In light of the individualisation, dispersal and pervasive monitoring that characterise work in the ‘gig economy’, the development of solidarity among gig workers could be expected to be unlikely. However, numerous recent episodes of gig workers’ mobilisation require reconsideration of these assumptions. This article contributes to the debate about potentials and obstacles for solidarity in the changing world of work by showing the processes through which workplace solidarity among gig workers developed in two cases of mobilisation of food delivery platform couriers in the UK and Italy. Through the framework of labour process theory, the article identifies the sources of antagonism in the app-mediated model of work organisation and the factors that facilitated and hindered the consolidation of active solidarity and the emergence of collective action among gig workers. The article emphasises the centrality of workers’ agential practices in overcoming constraints to solidarity and collective action, and the diversity of forms through which solidarity can be expressed in hostile work contexts.
AtzeniM (2010) Workplace Conflict: Mobilization and Solidarity in Argentina. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
2.
BildTMadsenMJorgensenH, et al. (1997) Wage earner solidarity: moribund or changing? In: D’ArtDTurnerT (eds) Collectivism and Individualism: Trends and Prospects. Dublin: Oak Tree Press, 11–33.
3.
BravermanH (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
4.
BroughtonAGlosterRMarvellR, et al. (2018) The Experiences of Individuals in the Gig Economy. London: Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
5.
CohenS (1987) A labour process to nowhere?New Left ReviewI/165: 34–50.
6.
D’ArtDTurnerT (2002) The decline of worker solidarity and the end of collectivism?Economic and Industrial Democracy23(1): 7–34.
De StefanoV (2016) Introduction: crowdsourcing, the gig-economy and the law. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal37(3): 461–470.
9.
DixonMRoscignoVJHodsonR (2004) Unions, solidarity, and striking. Social Forces83(1): 3–33.
10.
FantasiaR (1988) Cultures of Solidarity: Consciousness, Action, and Contemporary American Workers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
11.
GandiniA (2019) Labour process theory and the gig economy. Human Relations72: 1039–1056.
12.
HarrisonJMacGibbonLMortonM (2001) Regimes of trustworthiness in qualitative research: the rigors of reciprocity. Qualitative Inquiry7(3): 323–345.
13.
HodsonR (1997) Group relations at work: solidarity, conflict, and relations with management. Work and Occupations24(4): 426–452.
14.
HodsonRWelshSRiebleS, et al. (1993) Is worker solidarity undermined by autonomy and participation? Patterns from the ethnographic literature. American Sociological Review58(3): 398–416.
15.
HuwsUSpencerNSyrdalD, et al. (2017) Work in the European Gig Economy. Brussels: Foundation for European Progressive Studies.
16.
HymanR (1999) Imagined solidarities: can trade unions resist globalization? In: LeisinkP (ed.) Globalization and Labour Relations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 94–115.
17.
KolersAH (2012) Dynamics of solidarity. Journal of Political Philosophy20(4): 365–383.
18.
LeeHStaplesR (2018) Digital solidarity among workers. Industrielle Beziehungen25(4): 495–517.
19.
LehdonvirtaV (2016) Algorithms that divide and unite: delocalization, identity, and collective action in ‘microwork’. In: FleckerJ (ed.) Space, Place and Global Digital Work. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 53–80.
20.
Martinez LucioMStewartP (1997) The paradox of contemporary labour process theory: the rediscovery of labour and the disappearance of collectivism. Capital & Class21(2): 49–77.
21.
MilanS (2014) The ethics of social movement research. In: Della PortaD (ed.) Methodological Practices in Social Movement Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 446–464.
22.
MoorePVUpchurchMWhittakerX (2017) Humans and Machines at Work. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
23.
MulhollandK (2004) Workplace resistance in an Irish call centre: slammin’, scammin’ smokin’ an’ leavin’. Work, Employment and Society18(4): 709–724.
O’SullivanMTurnerT (2013) Facilitators and inhibitors of collective action: a case study of a US-owned manufacturing plant. British Journal of Industrial Relations51(4): 689–708.
26.
PollettaF (1999) ‘Free spaces’ in collective action. Theory and Society28(1): 1–38.
TassinariAMaccarroneV (2017b) The mobilisation of gig economy couriers in Italy: some lessons for the trade union movement. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research25(3): 353–357.
37.
TassinariAMaccarroneV (2018) Le mobilitazioni dei fattorini della gig economy in Italia: forme organizzative e implicazioni per la rappresentanza. Quaderni di Rassegna Sindacale: Lavori2, 75–90.
38.
ThompsonPvan den BroekD (2010) Managerial control and workplace regimes: an introduction. Work, Employment and Society24(3): 1–12.
39.
TouraineAWieviorkaMDubetF (1987) The Workers’ Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
VallasSP (1987) The labor process as a source of class consciousness: a critical examination. Sociological Forum2(2): 237–256.
41.
Van DoornN (2017) Platform labor: on the gendered and racialized exploitation of low-income service work in the ‘on-demand’ economy. Information, Communication & Society20(6): 898–914.
42.
VeenABarrattTGoodsC (2019) Platform-capital’s ‘app-etite’ for control: a labour process analysis of food-delivery work in Australia. Work, Employment and Society. Epub ahead of print 25 March. DOI: 10.1177/0950017019836911.
WildeR (2007) The concept of solidarity: emerging from the theoretical shadows?The British Journal of Politics and International Relations9(1): 171–181.
45.
WoodAJLehdonvirtaVGrahamM (2018) Workers of the Internet unite? Online freelancer organisation among remote gig economy workers in six Asian and African countries. New Technology, Work and Employment33(2): 95–112.
YinRK (2013) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE. Beverly Hills, CA.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
