Gig workers often refer to people who are paid per task, or in short-term and freelance work arrangements, rather than permanent employment.
Typical examples include private tutors; hourly staff at exhibitions, events and restaurants; and content creators on social media. But there’s no statutory definition.
A 2020 report by the Law Reform Commission estimated that there may be as many as 700,000 gig workers in the city.
The government has taken steps to better protect their rights, such as by revising the “continuous contract” rule under the Employment Ordinance.
Legislative amendments are currently vetted by the Legislative Council. If passed, people who work a total of 68 hours over four-week periods are entitled to statutory employment benefits, such as minimum wage, paid leave and work-injury compensation.
It’s a different story for the estimated 114,000 delivery couriers and ride-hailing drivers in the city, who are largely classified as freelancers, which means they don’t enjoy statutory benefits.
Last year, when Deliveroo exited Hong Kong, about 12,000 delivery couriers were left without severance pay or long-term service payment because the platform treated them as independent contractors.
And recent rulings offered different views of employment status.
In 2023, the Labour Tribunal ruled that six gig workers for the now-defunct Zeek delivery platform were employees, citing factors such as the company’s control over work, pay structure and restrictions on subcontracting, which established an employment relationship. But in a more recent District Court decision involving a Deliveroo rider seeking compensation for work injury, the court found that the rider was an independent contractor, not an employee.
In an interview with RTHK, Roy Ying, co-chair of the advocacy and policy research committee at the Hong Kong Institute of Human Resource Management, called on the government to step in and provide clarity.
“I’m actually more inclined to think that if a delivery worker only works a few hours a week, that is more likely to be a gig worker, unless the delivery worker is working near full-time,” he said.
“And that’s why I think the statute needs to have a little bit more clarity, because if we rely on the judgement, as you can see, the District Court, the tribunals, they are the lower courts. There could be future appeals, and that is just adding uncertainty.”
Ying added that the definition of gig workers has to be precise and not overly broad.
“We also have to be mindful about the cost of compliance because there could be hundreds of thousands of gig workers around Hong Kong.
“And if we are setting the rules in a lenient way, then that means more people will claim that they are employees and that is going to open up quite a lot of disputes.”
Ying stressed the need to reach a consensus through dialogue, with the government holding a longer public consultation and engaging all stakeholders.
He also said Hong Kong could follow in the footsteps of the UK and establish a third type of employment status, between employees and the self-employed, so as to grant gig workers partial employment rights.
“The government can do a pilot case, ringfencing this special categorisation in one or two different sectors and see how it runs for one or two years before it is rolled out to different sectors. I think that is more of a prudent approach,” he said.
“It’s pretty obvious. It’s got to be all the platform workers, for example, the Uber drivers and the food delivery people.”
