In this webinar, Dr Joe Buckley discussed Vietnamese app-based drivers’ legal status, wages, and working conditions, as well as efforts and struggles to improve them. He compared the Vietnamese drivers’ activism to the history of labour activism in the country and put it into regional and global perspectives.
VIETNAM STUDIES PROGRAMME WEBINAR
Friday, 14 October 2022 — Joe Buckley, a visiting fellow at the Vietnam Studies Programme of the ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute, presented a webinar titled “Labour Politics of App-based Driving in Vietnam and Beyond”.
Buckley first discussed the rise of platform-based ride-hailing and food delivery services in Vietnam over the past eight years. The first major ride-hailing app competition in Vietnam was between Grab and Uber; both launched in the country in 2014. Following several business missteps and clashes with the Vietnamese authorities over taxes and regulations, in 2018, Uber sold its Southeast Asian operations to Grab. Since then, Grab has dominated the Vietnamese market.
When digital platforms like Grab first entered Vietnam, drivers who worked for them clashed with traditional motorbike and taxi drivers, whose livelihoods were adversely affected by the rise of ride-hailing apps. There were also controversies between traditional taxi companies and digital platforms, with the former making losses and accusing the latter of unfair competition and tax avoidance.
Currently, there are five big players in the food delivery and ride-hailing sectors in Vietnam: Grab (Singapore-based), Gojek (Indonesia-based), Be (Vietnam-based), Beamin (South Korea-based), and ShopeeFood (Singapore-based). These platforms frequently run into trouble with the local authorities over fees and tax issues. Having made huge losses over the years, these companies have tried to gain profit by expanding into online shopping, hotel and flight booking, and financial services.
Buckley then discussed the working conditions of ride-hailing and food delivery drivers in Vietnam. Most drivers are men, and they either use motorbikes or cars. Drivers get paid per job (minus a commission charge). While their monthly income might appear higher than the national average, they have to work far longer hours. App-based drivers’ legal status as independent contractors means they have no minimum wage or other guaranteed benefits that normal workers enjoy.
Drivers also have to shoulder all the business costs and risks while paying for vehicle maintenance and safety equipment. Moreover, they are also affected by health and safety issues, such as air pollution, potential accidents, and extreme weather conditions. Another problem is unfair dismissals, where digital platforms ban drivers from their apps without recourse to appeal.
Buckley went on to examine how stakeholders, namely the platforms, the Vietnam General Confederation of Labour (VGCL) and the drivers themselves, have responded to the low pay and poor working conditions of drivers.
The platforms claim that they respect and value drivers, pointing to gifts and corporate celebratory events. Grab claims that their surcharges during hot days are passed on to the drivers. However, none of these addresses the core issues of low wages and poor working conditions, for which the platforms themselves are responsible.
VGCL, Vietnam’s single state-led union federation, has been criticized for failing to properly represent app-based drivers. However, the union sometimes takes pro-driver positions, which puts them in debates with the Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs.
Prior to the rise of digital platforms, VGCL organized associations of informal workers, including motorbike and taxi drivers. These groups helped drivers access low-interest loans to purchase vehicles, offered microfinance services, and encouraged them to join social protection schemes. In the age of digital apps, VGCL has continued to provide this form of support for drivers. However, it does not take a position on whether drivers should be classified as workers or independent contractors—a key topic of national-level policy debates worldwide. Nonetheless, some VGCL leaders have said that drivers should be recognized as workers.
Drivers play the most important role in their struggle for better working conditions. Without sufficient backing from VGCL, they have supported each other through mutual aid groups on Facebook. Earlier this year, drivers organized strikes demanding digital platforms to provide support amid high petrol prices. However, there have been no strikes over the drivers’ legal status.
App-based drivers’ self-organized initiatives reflect traditions of labour militancy in Vietnam, which are common in the industrial and export manufacturing sectors. Buckley suggested that this may have resulted from former factory workers moving into app-based driving services. They brought experiences of labour militancy into this sector and shared them with other drivers. The form of strikes and protests by Vietnamese drivers also mirror forms of labour militancy seen in Southeast Asia and across the world, characterized by mutual aid groups, limited role of traditional unions, and self-organized initiatives. Similarly, legal status is not a major focus of worker strikes and protests in other countries.
While the rise of app-based driving in Vietnam is celebrated as part of the country’s digital transformation and innovation, it also poses significant challenges to sustainable development, as seen in the drivers’ precarity. Buckley suggested that addressing this problem requires compelling digital platforms to improve working conditions and provide decent wages to their drivers.
During the Q&A section, Buckley answered the audience’s questions on his research methodology, the feasibility of regulating the gig economy like the traditional economy, VGCL’s efforts to support app-based drivers, the different positions of the Vietnamese government and VGCL, platforms’ policies on labour safety, Vietnamese media’s response to the strikes, and the prospects of Vietnamese apps.
