu nodarbinātība Rīgā: nedrošība, autonomija un savas labbūtības individualizēšana savstarpēji neuzticīgā sabiedrībā
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22364/adz.60.12Atslēgvārdi:
platformu darbs, nedrošība, neoliberālisms, autonomija, ēdienu piegādeKopsavilkums
Attīstoties platformu ekonomikai, arvien vairāk cilvēku pasaulē izvēlas platformu darbu kā galveno vai papildu ienākumu avotu, neraugoties uz to, ka šī darba forma ir izteikti prekāra jeb nedroša – platformās strādājošajiem nav ilgtermiņa darba līguma, viņi nav sociāli aizsargāti, viņi lielā mērā uzņemas tirgus riskus, kaut arī viņu darba apstākļus lielā mērā nosaka platformu algoritmi.
Šajā rakstā, izmantojot kvalitatīvās socioloģijas metodes – padziļinātas intervijas ar 60 Rīgā platformās Wolt un Bolt Food strādājošiem ēdienu kurjeriem un kurjeru savstarpējās sarakstes tiešsaistes forumos analīzi –, atklājam platformu darba praksi. Balstoties uz teorētisko literatūru un citviet veiktiem zinātniskiem pētījumiem par platformu darbu, atbildam uz trīs pētnieciskiem jautājumiem: kāda ir platformu darba izvēles noteicošā motivācija un apstākļi; kā platformās nodarbinātie izjūt savu brīvību un autonomiju šajā darbā; un kāpēc, neraugoties uz neapmierinātību ar darba apstākļiem, platformās nodarbinātie kurjeri Latvijā līdz šim nav mobilizējušies kolektīvam protestam vai streikam.
Rakstā izklāstītā analīze pierāda: lai izprastu mūsdienu darba praksi un pieredzi, ir svarīgi to skatīt plašākā platformās strādājošo dzīves kontekstā. Platformu nodarbinātība pilnīgi noteikti rada darba apstākļus, kuros strādājošo brīvība un autonomija ir visai ierobežota. Kamēr citās valstīs platformās strādājošie kompensē šo brīvības trūkumu, politiski mobilizējoties, protestējot un streikojot, tieši Latvijā kolektīvu mobilizāciju kavē vispārējā savstarpējā neuzticība un dominējošās neoliberālās vērtīborientācijas. Vienlaikus vismaz daļa no platformās strādājošajiem šo darbu izvēlas, jo darba grafika izvēles brīvība ļauj rast daudz labāku darba un dzīves balansu nekā tradicionālā nodarbinātība. Attiecīgi: lai arī autonomija darbā ir ierobežota, šis darbs sniedz autonomijas izjūtu attiecībā pret daudzām citām lomām un statusiem, ko cilvēks savā dzīvē īsteno.
Atsauces
Altenried, M. (2024) Mobile workers, contingent labour: Migration, the gig economy and the multiplication of labour. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 56 (4), 1113–1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X211054846. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X211054846
Barbalet, J. M. (1992) A macro sociology of emotion: Class resentment. Sociological Theory, 10 (2), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.2307/201956. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/201956
Barratt, T.; Goods, C.; Veen, A. (2020) “I’m my own boss…”: Active intermediation and “entrepreneurial” worker agency in the Australian gig-economy. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 52 (8), 1643–1661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X20914346. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X20914346
Cini, L.; Goldmann, B. (2021) The worker capabilities approach: Insights from worker mobilizations in Italian logistics and food delivery. Work, Employment and Society, 35 (5), 948–967. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017020952670. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017020952670
Dworkin, D. (1988) The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625206
Dyer-Witheford N. (2015) Cyber-proletariat: Global Labour in the Digital Vortex. Toronto and London: Pluto Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt183p1zg
Giddens, A. (1973) The class structure of the advanced societies. London: Hutchinson & Co (Publis-hers).
Glavin, P.; Bierman, A.; Schieman, S. (2021) Über-alienated: Powerless and alone in the gig economy. Work and Occupations, 48 (4), 399–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/07308884211024711. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/07308884211024711
Harvey, D. (2005) A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199283262.001.0001
Hochschild, A. R. (1979) Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Socio-logy, 85 (3), 551–575. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778583. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/227049
Kelly, J. E. (2002) Mobilization theory. Kelly, J. E. (ed.) Industrial Relations: Critical Perspectives on Busi-ness and Management, Vol. 1, 135–155. London and New York: Routledge.
Ķešāne, I.; Ozoliņa, L. (2023) Neoliberal feeling rules and political subjectivities in post-Soviet Latvia: nar-ratives of emigrants and those who remain. Emotions and Society, 6 (2), 206–224. https://doi.org/10.1332/26316897Y2023D000000003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/26316897Y2023D000000003
Ķešāne, I.; Spuriņa, M. (2024) Sociological Types of Precarity Among Gig Workers: Lived Experiences of Food Delivery Workers in Riga. Social Inclusion, 12. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.7696. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/si.7696
MacDonald, R.; Giazitzoglu, A. (2019) Youth, enterprise and precarity: Or, what is, and what is wrong with, the “gig economy”? Journal of Sociology, 55 (4), 724–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783319837604. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783319837604
Marx, K. (2010 [1847]) The poverty of philosophy. Answer to the philosophy of poverty by M. Proudhon. Marx, K.; Engels F. (eds) Collected Works, Volume 6 (1845–1848). Lawrence & Wishart, Electric Book.
Mendonça, P.; Kougiannou, N. K.; Clark, I. (2023) Informalization in gig food delivery in the UK: The case of hyper‐flexible and precarious work. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 62 (1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/irel.12320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/irel.12320
Merton, R. K. (1957) The role-set: Problems in sociological theory. The British Journal of Sociology, 8 (2), 106–120. https://doi.org/10.2307/587363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/587363
Milkman, R.; Elliott-Negri, L.; Griesbach, K.; Reich A. (2021) Gender, Class, and the Gig Economy: The Case of Platform-Based Food Delivery. Critical Sociology, 47 (3). https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920520949631. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920520949631
Ravenelle, A. J. (2019) Hustle and gig: Struggling and surviving in the sharing economy. Oakland: Uni-versity of California Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520971899
Rosenblat, A.; Stark, L. (2016) Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber’s drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3758–3784. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/4892/1739.
Pichault, F.; McKeown, T. (2019) Autonomy at work in the gig economy: analysing work status, work content and working conditions of independent professionals. New Technology, Work and Em-ployment, 34 (1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12132
Ozoliņa, L. (2019) Politics of waiting: Workfare, post-Soviet austerity and the ethics of freedom. Manchester: Manchester University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526126269
Schaupp, S. (2021) Cybernetic proletarianization: Spirals of devaluation and conflict in digitalized produ-ction. Capital & Class, 46 (1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/03098168211017614. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03098168211017614
Schor, J. B.; Attwood-Charles, W.; Cansoy, M.; Ladegaard, I.; Wengronowitz, R. (2020) Dependence and precarity in the platform economy. Theory and Society, 49, 833–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-020-09408-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-020-09408-y
Shibata, S. (2020) Gig-work and the discourse of autonomy: Fictitious freedom in Japan’s digital economy. New Political Economy, 25 (4), 535–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1613351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1613351
Sommers, J.; Woolfson, C. (eds) (2014) The contradictions of austerity: The socio-economic costs of the neoliberal Baltic model. London and New York: Routledge.
Stuart, M.; Trappmann, V.; Bessa, I.; Joyce, S.; Neumann, D.; Umney, C. (2023) Labor Unrest and the Future of Work: Global Struggles Against Food Delivery Platforms. Labor Studies Journal, 48 (3), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160449X231178780. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0160449X231178780
TenHouten, W. D. (2018) From ressentiment to resentment as a tertiary emotion. Review of European Studies, 10 (4), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.5539/res.v10n4p49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/res.v10n4p49
Tumule, J.; Milovs, A. (2022) Hate speech and Euroscepticism in Latvia: National report. Riga: Latvian Centre for Human Rights.
Umney, C.; Stuart, M.; Bessa, I.; Joyce, S.; Neumann, D.; Trappmann, V. (2024) Platform labour unrest in a global perspective: How, where and why do platform workers protest? Work, Employment and So-ciety, 38 (1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170231209676. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170231209676
Vallas, S.; Schor, J. B. (2020) What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 46, 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054857. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054857
Woodcock, J.; Graham, M. (2020) The Gig Economy: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Zwick, A. (2018) Welcome to the gig economy: Neoliberal industrial relations and the case of Uber. Geo-Journal, 83 (4), 679–691. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-017-9793-8
Lejupielādes
Publicēts
Žurnāla numurs
Sadaļa
Licence
Autortiesības (c) 2024 Latvijas Universitāte
Šis darbs ir licencēts ar Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licenci.
