Reformatting Servitude: When Urban Company first announced its domestic-worker-in-15 minutes service three weeks ago, the responses were wildly polar, and confused. The start up smart set hailed its disruptiveness; some thought it would be the answer to the exploitation and irregularities in a field of informal work that is notorious for its lack of standardisation and others saw it as a debilitating blow to the conventional world of domestic work. The company itself saw it as a win-win deal for domestic workers.
We at BehanBox chose not to jump instantly into the pandemonium. We have reported extensively on the gig platform and the workers’ (fancifully called ‘partners’) issues with it, and these stories showed us that the reality was too complex for a quick black and white conclusion. This is a space that offers flexibility and dignity but it could also be tyrannical. It holds the promise of professionalism but built into it is a vast power imbalance.
To bring incisive clarity to the issue, we decided to interview an academic who had been working in the field of platformisation of all kinds of domestic services. Saumya Kalia spoke to Sai Amulya Komarraju, a scholar on gender and digital labour at IIM Ahmedabad, and it turned out to be fascinating interaction that brought out nuances few give any thought to.
Using the example of South Africa, Amulya points to the attraction of gig platforms for domestic workers, given specific cultural and social contexts. ”Young Black women choose on-demand domestic work because they have witnessed their mothers, grandmothers, and relatives slave away in the homes of white madams. The temporality of platform work frees workers from a slave-master, maid-madam relationship. Perhaps, workers in this instance also might find the professionalisation of domestic work elevates them from being a ‘didi’ or a ‘behen/ben’ to a professional.”
But none of this rids the platforms of the problems they can and do create.
Amulya points to what in traditional employment can be called ‘strategic intimacy’ between domestic workers and their employees, something that leaves room for negotiation on loans, leave, or other financial benefits. “Platforms are systematically eroding the social dimension of this employer-domestic worker relationship, leaving no room for negotiation. Customers don’t even have to know the name of the worker, let alone develop a long-term relationship. There is no scope for negotiation, either with the platform or the ‘customer’,” she pointed out.
“Ultimately, platformisation is intensifying the disposability of domestic workers. By eliminating social bonds, and promising a 15-minute turnaround, platforms reinforce and strengthen an extractive labour model,” Amulya said.
Read our interview here.