Gig workers' union seek more protections, greater accountability from aggregators
The Telangana Gig and Platform Workers Union (TGPWU) called for more safeguards for workers, including a fixed minimum payment and greater accountability from aggregators and platform companies, and sought inclusion of specific recommendations in the draft Bill for gig workers.
The State government had released the draft Telangana Gig and Platform Workers (Registration, Social Security, and Welfare) Bill, 2025.
The union raised concerns over the lack of transparency in algorithmic systems that determine key aspects such as ride allocations and fare structures for workers. 'While we are glad that the Bill has been ciruculated, we are particularly concerned about the algorithms used to determine rides, payouts, and other aspects of work. A vast majority of workers do not understand how these systems operate,' TGPWU office-bearer Shaik Salauddin said.
'An important aspect that we are seeking is more clarity and accountability on the part of aggregators. We also want the minimum remuneration to be included. This should take into account waiting time, fuel costs, which have escalated over a period of time, and distance,' he said.
The union also sought mandatory registration of all workers at the onboarding stage, and transparency in algorithmic systems.
The unions have called for removal of the expression 'primary employer', arguing that it creates ambiguity, blurs the difference between it and the aggregator.
Protecting women workers from sexual harassment is another significant issue that has been sought. The TGPWU recommended that the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act be integrated into the draft Bill. The Union stated that the draft Bill in its current form makes it unclear whether workers would be protected from sexual harassment.
Mr. Salauddin said that their suggestions have received backing from Hyderabad parliamentarian Asaduddin Owaisi, who is now a member of a parliamentary delegation that will travel abroad to present to the international community India's fight against terrorism.
In a letter addressed to the Labour Department, Mr. Owaisi endorsed the workers' recommendations, noting that the they would meaningfully contribute to strengthening the rights, welfare, and social security of gig and platform workers in the Telangana. Also recommended are mechanisms for dispute redressal, including provisions for appeals before a State-notified officer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
10 hours ago
- Indian Express
Roll back Ordinance on fee hike by private schools in Delhi, hold public consultations, say protesting parents
The Cabinet nod to Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Ordinance, 2025, without public consultation, was one of the key contentions raised as hundreds of parents gathered at Chhatrasal Stadium in North Delhi on Saturday morning to protest arbitrary fee hikes by private schools in the Capital. Alleging harassment of students by such schools, the parents claimed that they have been subjected to years of unapproved fee hikes. The demonstration, led by the group United Parents' Voice (UPV), was initially planned outside Chief Minister Rekha Gupta's Office at the Delhi Secretariat. However, it was relocated after the Delhi Police denied permission, citing security and traffic concerns. The protest follows the Delhi Cabinet's June 10 decision to approve an Ordinance based on the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Bill, 2025. The Bill had earlier received the Cabinet's approval on April 29, soon after parents staged widespread protests against fee hikes. The Bill, however, could not be presented in the Assembly because the Budget session was cut short. While the government officials have stated that the Bill and the Ordinance aim to curb arbitrary fee increases and improve transparency, parents alleged that the legislation was drafted without public consultation and fails to address ongoing issues affecting students and families. After being denied permission on Friday to hold the demonstration at outside the Secretariat by the Delhi Police, which imposed Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 across the I.P. Estate area, the group moved the protest to Chhatrasal Stadium at 8 am Saturday, where the CM was attending the International Yoga Day celebrations. 'The government is scared of the parents' voice. The system has acknowledged our strength. Now let's show up in even bigger numbers,' said Mahesh Mishra, one of the protesters whose child studies at Delhi Public School, Dwarka. The group's key demands included an immediate pause in the implementation of the Ordinance, a 30-day public consultation period, an end to the alleged harassment of children by private schools, strict action against rule-violating institutions, rollback of unjustified hikes since 2019, and the establishment of a robust, transparent grievance redressal system for parents. 'We urge an immediate halt to the proposed Ordinance and the Bill. These should first be subjected to transparent public consultation as per constitutional and fundamental rights, as parents and citizens are the primary stakeholders in any education-related policy decision,' Mishra added. While carrying placards and raising slogans, the demonstrators demanded action against private schools for alleged coercive practices. UPV claimed that children had been removed from rolls by private schools, denied access to classes, and in some cases, physically blocked at school gates by bouncers over fee-related issues. The group described such incidents as mental harassment and demanded accountability from schools engaging in such practices. Another long-standing concern that echoed at the protest was the issue of unapproved fee hikes going back to 2019. The parents' group said that despite repeated appeals, the government has failed to roll back what they described as arbitrary and unjustified increases. They also highlighted the absence of a functional and time-bound grievance redressal mechanism. DPS Dwarka, Maharaja Agrasen Model School, Pitampura, and Apeejay School, Sheikh Sarai, are some of the schools that have been embroiled in disputes amid the fee hike row.
The Wire
11 hours ago
- The Wire
In Critique of Draft Rohith Vemula Bill, UN Experts Urge Stronger Safeguards for SC, ST Students
New Delhi: Two United Nations special rapporteurs have issued a detailed statement raising concerns and offering recommendations on the draft Rohith Vemula (Prevention of Exclusion or Injustice) (Right to Education and Dignity) Bill proposed by the Karnataka government and urged the government to consider them. Ashwini K.P., special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, and Nicolas Levrat, special rapporteur on minority issues, noted that while the Bill aims to combat caste-based discrimination in higher education, it lacks key human rights protections and clarity in legal definitions. The draft legislation of the law, named after Rohith Vemula, seeks to criminalise discrimination against students from Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and religious minorities in educational institutions. The special rapporteurs come under the purview of the 'special procedures' of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC); they are 'independent human rights experts' who are mandated by the UN to report and advise on 'human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective'. Under their special mandate from the UNHRC, they have highlighted 'several human rights considerations that should be considered during the ongoing development of the legislation'. UN concerns on the draft Bill The special rapporteurs stated that the draft Bill does not mention 'specific protection for Dalits and Adivasis against disproportionate discrimination in various areas' and urged the drafting committee to 'explicitly' include provisions for their protection. Ashwini K.P., replying to an email questionnaire by The Wire, said: 'The current draft clubs OBCs, SC, ST and minority communities together. All of them face marginalisation, but it's crucial to understand and recognise the heterogeneous nature of their experiences. The persistent and systematic forms of discrimination that Dalit and Adivasi students face require explicit acknowledgement.' They also claimed that there is a lack of definition for 'direct or indirect discrimination', which could result in the law failing to provide 'comprehensive protection' to those affected. It could also lead to misuse of the law and oppression of activities unrelated to the law, including those in the 'defence of human rights'. The draft includes provisions to imprison a person convicted of discriminating against SC, ST, OBC and minority students for up to one year or impose a fine of Rs 10,000. Heads of higher education institutions will also be held liable, and the institutions may lose government aid or grants in case of such convictions. The punitive nature of the draft law was also criticised. They warned that it may 'undermine the promotion of understanding, tolerance and friendship among racial or ethnic groups'. Focusing on addressing the social roots of caste-based discrimination, the rapporteurs recommended placing greater emphasis on effective 'preventive measures' such as orientation programmes and educational awareness campaigns. To ensure effective implementation, they also recommended setting up a grievance redressal mechanism, ensuring 'protection for whistleblowers' and introducing 'accountability measures' for educational institutions that fail to comply. The special rapporteurs also claimed that the Bill's drafting process has not been sufficiently deliberative and has not included the 'voices of those who may experience caste-based discrimination and harassment, including Dalit and Adivasi students, scholars and activists'. They called upon the committee to introduce provisions that make the process more transparent, consultative and participatory. Finally, the rapporteurs noted the need for diversity and proportional representation in the drafting committee itself and urged that there be 'proportionate caste, gender and geographical representation from the state of Karnataka in the committee'. The political equation The move to draft this law comes after leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, wrote a letter to the three Congress-led state governments in April urging them to enact the law that was promised in the party's 2024 Lok Sabha election manifesto. Following this, Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah instructed his legal adviser to prepare a draft of the Bill. 'The Union government brushed the incident under the carpet although it was clear that Rohith Vemula was targeted because of his [Dalit] caste,' said minister Priyank Kharge confirming that he provided inputs for drafting the Bill. However, Ashwini claimed that the Indian government 'has not approached the UNHRC or any other international bodies for recommendations'. Meanwhile, the BJP's leader of opposition in the Karnataka legislative council, Chalavadi Narayanaswamy, agreed that caste-based discrimination should be banned but questioned whether such discrimination can be addressed solely through legislation. This is not the first time that such a demand has been raised. In 2019, Radhika Vemula and Abeda Tadvi – the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi – filed a petition in the Supreme Court demanding that the government enforce the 2012 University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations that aim to protect vulnerable students from discrimination in educational institutions. The UGC guidelines also have a specific definition of 'discrimination' and various kinds of discriminatory behaviour, but in January 2025, after the case was heard only for the second time, the UGC released new draft regulations intended to replace the 2012 ones. N. Sukumar, a professor at Delhi University, noted in an interview to Scroll that in the new draft, 'these terms are loosely defined'. When the various aspects of the problem are not properly defined, 'there is hardly any scope to address the issues of caste on the campus.' Rohith Vemula and a legacy of institutional violence Vemula, a PhD scholar belonging to Dalit community at the University of Hyderabad, was among five students suspended in September 2015 following a complaint filed by the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the BJP's ideological fountainhead. His monthly research fellowship of Rs 25,000 was also discontinued, reportedly due to his activities in the Ambedkar Students' Association. The ABVP's complaint was forwarded by then-Union minister Bandaru Dattatreya to then-human resource development minister Smriti Irani, who subsequently asked the university to take appropriate action. Following their suspension and removal from university housing, the students began a relay hunger strike and stayed in a temporary tent on campus. On January 17, 2016, Vemula died by suicide, leaving behind a note in which he expressed a deep sense of disillusionment and described his birth as a 'fatal accident'. His death was one amongst numerous such incidents in the past two decades where a Dalit student was allegedly pushed over the edge and died by suicide. Activists consider these to be 'institutional murders', since every part of the education institution – including the student body, the faculty and the administration – are said to work in tandem to make sure that caste hierarchies are upheld and no voices can be raised against it. This leaves the student completely cornered. Some say that caste-based discrimination, humiliating abuse and alienation by peers have pushed students like Payal Tadvi, Darshan Solanki, Ayush Ashna and Varad Sanjay Nerkar over the edge. They were allegedly targeted for belonging to a certain caste and viewed as not fit to be in such institutions. There are no avenues for redressal of complaints as well, since the administration too engages in suppressing their voices, activists say. While a few of these cases received media attention, many others were recorded through an independent study by the Delhi-based Insight Foundation, led by educationist Anoop Kumar. Path ahead Ashwini claims that 'currently there is no specific legislation in India which addresses caste-based discrimination in higher education for Dalit and Adivasi students. While some mechanisms such as grievance redressal cells exist in colleges and universities, there is no exclusive framework to protect students from marginalised backgrounds in academic spaces.' Therefore, although some critics believe that the draft Rohith Vemula (Prevention of Exclusion or Injustice) (Right to Education and Dignity) Bill is a politically motivated move by the Congress, Ashwini believes that 'the intention behind the Rohith Vemula Act is to fill this gap and ensure a safe space for students coming from marginalised backgrounds'. Such a law becomes crucial in an education system where, according to her, 'student suicides among marginalised communities highlight the disproportionate discrimination faced by them'. She claims that there is a pattern of structural exclusion and systematic discrimination against Dalit and Adivasi students, and that this legislation is important to create a 'safer academic environment' for them. But critics also raise questions of political motivation and appropriation of the long-fought struggles of activists like Radhika Vemula and Abeda Tadvi in creating an equitable and safe educational space by Rahul Gandhi and the Congress. According to the UNHRC special rapporteurs, the draft law has the potential to make effective changes – but this can only be realised if such expert criticism and recommendations are taken into account and the drafting process becomes more publicly participatory. Tamoghna Chakraborty is an intern at The Wire. If you know someone – a friend or a family member – at risk of suicide, please reach out to them. The Suicide Prevention India Foundation maintains a list of telephone numbers they can call to speak in confidence. The TeleManas helpline, a government helpline, functions 24×7, its numbers are 1-800 891-4416 or 14416. You could also take them to the nearest hospital.
Time of India
16 hours ago
- Time of India
Posted fake news on social media? Karnataka's new law could send you to jail for 7 years
The Karnataka government is preparing to launch one of the country's most stringent crackdowns on fake news and misinformation on social media . It has proposed the formation of a six-member social-media regulatory authority and special courts with powers to jail offenders and impose hefty fines. Under the Karnataka Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025, accessed by The Times of India, the government proposes to ban the promotion and spread of fake news on social media, prohibit posting of content that insults women, and restrict the publication of material that disrespects Sanatana Dharma, its symbols and beliefs, or content that promotes superstition. If found guilty of sharing unverified information, social-media users could face up to seven years in prison, a fine of Rs 10 lakh, or both. The bill also proposes two to five years' jail and fines for misinformation spread through social media or publications. All these offences will be treated as cognizable but non-bailable. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now The proposed social-media regulatory authority will ensure that online content is based on authentic research, particularly in fields such as science, history, religion, philosophy, and literature. To tighten accountability, the bill proposes the setting up of special courts with the concurrence of the Karnataka High Court, with a sessions judge presiding over one or more districts. These courts will have the authority to issue directives to intermediaries, publishers, broadcasters, or anyone controlling a communication medium that disseminates misinformation to persons in Karnataka. Live Events The proposal allows 30 days for aggrieved parties to respond to any notice issued. If the court's directions are ignored, it can issue simple imprisonment of up to two years and impose a daily fine of Rs 25,000, with a maximum limit of Rs 25 lakh. The bill also proposes action against directors and employees of companies if they were present when their company committed an offence. It recommends appointing special public prosecutors in each special court to handle fake news and misinformation cases. In addition to the provisions in the new bill, punitive action is proposed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against individuals who post fake news. The bill defines fake news as any misquotation, false or inaccurate report of a statement, or editing of audio or video that results in distortion of facts or context, including purely fabricated content. Misinformation, as defined by the bill, involves knowingly or recklessly making false or inaccurate factual statements, either wholly or partially, in a given context. However, it excludes opinions, religious or philosophical sermons, satire, comedy, parody, or any form of artistic expression, as long as a reasonable person of ordinary prudence does not interpret such communications as factual.
