Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

German

French

Drawing on a qualitative study conducted in the Netherlands, this article examines how solidarity is shaped in the hospitality sector, in which solo self-employed platform workers and employees work side by side. Our findings show that divergent identities and interests, reinforced by legal frameworks, may undermine solidarity both among self-employed platform workers and between them and regular employees, while also weakening trade union efforts to construct a shared identity along the traditional labour-capital divide. Competition further fragments platform workers and sharpens boundaries with employed staff in their daily interactions. This creates a central challenge for union strategies. Although unions in the Netherlands and elsewhere have successfully pursued lawsuits to have self-employed platform workers reclassified as employees, our study suggests that their organising strategies will fail to engage those who deliberately choose self-employment, without parallel legal reforms.

Keywords

Platform work solidarity boundary construction hospitality solo self-employment

Introduction

The platform economy is expanding rapidly, reshaping labour markets worldwide. In the European Union, over 28 million people worked through digital platforms as early as in 2018, a figure projected to exceed 43 million by 2025 (PPMI, 2021). By 2021, 4.3 per cent of EU workers were already engaged in platform work (Piasna et al., 2022). Trade unions have responded unevenly to this transformation. In countries such as Norway and the United Kingdom, they have successfully mobilised platform workers (Cini et al., 2021; López et al., 2024), while in the Nordic states and Austria, unions have negotiated collective agreements that extend protections to platform workers regardless of their employment status (Sieker, 2022). Elsewhere, such as in the Netherlands,¹ unions have managed to have some self-employed workers reclassified as employees, thereby extending existing collective labour agreements to this group (Kocher, 2022; Lamannis, 2023).

Despite these advances, organising platform workers remains a profound challenge (Bertolini and Dukes, 2021; López et al., 2024; Polkowska, 2020). A key obstacle lies in the weak solidarity among self-employed platform workers. This weakness is rooted in fragmented labour markets that erode collective bonds (Morgan and Pulignano, 2020), the entrepreneurial and competitive ethos fostered by neoliberal governance (Vallas and Christin, 2018), and the dispersed, individualised nature of platform work (Heiland, 2021).

Most empirical research to date has examined solidarity among crowdworkers, such as online micro-taskers on Amazon Mechanical Turk; or self-employed on-site workers in food delivery and ride-hailing. This study shifts the focus to a different group: solo self-employed platform workers in the hospitality sector, including waiters, hosts, catering assistants and cooks. These workers secure shifts via platforms such as Qwick, SnapChef, Brigade and Temper, operating in restaurants and hotels across the United States and Europe, including the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands (Liu-Lastres et al., 2023).

This group is particularly relevant to the study of union challenges for two main reasons. First, unlike typical crowdworkers, they collaborate in person and perform their tasks collectively, on site. Second, unlike crowdworkers and platform workers in food delivery and ride-hailing, they operate in person alongside unionised employees who are covered by collective agreements. While both conditions could, in principle, strengthen solidarity through direct interaction and shared interests, the second condition also indicates that workers may intentionally choose self-employment, thereby opting out of solidarity-based collective agreements. Evidence of this can be seen in the recent refusal of platform workers to join a union-initiated collective lawsuit aimed at extending employee protections to platform workers in the Dutch hospitality sector (Bij de Vaate and Özkul, 2024). This example underscores both their reluctance to accept union representation and the fragility of solidarity within this group.

To investigate how these distinguishing features of hospitality platform work shape solidarity, we conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with Temper workers in the Netherlands. Eight participants also kept oral diaries. Additionally, we interviewed eight hospitality managers. Building on the concept of solidarity as a collective identity grounded in shared interests (Tassinari and Maccarrone, 2020) and shaped through social interactions (Kneuer et al., 2022; Stamm et al., 2024), our analysis investigates the extent to which solo self-employed platform workers in our sample share common interests and identities, and how they position themselves both in relation to one another and to employed staff.

Our findings show that divergent identities and interests between self-employed platform workers and employees and among self-employed platform workers, reinforced by legal frameworks, may significantly impede solidarity. In addition, competition not only divides platform workers themselves but also deepens boundaries between them and employed staff in their daily interactions. This undermines union framings of solidarity along the capital-labour divide. While unions may experiment with alternative strategies, our results suggest that, depending on the specific national legal context, meaningful progress will remain limited without parallel legal reforms.

Our article is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature on solidarity in fragmented labour markets and introduces the concept of boundary construction as our explanatory framework. Section 3 outlines the research context and methodology. Section 4 presents our findings, and Section 5 discusses the findings and concludes.

The erosion of workers’ solidarity in the platform economy

Solidarity in workplace relations is often conceptualised as a collective commitment or a ‘communal sense of obligation’ among workers to support one another (Heckscher and McCarthy, 2014: 629). It is ‘a condition where workers develop collective feelings of reciprocity and responsibility towards one another on the basis of an awareness of their ultimately shared interests and purpose – and are prepared to act upon such feelings through solidaristic actions’ (Tassinari and Maccarrone, 2020: 39). This interpretation highlights mutual obligations and cooperative actions aimed at achieving shared goals. These collective feelings of reciprocity and responsibility are usually constructed through societal and political interactions and communication (Kneuer et al., 2022).

This construction of solidarity often begins with fostering a sense of ‘we-ness’, a shared collective identity (Baum, 1974: 40), which allows individuals, such as workers, to perceive their group as distinct from others, forming a critical foundation for mobilisation (Kelly, 1998). However, the mere existence of a shared identity is insufficient to foster meaningful solidarity. This identity must also align with shared interests, such as securing better wages or opposing unsafe working conditions. Historically, trade unions have played a pivotal role in emphasising workers’ collective interests. By framing solidarity around the capital-labour divide, unions have successfully built collective identities for the purpose of resisting exploitation and advocating for systemic change. From a discursive perspective, these common interests among workers are shaped not only by objective conditions, such as economic exploitation, but also by subjective perceptions constructed through shared narratives and discourse (Gumbrell-McCormick and Hyman, 2015; Kneuer et al., 2022). As such, solidarity discourses have been vital in shaping workers’ realities, influencing both their collective identity and their understanding of shared goals.

The literature identifies multiple, interrelated factors that have weakened workers’ solidarity and complicated trade union efforts to construct inclusive narratives in today’s increasingly diverse workforce. First of all, at the structural level, labour market fragmentation – driven by subcontracting, outsourcing and gig work – has eroded common interests and shared identities (Doellgast et al., 2018; Lorey, 2015; Mezihorák et al., 2025; Morgan and Pulignano, 2020). This problem is particularly pronounced in the hospitality sector (Baum, 2019; Papadopoulos et al., 2021). In addition, the growing diversity of workers, especially in precarious jobs, has made it more difficult to forge collective bonds among heterogeneous identities (Bertolini and Dukes, 2021; Carver and Doellgast, 2021; Morgan and Pulignano, 2020). These difficulties are amplified in platform work, where a substantial proportion of the workforce consists of migrant workers, who are particularly vulnerable to social isolation (Piasna et al., 2021; Van Doorn et al., 2023).

The very nature of platform work further undermines solidarity. Recent research has revealed that high turnover, perceptions of temporariness and the transient character of tasks discourage the formation of lasting solidaristic ties and, as a result, hinder unionisation efforts (Mendonça and Kougiannou, 2023; Polkowska, 2020; Tassinari and Maccarrone, 2020). This effect is particularly pronounced among part-time self-employed platform workers who have alternative financial resources, such as a secure main job, family support or savings. Research indicates that these workers are more likely to perceive themselves as independent entrepreneurs and are consequently less inclined to support collective union action than solo self-employed platform workers who rely primarily on platform income (Lee, 2023; Schor et al., 2024).

In addition, scholars argue that neoliberal discourses valorising autonomy, flexibility and competition over collective action, which are actively promoted by platform companies and internalised by workers, further undermine solidarity (Jin and Liu-Lastres, 2025; Murgia et al., 2020; Vallas and Christin, 2018; Wood et al., 2019). For instance, platform workers frame their labour as a ‘labour of fun and autonomy’ (Gregory, 2021: 318) or even perceive themselves as ‘winners in the power relationship’ with platforms or clients (Galière, 2020: 367). By adopting this entrepreneurial self-conception, workers may become less receptive to union strategies, which rely on shared vulnerabilities and collective economic dependence. This dynamic is reinforced by the dispersed and individualised organisation of platform work, where algorithmic management intensifies competition and discourages cooperation (Heiland, 2021).

The literature identifies several interrelated key factors that undermine worker solidarity: the lack of shared identity and interests in fragmented labour markets; internal competition reinforced by neoliberal discourses and platform companies; and the dispersed, individualised nature of platform work. However, this literature has focused primarily on crowdworkers or those in food delivery and ride-hailing. It has largely overlooked the contextual factors that shape solidarity among platform workers in the hospitality industry, whose workers are less dispersed or isolated and operate alongside both peers and regular employees. While these factors could, in theory, foster solidarity through direct interaction and shared interests, workers may also deliberately choose self-employment, thereby opting out of solidarity-based collective agreements. To date, the implications of these contextual factors for solidarity among hospitality platform workers remain underexplored. This study addresses this gap by examining how these factors, alongside the structural characteristics of fragmented labour markets, influence the construction of solidarity in this sector.

The concept of boundary construction offers a useful lens for understanding solidarity in fragmented labour markets. As Stamm et al. (2024) argue, boundary constructions define the parameters of solidarity groups by determining who is included, what resources members are expected to contribute, and to what extent. These constructions function as powerful narratives that shape workers’ perceptions of solidarity and operate across different levels (Kneuer et al., 2022): at the macro level, through neoliberal discourses that portray workers as independent and competitive; at the meso level, through narratives promoted by platform companies (emphasising flexibility and freedom) and by trade unions (framing all workers, regardless of their employment status, as economically dependent); and at the micro level, through the ways in which individual platform workers position themselves in relation to others. Boundary constructions at the micro level are also shaped by discursive statements at both the meso and macro levels. These interconnected statements across levels help to explain the stability or instability of understandings of solidarity and their eventual manifestation in specific actions. For instance, at the macro level, neoliberal individualising discourses have provided justification for the erosion of collective social protection systems. These discourses have furthermore undermined collective identity by emphasising autonomy and competition over cooperation among workers (Vallas and Christin, 2018). In addition, at the meso level, platform rhetoric, such as the statement put out by platform company Temper ‘You decide when and where you work’, may encourage workers to adopt an entrepreneurial self-perception, seeing their interests as entirely distinct from those of employees. Conversely, trade union narratives that frame all workers, regardless of their status as employees or self-employed, as ‘economically dependent’ may lead self-employed platform workers to identify with employees, fostering a sense of solidarity across different groups of workers (Stamm et al., 2024). This study focuses particularly on the boundaries constructed at the micro level, where everyday interactions and self-understandings directly shape solidaristic bonds.

Context and methods

The data for this research comprise semi-structured interviews with 30 solo self-employed workers in the hospitality sector, along with oral diaries maintained by eight of these workers who participated in follow-up interviews. Additionally, we conducted a focus group with three of our respondents after we had read all the interviews and oral diaries. Finally, eight semi-structured interviews were conducted with managers in the hospitality sector.

The platform workers interviewed in our study were all recruited through Temper, a platform that has undergone significant growth since its launch in 2016. According to its website, Temper now serves more than 10,000 companies and facilitates over 3000 shifts daily, primarily in the hospitality sector (Temper, 2024). Temper markets its services to business owners by emphasising benefits such as flexible start and end times, the ability to cancel shifts up to 24 hours in advance, and an average response time of less than 1.5 hours for new applications (Temper, 2024). Workers using Temper are classified as self-employed and establish direct contractual relationships with the companies (for example, hotels and restaurants) that post temporary job opportunities on the platform, often for single-day assignments. Registered workers can apply for these gigs through Temper. Hotels and restaurants often maintain ‘flexpools’ of Temper workers with whom they have had positive experiences. Workers in these pools are prioritised for shifts if they respond promptly via the Temper platform. Companies can rate Temper workers, and these ratings are visible on the platform.

The interviews were carried out between September 2023 and August 2024. We recruited participants by distributing flyers in bars, restaurants and hotels in the Amsterdam area, as well as advertising through mailing lists of the Stichting Vrij Platform Werk. We also employed a snowball sampling method, allowing initial participants to refer additional candidates.

Most of the solo self-employed workers interviewed were engaged through the platform Temper. Their roles varied widely, including positions such as bartender, kitchen chef, waitress, host, receptionist, barista, breakfast runner, catering staff and cleaning personnel. A minority had previously worked through Temper but were, at the time of the interviews, directly hired by their employers as self-employed workers. Almost all participants were based in the Randstad region of the Netherlands. To focus on those reliant primarily on solo self-employment for their income, we excluded students from the sample. Ultimately, 18 participants were entirely dependent on this income, eight were partially dependent, and four considered it a significant supplementary income. In most cases, participants worked a minimum of 12 hours per week in the hospitality sector.

Our sample achieved a balanced gender distribution, comprising 50 per cent male and 50 per cent female participants. In terms of age, we ensured an even representation between 21 and 65 years. Over half of the participants were from the Netherlands, while the remainder were migrant workers: over a quarter from non-EU countries and less than a quarter from EU countries. Hence, although the sample is not representative of all Temper workers, the diversity among respondents in terms of gender, migration background and age suggests that a variety of perspectives were included.

All interviews were conducted in person at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and lasted approximately two hours, for which each participant received a gift voucher. Our interview guide covered five key themes: (i) motivations for working via platforms, (ii) instructions on the shop floor, (iii) collaboration with colleagues, (iv) labour conditions, and (v) work-life balance. The results from the interviews were discussed in a focus group consisting of three respondents.

This study also draws on the results from oral diaries which were kept by eight participants over six to twelve weeks. These diaries addressed topics aligned with the themes discussed in the semi-structured interviews. Furthermore, we conducted interviews with eight managers in the hospitality sector in the Amsterdam area, lasting between 15 minutes and one hour. The oral diaries and the interviews with managers helped us to contextualise the interviews with the Temper workers.

All qualitative data were transcribed and coded using Atlas TI. We employed both deductive and inductive coding methods. Deductive codes were derived from the five core themes and thorough readings of all interviews. To enhance inter-rater reliability, we initially deductively coded two full interview transcripts, comparing and discussing our codes to clarify any discrepancies with regard to their application to specific segments of the text. Drawing on the method of qualitative data developed by Ritchie et al. (2003) we constructed several themes based on these deductive and inductive codes. For example, the code ‘Self-representation self-employed’ and the code ‘Dependence-availability’ were subsumed under the theme ‘Competition among Temper workers’. And the codes ‘Relation with employees’, ‘Relation with Temper workers’ and ‘Discrimination’ were subsumed under the theme ‘Competition between Temper workers and employees’. This coding process facilitated the construction of several themes relevant to our research question. We additionally constructed five typologies of Temper workers (Ritchie et al., 2003: 244–248). The typologies were constructed on the basis of a close reading of all 30 interviews and research memos. After constructing the typologies the two researchers separately decided which respondent belonged to which type by re-reading the quotations under the codes ‘Anxiety’, ‘Dependence-availability’, ‘Motivation freelance-no alternative’, ‘Excitement’, ‘Experience freedom freelance’, ‘Social security’ and ‘Self-representation self-employed’. While agreeing on 23 respondents, the seven respondents remaining were, after discussion, allocated to the typology chosen by one of the researchers. In addition, based on this discussion, the description of the typology was amended where necessary.

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the ethics committee of the Law Faculty prior to starting the research.

Findings

The literature review highlights the absence of a shared identity and aligned interests within a fragmented labour market, and internal competition among workers as interrelated factors shaping worker solidarity in the platform economy. To address the first factor, we examine first the motives that lead Temper workers to choose platform-based hospitality work over traditional employment. To address the second, we draw on the concept of boundary construction (Stamm et al., 2024). While briefly considering meso-level narratives articulated by both the trade union and the platform company Temper, our main focus lies at the micro level. We thus subsequently analyse how Temper workers position themselves in relation to other platform workers and in relation to employees directly employed by the restaurants and hotels where they work.

Divergent interests and identities

The trade unions FNV and CNV intended the collective lawsuit they initiated against the Temper platform to develop an inclusive collective workers’ identity to protect all market-dependent workers from exploitation and vulnerability. In their suit, the unions highlighted the negative consequences of excluding a growing number of workers from collective social security schemes and agreements regulating unemployment benefits, disability benefits and second-pillar pensions. They warned that this trend could increase the proportion of bogus self-employed workers with inadequate protection against social risks, ultimately undermining the sustainability of the entire social security system and affecting all workers. Moreover, this trend would leave a growing number of dependent workers without essential labour protections, such as dismissal safeguards, making them vulnerable to exploitation by powerful employers and creating unfair competition. Despite this solidarity narrative formulated by the trade unions, however, a significant number of Temper workers did not want to be represented by the unions (Bij de Vaate and Özkul 2024).²

Also, the majority of our respondents did not support the collective action initiated by the trade unions. They believed it was not in their best interests. Generally, they valued the flexibility and freedom offered by Temper, along with the high net income resulting from not having to pay social security contributions and wage taxes. Instead of viewing themselves as market-dependent workers comparable to employees, most respondents presented themselves in the interviews as independent, risk-taking entrepreneurs.

However, the respondents did not appear to share a common entrepreneurial identity, and also their interests diverged considerably. While some deliberately chose self-employment via platforms, emphasising the freedom and autonomy it afforded, others underscored the stress associated with securing sufficient shifts. Moreover, a subset of respondents seemed to have limited alternatives beyond working as self-employed platform workers in the hospitality sector. These heterogeneous identities and interests clearly hindered the development of a feeling of we-ness and thereby limited the construction of solidarity.

To better understand the respondents’ divergent interests, we constructed five distinct types of entrepreneurship. Two main dimensions informed these typologies: whether respondents were intrinsically or extrinsically motivated to work as entrepreneurs, and their perception of entrepreneurial risks.

Those who were intrinsically motivated included respondents who embraced the challenges and risks of entrepreneurship, appreciating the freedom and excitement it provided (Type I, Championing entrepreneurship), as well as those who were more apprehensive about the risks and uncertainties involved (Type II, Ambiguous entrepreneurship). These respondents clearly prioritised running their own business over collective bargaining and trade union involvement.

Extrinsically motivated respondents (Types III, IV, and V) generally rejected trade union involvement, primarily because they valued certain (legal) advantages associated with being self-employed compared with being an employee. For most, working as a solo self-employed worker was not a matter of choice, but a necessity. These respondents included mainly EU workers starting businesses in other sectors, often in areas such as the arts. They worked as self-employed in the hospitality sector, while their (arts) business was not yet profitable and the hospitality sector was one of the only sectors they could work in without being proficient in the Dutch language. They typically chose entrepreneurship as a means to meet the requirements under Dutch tax regulations (Type III Strategic entrepreneurship).³ Another type of externally motivated entrepreneur were third-country nationals with student visas, who according to Dutch immigration laws are allowed to work up to a maximum of 16 hours per week as employees. In our sample, these individuals were not actively pursuing education but instead working full-time. To earn enough to support themselves and, in many cases, send money to family and friends in their home countries, these workers had little choice but to work as entrepreneurs (Type IV Forced entrepreneurship). Lastly, we identified a group of externally motivated respondents who were driven primarily by the relatively high earnings they can achieve as entrepreneurs in the hospitality sector, largely because of low or non-existent tax obligations and the absence of mandatory contributions to social security schemes. At the same time, some respondents belonging to this group argued for being covered by collective social security, in line with the trade unions’ narrative (Type V Reluctant entrepreneurship). All three types of extrinsically motivated respondents had in common that they perceived solo self-employed work as temporary. While Type III entrepreneurs hoped to be able to rely entirely on their (art) business in the future, most Type IV respondents envisioned going back to their country of origin soon. As respondent 7 said: ‘I’m here to make money and go home’. Some Type IV workers hoped to work as an employee, once they could find a better job or once their financial problems were solved. In sum, while nearly all respondents positioned themselves as entrepreneurs, their identities and interests remained highly heterogeneous.

The data further suggest, contrary to previous findings (Lee, 2023; Schor et al., 2024), that financial dependency on platform work was not a decisive factor shaping respondents’ support for or rejection of solidarity. While Type I entrepreneurs expressed the strongest identification with autonomy and flexibility, and the weakest identification with employees and unions, a relatively large share of them were nonetheless fully financially dependent on platform work. More broadly, most respondents were entirely reliant on platform work for their income (see Table 1). But with the exception of some Type V entrepreneurs, none expressed interest in solidarity-based social security provisions. Instead, perceiving themselves as free and flexible entrepreneurs, respondents emphasised individual responsibility for securing pensions and income protection in case of illness, regardless of their degree of financial dependency on platform work.

Table 1.

Construction of entrepreneurship and financial dependency.

Type	Name	Entirely dependent	Partially dependent	Significant supplementary income	Total
I	Championing entrepreneurship	7	3	1	11
II	Ambiguous entrepreneurship	2	–	2	4
III	Strategic entrepreneurship	2	2	–	4
IV	Forced entrepreneurship	4	1	–	5
V	Reluctant entrepreneurship	3	3	–	6
Total		18	9	3	30

Boundary constructions among Temper workers

Temper’s main slogan for workers, as displayed on its website, is:

Work to live. Create a life you enjoy. Experience flexibility, security, and lots of opportunities to grow. Welcome to your shift platform.

This slogan embodies neoliberal ideals, portraying individuals as autonomous agents in pursuit of self-realisation, while eroding the traditional boundaries between work and life. As Rose already observed in 1999, ‘at the “positive pole” [. . .] lie the dreams of integration of life and work made possible by new technologies. [However,] at the “negative pole,” which is undoubtedly more significant, the working relationship has become saturated with insecurity’ (p. 158). Although written over 25 years ago, our findings indicate that Rose’s insights had predictive value in the platform economy. They reveal, first of all, that the Temper platform simultaneously inspires and unsettles its workers. On the one hand, it appeals to those dreaming of financial success, autonomy and the chance to build a brighter future. On the other hand, it fosters a constant state of anxiety, particularly for workers categorised as Types II, III, IV, and V. That is partly because the Temper system allows an unlimited number of workers to register, which intensifies competition in an already scarce market. Feelings of insecurity are amplified during the winter months, a ‘dead zone’ when competition for shifts peaks. During this period, only a limited number of shifts are available, often paying just slightly above minimum wage. Workers are frequently forced to invest considerable time applying for numerous shifts to increase their odds of securing work. The remaining opportunities are typically limited to low-skilled, repetitive tasks.

For many workers in the hospitality sector with the prospect of high earnings due to the tax deductions and exemptions from payment of social security contributions, it is essential to work as self-employed to make ends meet. It is thus profoundly troubling if shifts are hard to come by. Competition in a scarce market forces workers into a state of imposed flexibility, leaving them unable to make concrete plans for their own lives. Respondent 15 (focus group) reflected on this dilemma:

Sometimes I’m a bit scared – will they take me or not? Even if I have good notes [ratings], still, you may end up with nothing. Or after some time, you go to the very low wages just to get anything at all. Sometimes you only get a confirmed shift a day or two before, and then it’s hard to plan your own life. What is your freedom if you cannot plan? I have people around me that I like to see. Perhaps I have other things to do. Sometimes you have to be very, very flexible for Temper.

To navigate this insecurity, workers employ various strategies, such as proactively reaching out to hotels or restaurants via the platform or compulsively monitoring the app throughout the day for newly posted shifts. One respondent admitted, ‘Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night to check if my shift has been accepted’. (Respondent 25)

The findings furthermore suggest that the competitive dynamics embedded within the Temper system negatively impact solidarity among Temper workers in several significant ways. First, the oversupply of labour fosters an environment in which workers feel compelled to exaggerate their qualifications to secure shifts. Respondent 14 exemplifies this:

Of course, I couldn’t say that I only have two months of experience in the bar. No. It was a breakfast shift, so I assumed that I knew how to do it. It was my first time working a breakfast shift. The placement of things like the table and stuff was new, but it was the survival that just you don’t think about what the consequences are or if you can really do it or not. You have to fake it. This is something I learned from the Temper community. It is that you have to really fake that you know, or that you are just good. This is because that’s how you get paid better, that’s how you get the places to find better places and more shifts. You really have to fake it. Yes. A lot.

Such practices created friction among other Temper workers, particularly when less competent Tempers are better paid. Tensions also arise when Temper workers fail to meet workplace expectations (especially after having faked their CV) or disregard instructions. Such behaviour not only frustrated their peers but would also give Temper workers ‘a bad name and reputation’, according to some respondents, potentially diminishing all Temper workers’ chances of being hired in the future.

Second, the importance of maintaining outstanding ratings (ranging from 0 to 5 stars) exacerbates rivalries between workers, as access to shifts and income often hinges on these scores. Many respondents expressed frustration over perceived unfairness in the rating system. For instance, one worker lamented,

I found out he got a five-star rating even though he was shouted at and screamed at four times, while I did everything I was supposed to do. (Respondent 9)

Another respondent even admitted advising a hotel manager to rate a colleague no higher than three stars, as the colleague had misrepresented his experience as a cook.

Third, competition for shifts generates tensions along lines of age, nationality and race. Older workers reported feeling disadvantaged compared with younger, more attractive candidates, particularly for hosting roles. They also voiced concerns about their ability to continue handling the physically demanding and stressful shifts the platform requires. Additionally, national and racial dynamics play a role in fuelling tensions. Some participants expressed frustration over what they perceived as unfair practices among migrant workers, particularly those on student visas. These workers, especially Bangladeshi, were accused of sharing shifts within their own social circles, further limiting opportunities for others.

As one respondent argued:

I’m not a racist. But people from Bangladesh coming here, that really keeps me worried. They are allowed to do everything they want to do here. They are allowed to react to 30 shifts. If they get shifts, they share them in their own WhatsApp groups with 50 people. I’m not interested in a shift of 12 euros an hour, but Bangladeshis take it because for them it’s a lot of money. They only have to work here for one year, and they go home as millionaires. (Respondent 22)

This quotation also highlights that, despite the inherently competitive nature of the Temper system, some workers have developed a sense of ‘we-ness’ with their peers, often along national and racial lines. For instance, several participants referred to a ‘Temper scene’, signalling the emergence of social groups among Temper workers who would spend time together. Paradoxically, this bonding process appeared to be facilitated partly by the system itself. For example, when workers cancel a shift within 24 hours of its start, they face a €100 fine. However, they are allowed to find a replacement, prompting workers to form app-based groups, frequently organised along national or racial lines, to share shifts they are unable to fulfil. Additionally, some respondents noted that during the winter, they would inform one another when new shifts were posted on the Temper platform, fostering a sense of mutual support in an otherwise competitive environment. Nevertheless, at the same time this bonding along national lines fostered by the competitive dynamics inherent in the Temper system significantly undermined solidarity among Temper workers.

Boundary construction between Temper workers and employees

As already mentioned, nearly all respondents identified themselves as entrepreneurs during the interviews, drawing a clear distinction between themselves and employees. This distinction often undermined potential solidarity between Temper workers and traditional employees. Type I entrepreneurs (championing entrepreneurship), in particular, emphasised this divide by portraying themselves as fundamentally different kinds of workers. They described themselves as ‘being their own boss’, ‘risk-takers’ and ‘equal contractual partners negotiating a tariff with a hotel or restaurant’. In contrast, they frequently characterised employees as ‘wage slaves’, bound to rigid schedules and lacking the flexibility to manage their time differently.

Respondents also perceived employees as reluctant to embrace new challenges or as feeling trapped in monotonous jobs and routines. While such self-presentation appears to contradict the hardships many respondents face during the winter season, when shifts are scarce, it was central to how they constructed their identity as entrepreneurs and served to reinforce a boundary between themselves and employees.

This boundary was reinforced by the ways in which some respondents emphasised the difference in levels of education and the associated level of thinking between them and the employed staff.

Another significant factor undermining solidarity between Temper workers and employees is the transient nature of the platform workers’ contracts. Respondents noted that employees often expressed frustration at having to repeatedly explain tasks to Temper workers who were only present for a single day. Conversely, many Temper workers felt undervalued, having to perform the tasks that the permanent employed staff does not want to carry out. They also felt that employees looked down on them simply because of their status as temporary staff.

As Respondent 10 remarked:

To some people, as a Temper, you’re worth nothing.

Furthermore, the interviews and oral diaries reveal that the short-term contracts make it challenging for Temper workers to establish meaningful relationships with employees as colleagues. Only a small number of Temper workers who have been stationed at a particular (often smaller) location for an extended period experience some degree of integration, referring to the workplace and the colleagues as a kind of ‘family’ (Respondent 5), the majority often remain ‘outsiders’ in the workplace and do not feel included in the regular employee group. In this respect the interview data indicate that employees also construct boundaries between them and the Temper workers. As Respondent 14 said:

There’s always this gap between Tempers and employees. The employees are not happy with Tempers for many reasons. They couldn’t complain about Tempers because we’re new and we don’t know how to do things. Then employees have to keep teaching us or they have to just do the work. This is one and also Tempers can leave. Also when the work is not done, they don’t care, they’re like, ‘Bye-bye’.

Respondents emphasised furthermore that Temper workers are frequently portrayed in a negative light. According to Respondent 28, Tempers are:

often associated with laziness and negligence. They come across as a bit negligent, lazier, they don’t care so much about how and what. That’s what I often hear in the workplace. Tempers do often have that reputation.

On the other hand, many respondents reported experiencing jealousy from permanent staff because of their significantly higher hourly wages. They believe this jealousy often results in Temper workers being assigned less meaningful or even demeaning tasks, further reinforcing their sense of exclusion.

Respondent 11 shared the following in this regard:

There’s always a bit of contempt, and they think: ‘You’re earning more, so you should do more as well.’ You notice that staff tend to drop tasks for you to handle, because you’re the freelancer, and you’re earning more.

As self-employed, our respondents also felt that they constantly had to prove themselves, while employees get their salary regardless of the quality of their work. According to Respondent 30:

I would go there and work more because the staff and the employees don’t do anything. They just sit around and at the end of the day, they know they’re going to get paid. However, for us as a freelancer, we have to work because that’s why we’re there.

The boundaries constructed between Temper workers and employees in daily workplace interactions were further reinforced by managerial practices that consistently prioritised permanent staff. Temper workers were also often excluded from shared benefits, such as tips, thereby intensifying workplace friction. Feelings of solidarity furthermore could be curtailed by structural distinctions: unlike employees, Temper workers were denied permanent access passes, barred from performing certain tasks (for example, cashier duties, administrative work or operating walkie-talkies), and sometimes required to pay for their own meals, which regular staff received free of charge. One manager even noted that Temper workers received smaller Christmas gift packages than employees, even though some had worked at the hotel for extended periods. By institutionalising inequality in everyday interactions, managers thus not only uphold divisions but also fundamentally undermine the potential for solidarity across employment categories.

Discussion and conclusion

Unlike most previous studies on solidarity among self-employed platform workers, this study focused on workers in the hospitality sector, in which platform workers perform similar tasks alongside employees. Our aim was to understand how the specific characteristics of this under-researched form of platform work affect solidarity.

Our findings confirm earlier research that solidarity is weakened by divergent identities and interests in segmented labour markets. Respondents’ self-conceptions as entrepreneurs distinguished them from employees in traditional employment relations, thereby undermining solidarity between platform workers and employees. Moreover, the strength and meaning of this identity varied among respondents, potentially also weakening bonds of solidarity among platform workers. In addition, as suggested in previous studies (Mendonça and Kougiannou, 2023; Polkowska, 2020; Tassinari and Maccarrone, 2020), perceptions of temporariness seem to have further inhibited workers’ solidarity. These perceptions were particularly common among respondents motivated by extrinsic factors, such as legal or administrative constraints, who tended to view platform work as a temporary solution, while aiming to start their own business, secure better paid employment or return to their country of origin.

This study also confirms earlier findings that platform companies foster competition through (neoliberal) narratives of freedom and flexibility and tools such as rating systems (Jin and Liu-Lastres, 2025; Murgia et al., 2020; Vallas and Christin, 2018; Wood et al., 2019). Although Temper workers are less dispersed and individualised than food-delivery or ride-hailing workers, platform mechanisms and narratives still appear to hinder boundary formation, thereby limiting the development of solidarity. At the same time, ethnic boundaries gave shape to alternative forms of solidarity. This shows that, while competition between groups erodes solidarity overall, it can also strengthen bonds within groups. As earlier studies suggest, such bonds may provide a basis for informal organisation or union-linked mobilisation (Eleveld and Van Hooren, 2018; Hau and Borello, 2024).

Our study also found that the specific context in which Temper workers operate – working as solo self-employed workers, alongside employed staff performing similar tasks – did not lead to stronger worker solidarity. On the contrary, this context appeared to constrain worker solidarity in several ways.

First, the very possibility of choosing between employment and self-employment appeared to have undermined the construction of solidarity bonds among workers. For example, while previous studies (Lee, 2023; Schor et al., 2024) identify financial dependency as a key driver of solidarity, in our study relatively many Temper workers who expressed the weakest identification with employees and unions (Type I) were nonetheless fully dependent on platform work. These workers explicitly celebrated entrepreneurship and had deliberately chosen a full-time occupation as a self-employed worker over working as an employee.

Second, the legal framework played a key role in the choice of self-employed platform work over working as an employee and thereby shaped worker solidarity in important ways. A significant share of respondents opted for self-employment in hospitality for extrinsic reasons. Some needed to comply with tax requirements while starting a business (Type III), others lacked alternatives due to migration regulations (Type IV) or sought the financial advantages in tax and labour law because they urgently needed income (Type V). For these workers, solidarity with employees and access to similar legal protections would in fact contradict their immediate interests.

Third, working alongside employees instead of increasing solidarity, intensified fragmentation. We found that micro-level boundary constructions between Temper workers and employees were stronger than the collective identity promoted by trade unions, which sought to unite all market-dependent workers against capital. Temper workers reinforced divisions by portraying themselves – aligned with the neoliberal ‘man of competition’ (Foucault, 2008) – as entrepreneurial ‘risk-takers’ in contrast to risk-averse ‘wage slaves’, while employees emphasised insider-outsider distinctions in their interactions with them. Additional exclusion from benefits such as tips, staff meals and access rights further deepened these divides.

In sum, our findings show that divergent identities and interests, reinforced by legal frameworks, significantly impede worker solidarity between self-employed platform workers and employees and among self-employed platform workers, and weaken union efforts to construct a shared identity along the traditional labour-capital divide. In addition, competition – shaped by these legal frameworks, the organisation of the platform Temper and internalised neoliberal narratives – not only fragments platform workers but also sharpens the boundaries between them and employed staff in their daily interactions. This creates a central tension for union strategies. Although unions in the Netherlands and elsewhere have successfully won lawsuits reclassifying self-employed platform workers as employees, our study suggests that their organising efforts are unlikely to resonate with those who deliberately choose self-employment, especially in contexts such as the Netherlands, where national legal frameworks strongly incentivise this choice. Related to this point, strained relations between self-employed workers and employees in the workplace may further hinder effective union organising across the hospitality sector as a whole.

Alternative approaches, such as organising along ethnic lines or developing hybrid forms of representation, may have potential. But as long as workers’ interests diverge so sharply, building solidarity across hospitality workers with diverse contractual arrangements (Baum, 2019; Liu-Lastres et al., 2023) and with or without unions (Cini et al., 2021) remains highly challenging. While legal reform appears essential to enable robust solidarity bonds, employer organisations can also play a constructive role. The Danish case of the platform Chabber illustrates this: in 2017, under pressure from the national employers’ association HORESTA, the company reclassified all freelancers as temporary agency employees, addressing concerns over tax compliance, working conditions and employer responsibility (Ilsøe and Larsen, 2023). This example demonstrates that employer intervention, alongside legal reform, can open up alternative pathways to strengthen solidarity in the hospitality sector.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We want to thank all respondents who collaborated in this research. We also thank the two reviewers.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research has been funded by NWO [grant number 406.XS.01.087].

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Baum

(1974) Beyond convergence: Toward theoretical relevance in quantitative modernization research. Sociological Inquiry 44(4): 226–240.

Baum

(2019) Hospitality employment 2033: A backcasting perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management 76: 49–52.

Bertolini

Dukes

(2021) Trade unions and platform workers in the UK: Worker representation in the shadow of the law. Industrial Law Journal 50(4): 662–688.

Bij de Vaate

Özkul

(2024) Collectieve handhaving door de vakbonden. Tijdschrift Recht en Arbeid 2024(5): 16–22.

Carver

Doellgast

(2021) Dualism or solidarity? Conditions for union success in regulating precarious work. European Journal of Industrial Relations 27(4): 367–385.

Cini

Maccarrone

Tassinari

(2021) With or without U(nions)? Understanding the diversity of gig workers’ organizing practices in Italy and the UK. European Journal of Industrial Relations 28(3): 341–362.

Doellgast

Lillie

Pulignano

(2018) Reconstructing Solidarity: Labour Unions, Precarious Work, and the Politics of Institutional Change in Europe. Oxford University Press.

Eleveld

Van Hooren

(2018) The governmentalization of the trade union and the potential of union based resistance. The case of undocumented migrant domestic workers in the Netherlands making rights claims. Social & Legal Studies 27(5): 596–615.

Foucault

(2008) The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978–1979. Translated by Burchell

Palgrave Macmillan.

10.

Galière

(2020) When food-delivery platform workers consent to algorithmic management: A Foucauldian perspective. New Technology, Work and Employment 35(3): 357–370.

11.

Gregory

(2021) ‘My life is more valuable than this’: Understanding risk among on-demand food couriers in Edinburgh. Work, Employment and Society 35(2): 316–331.

12.

Gumbrell-McCormick

Hyman

(2015) International trade union solidarity and the impact of the crisis. European Policy Analysis 1: 1–16.

13.

Hau and Borello (2024) Between coping and resistance: Migrant networks and alternative forms of collectivism. Economic and Industrial Democracy 45(4): 1067–1089.

14.

Heckscher

McCarthy

(2014) Transient solidarities: Commitment and collective action in post-industrial societies. British Journal of Industrial Relations 52(4): 627–657.

15.

Heiland

(2021) Controlling space, controlling labour? Contested space in food delivery gig work. New Technology, Work and Employment 36(1): 1–21.

16.

Ilsøe

Larsen

(2023) Why do labour platforms negotiate? Platform strategies in tax-based welfare states. Economic and Industrial Democracy 44(1): 6–24.

17.

Jin

Liu-Lastres

(2025) Critical reflection on the impact of the gig economy on the hospitality workforce. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 37(1): 18–35.

18.

Kelly

(1998) Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilization, Collectivism and Long Waves. Routledge.

19.

Kneuer

Corsten

Shammann

, et al. (2022) Claiming solidarity: A multilevel discursive reconstruction of solidarity. European Journal of Social Theory 25(3): 366–385.

20.

Kocher

(2022) Digital Work Platforms at the Interface of Labour Law: Regulating Market Organisers. Hart.

21.

Lamannis

(2023) Collective Bargaining in the Platform Economy: A Mapping Exercise of Existing Initiatives. ETUI Report 2023.02. ETUI.

22.

Lee

(2023) After a global platform leaves: Understanding the heterogeneity of gig workers through capital mobility. Critical Sociology 49(1): 23–37.

23.

Liu-Lastres

Han

Huang

(2023) A reflection on the great resignation in the hospitality and tourism industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 35(1): 235–249.

24.

López

Jesnes

Alyanak

(2024) Building labour power in the platform economy: A comparative analysis of worker struggles in German and Norwegian food and grocery delivery. New Technology, Work and Employment 40(2): 242–264.

25.

Lorey

(2015) State of Insecurity: Government of the Precarious. Verso.

26.

Mendonça

Kougiannou

(2023) Disconnecting labour: The impact of intraplatform algorithmic changes on the labour process and workers’ capacity to organise collectively. New Technology, Work and Employment 38(1): 1–20.

27.

Mezihorák

Borghi

Mondon-Navazo

(2025) When labour diversifies, its collective representation does too. In: Murgia

(ed.) Hybrid Labour. Measuring, Classifying and Representing Workers at the Boundaries of Employment and Self-employment. Routledge, pp.56–67.

28.

Morgan

Pulignano

(2020) Solidarity at work: Concepts, levels and challenges. Work, Employment and Society 34(1): 18–34.

29.

Murgia

Bozzon

Digennaro

, et al. (2020) Employment and self-employment: Emerging challenges and future research directions. Frontiers in Sociology 4: 86–97.

30.

Papadopoulos

Lopez-Andreu

Jamalian

(2021) Violation and lack of awareness of employment rights in the United Kingdom’s hotel industry: Isolation, fragmentation and barriers to labour enforcement. Industrial Relations Journal 52: 315–330.

31.

Piasna

Zwysen

Drahokoupil

(2021) Flexibility unbound: Understanding the heterogeneity of preferences among food delivery platform workers. Socio-economic Review 19(4): 1397–1419.

32.

Piasna

Zwysen

Drahokoupil

(2022) The Platform Economy in Europe. Results from the Second ETUI Internet and Platform Work Survey. ETUI Working Paper 2022.05. ETUI.

33.

PPMI (2021) Study to support the impact assessment of an EU initiative on improving working conditions in platform work. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8428&furtherPubs=yes (accessed 21 July 2023).

34.

Polkowska

(2020) Unionisation and mobilization within platform work: Towards precarisation – a case of Uber drivers in Poland. Industrial Relations Journal 51(1): 25–39.

35.

Ritchie

Spencer

O’Connor

(2003) Carrying out qualitative analysis. In: Ritchie

Lewis

(eds) Qualitative Research Practice. Sage, pp.219–262.

36.

Rose

(1999) Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge University Press.

37.

Schor

Cristopher

Vallas

(2024) Consent and contestation: How platform workers reckon with the risks of gig labor. Work, Employment and Society 38(5): 1423–1444.

38.

Sieker

(2022) Platform work and access to social protection across major European countries. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy 38(3): 193–207.

39.

Stamm

Schürmann

Scheidgen

(2024) Market dependence as a boundary construction for work solidarity with the solo self-employed. Work, Employment and Society 38(6): 1528–1548.

40.

Tassinari

Maccarrone

(2020) Riders on the storm: Workplace solidarity among gig economy couriers in Italy and the UK. Work Employment and Society 34(1): 35-54.

41.

Temper (2024) Temper: Empower people with opportunity. Available at: https://temper.works (accessed 31 October 2024).

42.

Vallas

Christin

(2018) Work and identity in an era of precarious employment: How workers respond to ‘personal branding’ discourse. Work and Occupations 45(1): 3–37.

43.

Van Doorn

Ferrari

Graham

(2023) Migration and migrant labour in the gig economy: An intervention. Work, Employment and Society 37(4): 1099–1111.

44.

Wood