Content uploaded by Arianna Tassinari
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Arianna Tassinari on Jul 28, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Riders on the storm. Workplace solidarity among gig economy couriers in Italy and the UK.
Arianna Tassinari, University of Warwick
Vincenzo Maccarrone, University College Dublin
Accepted for publication in Work, Employment and Society (forthcoming 2019 special issue on
‘Solidarities in and through work’)
Published version: https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017019862954
Abstract
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.
Keywords
Solidarity, collective action, gig economy, platform economy, labour relations, labour process,
mobilisation
Corresponding author: Arianna Tassinari, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick,
Scarman Road, Coventry, UK, CV4 7AL; a.tassinari@warwick.ac.uk
2
Introduction
The emergence in recent years of the so-called ‘gig economy’ is disrupting established patterns of work
organisation and employment relations. The term ‘gig economy’ refers to the parcelled nature of the
small tasks or jobs (the ‘gigs’) that individuals are contracted to carry out by companies (often
platforms) adopting this model of service provision. Gig economy companies adopt platforms as their
operational model, using internet technology to act as de facto intermediaries of labour supply and
demand for the provision of services – such as delivery, cleaning, admin and data processing work.
Gigs are allocated and managed digitally, often through algorithmic management methods. The number
of workers engaged through platforms is growing rapidly. For instance, a survey by Huws et al. (2017)
shows that in 2016-2017 between 9 and 22 percent of workers across seven European countries
generated some income from gig work.
The gig economy can be regarded as the latest stage in the development of atypical forms of
employment. Its growth has engendered considerable debate about its implications for regulatory and
protective institutions (De Stefano, 2016). Gig work threatens established forms of regulation based on
collective bargaining, creating legal ‘grey areas’ (Scholz, 2017: 125) where individuals are left without
access to social safety nets. Yet, despite recent advancements in theorising the labour process in the gig
economy (Gandini, 2018; Veen et al., 2019), understanding of the social relations established between
gig workers is still limited. In particular, the potentials, conditions and limits for the emergence of
solidarity and of collective action among gig workers are only starting to be explored (cf. Lehdonvirta,
2016; Waters and Woodcock, 2017; Wood et al., 2018). This article aims to develop this understanding
and contribute to this nascent stream of literature.
Workers’ solidarity is often conceptualised as the basis from which forms of collective action within
and beyond the workplace can develop (Fantasia, 1988; Atzeni, 2010). Studying solidarity and its links
to collective action in the gig economy is thus fundamental to understand the labour movement’s
prospects in the current phase of transformation of the world of work. The emergence of solidarity and
3
collective action among gig workers might have seemed unlikely, given the atomisation and spatial
dispersal characterising their jobs and the imbalanced power relations between workers and platforms.
Nonetheless, since 2016 various gig economy platforms – such as the ride-hailing app Uber or the food
delivery platforms Deliveroo, UberEats and Foodora - have attracted attention in several countries as
epicentres of labour unrest. These episodes force scholars to question existing assumptions about the
potential for the emergence of solidarity and, possibly, of collective action in this new frontier of
precarious work.
This article tackles this task by developing a comparative analysis of two cases of ‘unlikely’ gig
workers’ mobilisation in the food delivery sector which have unfolded since 2016 in two different
contexts: the case of Deliveroo riders in England, and the case of Foodora riders in Italy. The study
addresses two research questions. First, how does solidarity emerge among gig workers? Second, in
which forms does it manifest? The article will argue that despite some obstacles posed by the platform
model of work organisation, worker solidarity in the gig economy is possible and rooted in the structural
antagonism intrinsic in the labour process. Its development, however, is not mechanistic but shaped by
workers’ agential practices and by diverse contextual factors. While the focus is on food delivery
platforms, the article offers insights on the potential for and limits to solidarity in the broader gig
economy.
Food delivery platforms, employment relations and work organisation in the gig economy
While terms like the ‘platform economy’ or ‘gig economy’ encompass a multitude of platforms, the
most effective differentiation is between ‘crowdwork’ and ‘gig work’ platforms (De Stefano, 2016). In
the former, job activities are performed remotely through online platforms; in the latter workers
complete physical and location-specific work activities organised through apps (De Stefano, 2016).
This article focuses on food delivery platforms, which belong to the location-specific platform model.
Food delivery platforms can be described as four-sided platforms (fig. 1) which on the one hand connect
clients and restaurants, on the other manage the supply of couriers for restaurants via algorithmic
management methods.
4
[Figure 1 here]
Workers log onto smartphone apps to receive delivery jobs allocated by location. Workers experience
information asymmetry with respect to the platforms, as companies usually maintain secrecy on the
mechanism of allocation of deliveries (Shapiro, 2018; Veen et al., 2019). Working time flexibility
varies: while platforms promote it as a main advantage, in some cities couriers must sign up for shifts
in advance. Using delivery platforms, restaurants can access a flexible labour force without management
responsibilities and suppressing costs in low demand periods. As a low value-added service,
suppressing labour costs is a key profitability driver in food delivery. Labour costs are minimised by
hiring couriers as independent or para-subordinate contractors, with different contractual models
depending on national legislation. As contractors, couriers generally have no right to minimum wage,
paid holidays or sick leave.
i
Moreover, this contractual status offers few, if any, protections from
dismissal. Furthermore, most food delivery platforms tend to switch from hourly wages to payment-by-
delivery over time, shifting enterprise risk on the couriers: if there is no demand, they are not paid,
despite being available for work. Finally, couriers use their own bikes and smartphones, hence platforms
save on structural costs.
Various types of ‘techno-normative control’ (Gandini, 2018: 11) ensure control of a geographically
dispersed workforce (Shapiro, 2018; Veen et al., 2019). Workers can be monitored through GPS
technology (Moore et al., 2017) and data collected used for performance management (Veen et al.,
2019). The functioning of the algorithm cannot be scrutinised by workers, making it open to strategic
use by the platform (for example, to reward or disadvantage workers depending on their productivity
or acquiescence) (Veen et al., 2019). Consequently, workers could be less inclined to take cohesive
collective action against management for fear of retribution.
The operational model poses further potential constraints to the emergence of solidarity among workers.
Platforms seek to establish individualised employment relations. Being classified as contractors means
that gig workers are normally neither covered by collective bargaining nor entitled to union
representation. Work activity is also organised as a non-collective process: on a day-to-day basis,
5
workers interact almost exclusively with the app which allocates delivery jobs. This apparent
individualism, coupled with the ‘invisibilisation’ of the managerial figure (Gandini, 2018: 13) may
obfuscate the “reality of collective participation in the labour process” (Martinez Lucio and Stewart,
1997: 53), undermining bases for collectivism. The spatial dispersal of work activity may also reduce
chances for couriers to build social relations and forge a sense of shared identity.
Different levels of dependence on gig work may also impede consolidation of shared identities. Recent
evidence (e.g. Broughton et al., 2018) suggests that gig workers may be segmented in terms of
attachment to the job – with a small core relying on gig work as a primary income source, and a larger
margin participating sporadically. This segmentation can create divisions in the ‘interests’ of different
workforce components regarding remuneration models, contractual forms and attitudes towards
‘flexibility’, as well as in incentives to organise collectively to improve conditions.
Despite these obstacles, since 2016 mobilisations of gig workers across Europe have increased
remarkably. Couriers of food delivery platforms have been at the forefront of this ongoing wave of
collective action. This offers scholars the opportunity to interrogate theoretically and empirically the
processes that underpin the emergence of solidarity ‘against the odds’ in this seemingly hostile context,
and the mechanisms that connect the emergence of solidarity to different forms of collective action.
Defining the analytical lens: solidarity, the labour process and collective action
The conceptualisation of solidarity - within and beyond work - and its links with mobilisation have been
extensively debated in the literature, leading to some theoretical ambiguity. D’Art and Turner (2002:
11) define solidarity as a “community of interests, feelings and actions”. This understanding implies
existence of shared material conditions among members of a group, and realisation that their
improvement is best pursued collectively. Collective feelings of reciprocal sympathy and responsibility
(Wilde, 2007: 171) expressed through specific forms of action, such as mutual support and preparedness
to share resources with others through personal contribution (Stjerno, 2004: 2), are also central to the
concept. Solidarity additionally implies that group members recognise their general shared condition
6
and purpose, even when their immediate, individual interests are not fully coincident (Hyman, 1999;
Kolers, 2012).
In the context of labour relations, solidarity can be articulated at different levels - such as the workplace,
the union or the broader working class (Bild et al., 1997). Working-class solidarity - i.e. solidarity
among workers who acquire consciousness as a class for itself overcoming professional, sectoral and
even national divisions - has been understood both as the basis of labour militancy (Fantasia, 1988),
and as a central power resource for unions. To understand how solidarity can emerge in the specific
setting of the gig economy, it is however more appropriate to focus on the articulation of solidarity at
workplace level. Workplace solidarity is usually described as a group attitude developed in the work
context and rooted in workers’ interactions (Fantasia, 1988), shared experiences (Hodson et al., 1993),
feelings of mutual dependency (Atzeni, 2010) and collective identity (Bild et al., 1997). As a minimum,
solidarity entails group cohesion and collective activities of mutual defence and reciprocal support
(Hodson et al., 1993; Dixon et al., 2004), which arise from workers’ recognition of their shared
condition and through which they pursue their collective goals at work.
Solidarity at work is hereby defined as 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.
Atzeni (2010: 28-29) argues that such forms of embryonic solidarity are commonplace at workplace
level, where workers develop a sense of collective identity distinct to management (Fantasia, 1988:
108). Embryonic solidarity is thus the basis for the emergence of active solidarity - where the
preparedness to act actually translates in collective action (Atzeni, 2010: 28-29).
Following Atzeni (2010), this article argues that the emergence of active solidarity among workers is
rooted in the inherent contradictions of the capitalist labour process. At the basis of the labour process
perspective (Braverman, 1974) is the idea that managerial action must be understood in the context of
capital-labour relations as motivated by employers’ attempts to control and stabilise the ‘unruly’ factor
of production, i.e. living labour. This push for the extraction of value from workers through control
7
practices in the labour process necessarily generates contradictions “which surface at the point of
production as conflicts between workers and management” (Cohen, 1987: 7). On this basis, the labour
process becomes “the site where both the opposition of labour to capital and yet its dependence on it
are constantly reproduced and solidarity linkages established” (Atzeni, 2010: 19). The formation of
‘active’ solidarity refers thus to the process whereby workers, by becoming aware of the collective
nature of the labour process, develop consciousness of their shared interests and come to act collectively
on that sense of unity and mutual dependency, in opposition to management, overcoming the apparent
individualisation of their day-to-day work experiences (Martinez Lucio and Stewart, 1997).
The extent to which specific labour process features - such as the collectivism or individualism of work
organisation, the type of control and the level of autonomy that workers experience - affect solidarity
has been extensively debated (Vallas, 1987; Hodson et al., 1993; Hodson, 1997). In the individualised
and dispersed labour process of the gig economy, the ‘material’ foundations for solidarity could be
expected to be weaker than in traditional ‘Fordist’ workplaces characterised by workers’ physical
compresence, where the ‘collective’ nature of the labour process may be more easily apparent. The
internal differentiation of the workforce on the basis of contractual status, labour market attachment and
skills, and the associated intensification of intra-class competition in the post-Fordist era also potentially
undermine the consolidation of shared workers identities (cf. Touraine et al., 1987; Hyman, 1999). The
internal segmentation of the gig economy workforce might thus pose an additional obstacle to solidarity.
In line with Fantasia (1988) and Atzeni (2010), however, this article adopts a non-deterministic
conceptualisation of the linkages between solidarity, the labour process and the workforce features. This
article holds that the bases of worker solidarity lie in the structural contradictions originating from the
labour process, which emerge at the point of production and become manifested despite the
individualism of platform-mediated work organisation. At the same time, the development of solidarity
is conceptualised as a historically specific, evolving process, underpinned by workers’ agential
practices, where different context-specific factors can combine to explain its emergence and
manifestation (Atzeni, 2010: 32). The analysis of the cases will thus highlight several contextual
conditions and mechanisms, internal and external to the labour process, which contributed to
8
facilitating, mediating or hindering the emergence of active solidarity among gig workers beyond the
triggers and obstacles posed by the labour process’ features. These include the availability of ‘free
spaces’ (Polletta, 1999); workers’ framing activity (Hyman, 1999; Simms, 2012); the acquisition of
consciousness through action (Fantasia, 1988); management’s counter-mobilisation strategies (Atzeni,
2010; O’Sullivan and Turner, 2013); and unions’ involvement (Dixon et al., 2004).
The last theoretical issue concerns the multiple forms through which active solidarity is expressed. As
the definition above highlights, active solidarity implies cohesive action. Collective action - such as
strikes and other forms of collective conflict - has been historically focused upon as the main expression
of workers’ active solidarity, and the privileged site for its study (cf. Fantasia, 1988; Dixon et al., 2004).
This study shares this interest, as it focuses on cases where mobilisations did take place to investigate
how within the gig economy embryonic solidarity can be turned into active solidarity. However, forms
of solidaristic action other than collective action are possible – including low-key, day-to-day forms of
conflict, resistance and mutual support (cf. Hodson, 1997; Mulholland, 2004). Especially in the context
of ‘digital’ labour relations, new channels for expressing grievances and taking action acquire
importance, such as social media, online forums and messaging apps (Lee and Staples, 2018).
Finally, it is also possible that embryonic solidarity might not be activated at all (Atzeni, 2010), and
forms of solidaristic action not manifested. While embryonic solidarity is the conditio sine qua non of
any process of collective action in labour relations, solidarity is not sufficient for mobilisation. Hence,
the forms through which solidarity is expressed, and the conditions that shape how encompassing and
durable these are, must be studied contextually. Building on this theoretical apparatus, this article
investigates the processes through which solidarity emerges in the ‘unlikely’ context of the gig economy
labour process; and the conditions and agential practices that facilitate, hinder and shape its form of
expression and reach in different contexts.
Case selection, methods and data
This study compares two qualitative case studies (Yin, 2013) of gig workers’ mobilisation as sites to
investigate the process of solidarity formation: the mobilisation of couriers of the food delivery platform
9
Deliveroo in the cities of London and Brighton in England, and of the food delivery platform Foodora
in the city of Turin in Italy. Both cases are empirically salient as they were the first episodes of gig
workers’ mobilisation in their respective countries, generating considerable public debate.
Theoretically, both cases can be regarded as ‘unlikely’ instances of mobilisation, given the potential
constraints to the emergence of active solidarity identified above. Hence, they are well-suited for testing
prior theoretical expectations regarding the links between the labour process, solidarity and collective
action. Case comparison allows to study the nexus between similar underlying labour processes,
different contextual conditions and the forms of solidarity expression; and offers analytical leverage to
identify the common, theoretically relevant conditions affecting solidarity activation across distinct
contexts.
Data sources include semi-structured in-depth interviews; informal interviews; participant observation
of four riders’ meetings; and analysis of documentary and social media sources (see Appendix 1). The
authors conducted 18 qualitative semi-structured interviews (between 30-120 minutes long) with 15 gig
workers and trade unionists directly involved in various capacities in the mobilisations in Turin,
Brighton and London between October 2016 and November 2018 (10 in Italy, 8 in the UK); and 9
interviews with gig workers and unionists with knowledge of the cases and involved in similar
campaigns in the two countries (see Appendix 1). To guarantee anonymity, interviewees are identified
with a code throughout the text.
Participants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling (Yin, 2013), drawing on the
authors’ connections in labour activist networks to facilitate contact with gatekeepers in riders’ groups
or unions. The sample is numerically limited and not representative of the whole workforce. As the
research aimed to understand the emergence of solidarity in and through action, the authors deliberately
recruited interviewees involved in the mobilisations as their perspectives were deemed the most relevant
to the research goals. However, participants with diverse involvement levels (courier-organisers,
participants in mobilisations, trade union reps) were recruited to compare perspectives. The focus on
mobilisation participants and the limited evidence base implies that the findings are partial and cannot
shed light on the motivations of non-participating workers. All interviewees bar three were men,
10
reflecting the male-dominated workforce composition; all workers interviewed were cyclists; and only
one had a migrant background. While reflective of the profile of participants in mobilisations in the
Italian case, the under-sampling of moped drivers and migrant workers represents a shortcoming for the
UK case.
The authors were never directly involved in the mobilisations but followed an “engaged” approach to
research (Milan, 2014), building a relationship of trust with the interviewees while defining clear
boundaries to maintain critical distance. The authors’ ‘partisan’ stance towards the riders’ grievances
facilitated connection with informants (see Fantasia, 1988: 247-254). The authors engaged in repeated
interactions and informal interviews with some key informants over a two-year period. This ongoing
exchange of perspectives facilitated building of trust, allowed for a longitudinal understanding of the
cases and increased trustworthiness of findings (Harrison et al., 2001). The authors’ engaged
positionality also involved sharing knowledge of the sector with interviewees and contributing to
increasing the visibility of their mobilisations to non-academic audiences (see e.g. Tassinari and
Maccarrone, 2017a). These activities attempted to ensure relevance of research knowledge for subjects
involved (Milan, 2014), and to fulfil ethical commitments to reciprocity (Harrison et al., 2001).
To validate emerging insights, interviews were complemented by the analysis of over 500 documentary
sources (newspaper articles, press releases and posts on the riders’ groups Facebook pages) and by
participant observation of four riders’ assemblies. In these settings, informal interviews (Spradley,
1979) were conducted with several couriers besides those interviewed formally. The authors
additionally conducted two expert interviews with researchers who had conducted ethnographic
research on the same cases (see Appendix 1).
Data analysis followed an open-ended inductive approach, based on iterative stages of thematic coding
of interviews, field notes and documents in Nvivo. After the first analysis stage, key emergent themes
deemed of theoretical relevance (e.g. sources of antagonism in the labour process; role of 'free spaces'
and social relations, unions presence, workforce differentiation and managerial counter-action) were
followed up in subsequent interviews.
11
Evidence: conflict and protest in Deliveroo and Foodora
The two cases of gig workers’ mobilisation are now introduced in turn. The Deliveroo workforce in
London comprises of thousands of riders, divided between cyclists – predominantly young, white and
British; and moped drivers, predominantly migrant workers and on average older. The first protest of
London Deliveroo workers started in August 2016, following the announcement of a change in payment
policy from hourly wage to piecework payment. Around 150 moped drivers gathered outside
Deliveroo’s head offices in London demanding the restoration in hourly wage and were soon joined by
many of their cyclist colleagues. The gathering turned into the first ‘unofficial strike’ of Deliveroo
workers in the UK. Hundreds of couriers logged out from the app, causing work stoppages that lasted
on-and-off for six days. They held mass gatherings outside the company’s offices, flying pickets around
the city to raise visibility, and coordinated reputational attacks against Deliveroo’s social media pages.
The protest attracted considerable public attention, and the company eventually agreed not to
unilaterally impose the new payment system, instead starting an opt-in trial with one month of
guaranteed wages. Attempts at union organising only started after this first mobilisation episode. The
IWGB (Independent Workers Union of Great Britain) – a rank-and-file independent union already
active in the delivery sector in London – intervened to support the workers during the protests, and then
started a longer-term campaign for unionisation. Since August 2016, episodes of strikes and
demonstrations of Deliveroo workers have taken place in several other cities – first in Brighton, then
across most of the UK - where workers have taken action to denounce low pay, the lack of sufficient
work resulting from the excessive size of the workforce, and the lack of coverage for health and safety
risks. Organising and mobilisation of food delivery platform workers, supported by rank-and-file unions
such as the IWGB or IWW (Industrial Workers of the World), continue across the UK to the present
day (May 2019).
In Italy, around 300 couriers worked for Foodora in Turin when the first protest broke out in October
2016. At the time, the couriers, exclusively cyclists, were mostly Italian young people. A group
comprising almost three quarters of the workforce had previously presented a letter with requests to the
12
company, but as in London, it was a change in contractual terms which led to the mobilisation. Indeed,
in September 2016 Foodora began hiring riders on a new piecework payment system. When the
extension of this pay model to the whole workforce was announced, a group of couriers staged a ‘proto-
strike’ in response. The riders ‘unlogged’ from the app en masse; this was combined with ‘flying
pickets’ around the city, a coordinated online campaign targeting the company’s social media pages,
and invitations to consumers to boycott the app. Three demands were advanced: a higher hourly rate
and an end to piecework payment; a change in contractual terms to be recognised as employees; and an
end to the company’s victimisation practices against perceived ‘troublemakers’. The protests were self-
organised by the workers with some support from the grass-root union SI-COBAS. Unlike in the UK,
no unionisation effort took place subsequently.
ii
Following the high media attention, Foodora eventually conceded an increase in the delivery fee and
some discount agreements for bike repairs. Yet, the company refused to meet the more substantial
demands: the reinstatement of hourly wages and the reclassification of its riders as employees.
Furthermore, the contracts of some of the riders most active in the protest were not renewed. A group
continued nonetheless to organise – both within Foodora and in other delivery companies – forming a
self-organised collective. Subsequent protests and ‘proto-strikes’ were held in the following months,
spreading also to the cities of Milan and Bologna, and continue to the present day (May 2019).
As these brief case histories show, the issues triggering the disputes and the ensuing dynamics of
mobilisation were similar across the two cases. The main glaring difference relates to unions’
involvement in supporting couriers’ collective action - present in the UK but absent in Italy.
The article now proceeds to analyse comparatively the conditions and processes which shaped the
emergence of solidarity, its expression and its limits in the two cases, and the salient differences between
them.
Solidarity in the gig economy
I’ve been thinking, [...] how does the labour movement form when there is no shared space, like,
physical space? But as long as there is a shared condition, as long as two people interact at
13
some point and they find some way to communicate with each other, it doesn't matter if there is
no shared factory space, because there is a shared condition. Which is, the job is bullshit. (UK8)
The emergence of collective action suggests that, despite the individualised labour process, solidaristic
ties among a section of gig workers consolidated in both contexts. The process of solidarity
development in the two cases is now reconstructed by investigating the bases of collective antagonism
intrinsic in the contradictions of the app-mediated labour process; the mechanisms and conditions that
shaped how solidarity was manifested and consolidated over time; and the limits of its reach.
1. Sources of antagonism in the labour process
In line with our theoretical expectations, the labour process and work organisation model of app-based
delivery work presented several contradictions leading to the emergence of shared grievances among
riders and to the manifestation of antagonism towards management.
The shared basis for antagonism was demonstrated by the cross-case similarities in the ‘trigger points’
(O’Sullivan and Turner, 2013) behind the initial protests - a shift to piecework payment or a sudden
drop in earnings arising from the excessive workforce size, which provided a focal point for expressing
discontent. Besides contesting earnings insecurity, other common grievances were expressed: the
absence of safety nets – such as sick pay or adequate injury insurance; excessive work intensification;
and perceived dissonance between the rhetoric of ‘flexibility’ promoted by the companies and the reality
of the work process – where effective flexibility was limited and mainly experienced as insecurity. In
both cases, grievances also included perceived arbitrariness in management methods, targeting the
asymmetric distribution of information between the platform and the workers (Shapiro, 2018, Veel et
al., 2019). The couriers contested lack of transparency in: the criteria of shifts or delivery allocation;
the information they received about incoming orders; whether or not GPS data were used for
performance management; and the continuous changes in the functioning of the app’s algorithm.
“[...] Here nothing is regulated so things happen like, OK I like you therefore you get to work,
I don’t like you hence you don’t work. We are back in the 19th century, this is effectively a
gangmaster system…” (IT1)
14
The common grievances across the two cases suggest that the underpinning features of the gig
economy labour process trumps contextual differences in shaping the emergence of antagonism.
Furthermore, the fact that these dispersed grievances came to be articulated as common demands
posed to the platforms testifies that part of the workforce gained awareness of their shared interests
as gig workers, and became willing to act upon them. The analysis has highlighted various
mechanisms and conditions that facilitated or obstructed the emergence and consolidation of this
active solidarity. These are now discussed in turn.
2. Facilitating mechanisms for the emergence of solidarity
The analysis identified two key mechanisms, common to both cases, that facilitated the emergence of
solidarity: overcoming individualisation and developing consciousness in action. These processes and
the contextual factors which prompted them are reconstructed below.
Overcoming individualisation
Developing a sense of collective identity and shared interests has been identified as a key aspect for
emergence of workers’ solidarity (Fantasia 1988; Atzeni 2010; Simms and Dean 2015). In a context of
spatial dispersion and individualised interaction with the app, overcoming individualisation was crucial
to develop solidarity between couriers. Two central factors enabled this: the availability of ‘free spaces’
and the existence and nurturing of social relations.
The literature identifies ‘free spaces’ as settings - either physical or virtual - partly free from social
control of authorities that allow groups to collectively organise and challenge the status quo by offering
opportunities for protected interaction (Polletta, 1999).
The physical spaces where workers encountered each other face-to-face facilitated social identification
processes. Workers took advantage of common delivery waiting points (sometimes called ‘zone
centres’) in central squares, parks or outside busy restaurants as occasions to consolidate social ties.
The digitalisation of managerial functions via the app meant that waiting points were mostly free from
the direct managerial gaze. Common day-to-day acts of sharing and mutual support among workers
15
expressed emerging feelings of reciprocity, creating that ‘embryonic solidarity’ which has been
identified as the base for active solidarity (Atzeni, 2010). Later on, those same physical spaces
facilitated the articulation of shared grievances, allowing riders first to exchange opinions and phone
numbers and subsequently to distribute flyers, formulate demands and hold impromptu meetings.
(W)hen there was that core group of cyclists, I would see the same people time and time again,
every day, we would hang out in zone centre, and we would chat and shoot the shit and stuff,
waiting for our next delivery… [...] When it's going tough in the zone it kind of works for itself.
Because when there is less drops then people tend to gather. and that's how the Brighton
situation got kicked off because people were spending a lot more time with each other... (UK7)
Virtual meeting spaces were also key to developing shared consciousness. In both cases, group chats
on instant-messaging apps, set up to allocate shifts or discuss operational issues, started being used by
workers to voice complaints. These virtual shared spaces provided a channel to start airing grievances
and recognising them as shared beyond workers’ individual experiences, solidifying a sense of
collectivity which would result fundamental for the mobilisation which would follow (cf. Atzeni, 2010).
Subsequently, riders started their own WhatsApp groups to share concerns, coordinate and organise
meetups, and offer each other support with concrete matters (e.g. punctures, accidents, problems with
the app and shift swapping).
The existence and the nurturing of social relations - within and besides ‘free spaces’ - also emerged as
a key factor facilitating the overcoming of isolation. In the UK, pre-existing social networks among
couriers aided the initial process of consolidating solidarity. For example, the established local
community networks of Brazilian moped drivers played a key role in orchestrating the first spontaneous
protests and remained central in gathering numbers for following wildcat strikes (UK1, UK3, UK5,
UK7; cf. Woodcock, 2016). Maintaining spaces of socialisation where riders could continue seeing each
other, socialise and discuss was also identified by interviewees as crucial to ensure the sustainability of
mobilisation over time. Both the riders’ collective in Turin and the IWGB in London and Brighton tried
to facilitate the consolidation of social relations among workers - for example by organising public
16
stalls, social events and cycle repair drop-ins where riders would have time to talk and ‘hang out’ with
others.
Developing consciousness in action
Beyond the initial collective expression of grievances, interviewees highlighted that a sense of shared
identity as gig workers was forged also through the experience of mobilisation itself - as highlighted
already by Fantasia (1988). The experience of protesting in large numbers – outside the company’s
offices and in the streets - empowered the participating workers, leading to a realisation that taking
action was possible and, in some respects, also easy (IT1). This bolstered participants’ confidence and
started changing perceptions of the uneven power relations.
“It was really powerful seeing all these workers together outside the headquarters back in
August, all the mopeds and the cyclist there, there was such a buzz. It was fairly exhilarating, as
well as very chaotic. I think in that moment we really felt like we could be quite powerful.”
(UK5)
The experience of taking action together was also identified as having led to a process of social
identification among participants that went beyond the confines of the workplace itself.
“The fight led to the birth of a group of people who continued to be riders also after being fired
from Foodora (…) they became comrades in fight, who begin to talk about lots of stuff, not only
about the riders.” (IT3)
The consolidation of a collective identity was supported by the frames that the riders adopted in the
process of mobilisation (Snow and Benford, 1988). In both cases, couriers involved in the protests
engaged in framing activity that sought to consolidate their identity as workers (Hyman, 1999,
Simms, 2012), to counter the platforms’ rhetoric that sought to depict couriering as a fun activity
done to keep fit or earn ‘beer money’, rather than as ‘real work’. This framing activity involved
using their work uniforms and delivery boxes as visible props in protests to reinforce visibility and
mutual recognition of couriers’ shared belonging to the same workforce and drawing attention in
17
public communications to the physical risks that delivery work entailed. Interviewees reported that
the process of seeing each other and being recognised as a collectivity of workers in public opinion
and media representations helped to shape their sense of shared identity, and to consolidate a sense
of antagonism against management (IT2; IT3; UK4).
Diversity of organisational forms
Besides these cross-case commonalities, the analysis also highlighted factors which played a facilitating
role for the emergence of active solidarity in individual contexts but were not determinant for the
development of solidarity across the two cases. The main difference pertains to the role of unions. In
the UK, after the first spontaneous protests, the unfolding of the mobilisation was facilitated by the
involvement of the rank-and-file union IWGB. In Italy, instead, the workers remained self-organised
through an autonomous collective. The resources offered by the local social movement scene also
played a different role in specific urban contexts. In Brighton and Turin, being able to access meeting
and recreational spaces in established social centres provided valuable organising infrastructures that
supported collective action (IT3, UK4). However, the availability of similar infrastructures was not
highlighted as equally crucial in London. Overall, these findings suggest that whilst the availability of
some organisational structures was important to sustain mobilisation and organising efforts over time,
the development of active solidarity was compatible with considerable heterogeneity in organisational
forms.
This section has reconstructed how, notwithstanding variation in organisational forms, solidarity among
segments of the couriers’ workforce of two different platforms emerged through remarkably similar
processes across distinct local contexts. The reach of solidarity and obstacles to its consolidation are
discussed next.
3. The reach of solidarity and obstacles to its consolidation
Although estimates were hindered by the continuous expansions of the workforce, interviewees
recognised that the protests only involved between 15 and 25 percent of the total workforce (UK4, UK5,
UK7; IT2, IT10). Yet, these figures are significant in light of the hostile context and the strike trends in
18
comparable sectors.
iii
Interviewees highlighted that the profile of participants in collective action
reflected the workforce segmentation between a smaller ‘core’ of regular riders and a larger, varying
‘margin’ of occasional riders, with the former being more involved due to stronger reciprocal social
ties, greater reliance on earnings from gig work, and hence stronger grievances.
Ethnicity or migrant background also appeared to shape patterns of participation in mobilisation. In the
UK, moped drivers of migrant origin - especially Latin American - constituted the backbone of
participants in early spontaneous actions (UK3, UK4, UK5). However, those who went on to unionise
in the IWGB and continued to mobilise have been primarily, although not exclusively, younger cyclists
of British or EU origin (UK5, UK7). In Turin, the large majority of Foodora couriers at the time of the
first strike were Italian. Over time, however, the riders’ collective faced difficulties in involving new
couriers of migrant origins, seemingly more wary of joining the protests due to their vulnerable status
(IT2; IT19). These findings highlight how internal workforce differentiation might shape collective
attachments (cf. Touraine et al., 1987) and contribute to hindering workers’ recognition of their general
interests besides particularistic circumstances (cf. Hyman, 1999).
However, as our theoretical section emphasised, strike participation is only one possible manifestation
of active solidarity, which can otherwise be expressed through multiple types of cohesive action. For
example, in Turin more occasional or ‘newer’ workers often expressed their support through less risky
forms of action - such as putting protest flyers inside bags of food delivered to clients or engaging in
online ‘shitstorming’ of the company webpages (IT1, IT10). In both cases, some couriers also opted for
not logging into the app during wildcat strikes or planned boycotts of the app, without physically joining
in pickets or demonstrations.
The research further highlighted some common obstacles to the reach and consolidation of solidarity
over time, arising from platforms’ deliberate managerial counter-action strategies and from features of
the labour process (Atzeni, 2010). The use of opaque algorithmic management methods (Veen et al.,
2019) allegedly allowed the platforms to change the allocation of workload and shifts to punish
‘troublemaking’ riders (IT2, IT3) or dampen discontent by dividing the workforce. In Brighton,
19
interviewees reported that after the first mobilisations Deliveroo started allocating more delivery jobs
to moped drivers, who started receiving sufficient income to quieten their low pay discontent (UK4,
UK7). Platforms also sought to create consent through bonuses - often specifically timed to coincide
with planned protests - to defuse grievances and incentivise couriers to work (UK6).
As the initial spontaneous mobilisations morphed into longer-term campaigns for unionisation and
change in contractual classification, the platforms also adopted communication campaigns to dissuade
workers from unionising by depicting the protesters as a small minority of troublemakers (IT2; UK5;
UK7). Both platforms spread promotional material alleging that a ‘majority’ of couriers were happy
with their self-employed status (e.g. Deliveroo, 2017; Foodora, 2018 quoted in Roma Today 2018), and
sought to delegitimise demands for more secure contracts by depicting these as threats to riders’
autonomy and ‘self-entrepreneurialism’ - a discourse that seemingly had traction on some workforce
segments (UK7, UK10).
iv
While awareness of shared interests among couriers on issues of earnings and
safety might have been easier to articulate, the issue of contractual status could create potential barriers
to the consolidation of encompassing solidarities. The high turnover rate, aggravated by the platforms’
recruitment practices, also posed challenges for long-term organising efforts. As the original core of
protesters was diluted, social relations became in some cases harder to sustain, and the companies could
more easily apply ‘divide and rule’ tactics between workers who did not know each other well.
However, the longitudinal analysis of the cases over 2016-2019 highlights that obstacles to the reach of
solidarity were not insurmountable. In both cases couriers have managed to keep up mobilisation and
organising efforts over time. This is evidenced by the several strikes and protests held in Turin over
2017-2019 led by the riders’ collective (now encompassing couriers of several platforms); by the
emerging coordination of actions between Deliveroo and UberEats couriers, most recently in the
October 2018 fast food strike in London; and by the ongoing legal challenges that the IWGB in London
and various former Foodora couriers in Turin have been leveraging against the respective companies,
supported by collective fundraising efforts. These findings indicate that while the balance of power
between platforms and workers continues to favour the former, managerial counter-action
20
simultaneously reproduces the conditions for new antagonisms, creating a cycle of ongoing contestation
(Atzeni, 2010).
Discussion and conclusions
This article contributes to and extends the literature on workplace solidarity through an investigation of
how solidarity can emerge and be manifested in the empirically novel context of the gig economy.
Figure 2 summarises the processes and conditions which facilitated the emergence of active solidarity
in the two cases analysed; the factors which hindered its reach and consolidation; and its varied forms
of expressions. The theoretical and empirical implications of the findings are now discussed.
[Figure 2 here]
First, the article demonstrates and advances the analytical value of the labour process perspective both
in understanding workers’ solidarity and mobilisation (cf. Atzeni 2010), and in conceptualising work
in the gig economy (cf. Gandini 2018; Veen et al. 2019). In line with insights by Atzeni (2010), the
analysis shows that the emergence of active solidarity is linked to the inherent contradictions of the
capitalist labour process. In the gig economy, antagonism against management and active solidarity
arise both from the process of valorisation which platforms adopt (manifest in workers’ commonplace
dissatisfaction with remuneration and insecurity); and from workers’ experiences of opaque managerial
control, intensified by the use of algorithmic management methods (Shapiro, 2018, Veen et al. 2019).
The article further advances our understanding of the labour process in the gig economy, by highlighting
the ambiguous and contradictory nature of workforce control (Thompson and van den Broek, 2010)
leveraged through technological and contractual means. On the one hand, opaque managerial techniques
and information asymmetries between the platforms and the workforce help the companies to maintain
control of “marginally attached workers who are geographically dispersed” (Veen et al., 2019: 14;
Shapiro, 2018). On the other, the issue of control can become a trigger of mobilisation, while the
invisibilisation of the managerial figure (Gandini, 2018) allows workers to socialise and organise in
spaces at least partially free from the managerial gaze. Similar contradictions arise from the platforms’
classification of workers as independent contractors. On the one hand, this strengthens platforms’
21
coercive power, by facilitating dismissal and locking them out of traditional collective voice channels
such as collective bargaining. On the other, the use of these contracts reduces the platforms’ formal
degree of control over the workforce (Veel et al., 2019), and paradoxically allows workers to bypass
restrictive strike regulation which apply to employees in contexts like the UK. These findings
demonstrate the ever ambiguous and incomplete nature of employer control over living labour, even in
the context of highly unbalanced power relations.
Second, the analysis contributes to advancing an agential understanding of the emergence of workplace
solidarity. The findings show that far from being mechanistic, the consolidation of active solidarity is a
context-specific process (cf. Fantasia, 1988; Atzeni, 2010); and that agential practices are central in
forging collective identity and overcoming the obstacles posed by capitalist work organisation. By
showing the diversity of forms through which solidarity can be manifested in the gig economy, the
article further contributes to nuancing our conceptualisation of solidaristic action in hostile work
contexts (cf. Mulholland, 2004), and reinforces the importance of not equating the absence of overt
mobilisation with anomie. Rather than conceiving it as a dichotomy of presence/absence, our analysis
suggests that the expression of solidarity, in the gig economy and beyond, is best theorised as a
continuum - which can range from day-to-day behaviours of reciprocity embodying the collective nature
of the labour process (e.g. mutual help and support among couriers), to individual participation in low-
risk acts of resistance and contestation (e.g. abstention from work, online action inflicting reputational
damage), to more ‘conventional’ forms of collective labour mobilisation (e.g. protests, wildcat strikes,
pickets).
Lastly, the article contributes to shedding light on the connections between workplace solidarity and
unionism. Even though the gig economy still largely lies outside the confines of conventional collective
bargaining and unionisation patterns, the analysis shows that this does not constitute an insurmountable
obstacle to the emergence of solidaristic commitments and collective action among workers. Rather,
the consolidation of active solidarity is possible even in the absence of institutionalised collective
representation channels; and compatible with considerable heterogeneity in organisational forms, from
rank-and-file unions to self-organised workers’ collectives. Without contradicting the insights of the
22
rich literature on the reciprocal links between solidarity and unionism (cf. Dixon et al. 2004; O’Sullivan
and Turner, 2013; Simms and Dean 2015), these findings reinforce the importance of analysing concrete
processes of emergence of workers solidarity also beyond the confines of union-organised labour
(Atzeni 2010; Fantasia 1988). At the same time, the British case shows that unions can be enablers of
solidarity in the gig economy, despite the presence of long-standing obstacles to union intervention such
as workers’ precariousness and the lack of institutionalised collective bargaining channels. Arguably,
unions capacity to adapt their strategies and action repertoires to the specific context of the gig economy
will be key in determining whether they will be able to act effectively in this difficult terrain.
In terms of limitations, the evidence base did not allow for systematic exploration of the relationships
between gig workers’ individual circumstances and characteristics; their differentiated reliance on gig
work; the solidaristic attachments they developed; and the solidaristic action they were willing to take.
Future research should further investigate these relationships, focusing in particular on the potential for
long-term solidarity to extend to those segments of the gig workforce that might perceive stronger
benefits from ‘flexibility’ and downplay issues of ‘security’; and to the most vulnerable components.
In particular, the extent to which platforms reproduce racialised and gendered hierarchies to leverage
control over vulnerable populations (cf. Van Doorn, 2017: 908), and how such hierarchies are reflected
in the solidaristic ties articulated amongst gig workers, remains to be further explored.
Overall, this study has shown that despite the obstacles posed by some features of the platform model
of work organisation, it is possible for workers to counterbalance the power disparities that characterise
the gig economy by articulating active solidarity which gives collective expression to the underlying
antagonism of the labour process. Practically, this study raises hopes as well as doubts about the
possibility of replicating similar experiences in other segments of the gig economy. Indeed, some
elements of the work process that were crucial for the emergence of active solidarity among gig couriers,
such as the presence of physical meeting points, pertain only to location-based platforms. Yet, virtual
meeting spaces might be able to fulfil similar functions for online platforms (cf. Wood et al., 2018).
The capacity of gig workers in the UK and Italy to overcome significant obstacles to the emergence of
active solidarity, and the spread of similar mobilisation across several European countries in recent
23
months, offer cause for optimism for the consolidation of workers’ solidarity even in the ‘brave new
world’ of gig work.
Acknowledgments
We extend our warmest thanks to all our interviewees and research participants. Previous versions of
this paper have been presented at the workshop “Platform Labour in the Digital Economy” at the
University of Milan (11 May 2017); at the workshop “The gig economy: deal or ordeal?” at King’s
College London on 5 June 2017; at the 29th SASE conference at the University of Lyon (29 June – 1
July 2017); and at the 14th annual Historical Materialism conference in London (9 – 12 November
2017). We are grateful to all conference participants, to participants in Warwick Business School’s
OHRM Paper Review Network, and to Bethan Bowett Jones, Roland Erne, Enrique Fernandez-Macias,
Stefano Gasparri, Craig Gent, Darrah Golden, Daniela Leonardi, Guglielmo Meardi, Mary Naughton
and Rebecca Prentice for the valuable comments.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/ or
publication of this article: Arianna Tassinari gratefully acknowledges financial support received by
the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number ES/J500203/1]. Vincenzo Maccarrone
gratefully acknowledges the financial support provided by the Irish Research Council Postgraduate
Scholarship.
Endnotes
i
Following the first wave of protests and legal challenges, legislators in several European countries started delving
into the issue of regulating gig work. As of today, the regulatory framework remains however limited. The UK
government has recently published the “Good Work Plan”, which might affect gig workers by changing rules for
the classification of employment. However, there is still no detailed legislation and the new rules would not
become effective until 2020.
ii
For a discussion on the limited involvement of trade unions in the Italian case see Tassinari and Maccarrone
2017b, 2018.
iii
For example, despite being an imprecise proxy, UK strike figures show that in 2017 approximately 9.5% of all
workers in the transport and storage sector were involved in work stoppages (authors’ calculations based on
ONS, 2018).
iv
An informant observed that this might be especially relevant for moped drivers, who are more likely to
identify as micro-entrepreneurs in virtue of having invested into the purchase of a scooter as a production asset.
24
This, in turn, might cement differences in perceived interests over the issue of contractual status from those of
the more precarious cyclists.
References
Atzeni M (2010) Workplace Conflict: Mobilization and Solidarity in Argentina. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Bild T, Madsen M, Jorgensen H and Lassen M (1997) Wage Earner Solidarity: Moribund or Changing?.
In D’Art D and Turner T (eds) Collectivism and Individualism: Trends and Prospects. Dublin: Oak
Tree Press, 11-33.
Braverman H (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century.
New York: Monthly Review Press.
Broughton A, Gloster R, Marvell R, Green M, Langley J and Martin A (2018) The Experiences of
Individuals in the Gig Economy. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy.
Cohen S (1987) A labour process to nowhere?. New Left Review I/165.
D'Art D and Turner T (2002) The decline of worker solidarity and the end of collectivism?. Economic
and Industrial Democracy 23(1): 7-34.
Deliveroo (2017) Camden riders explain why flexibility is important to them. 23 April 2017. Available
at: https://foodscene.deliveroo.co.uk/promotions/camden-riders-deliveroo-flexibility.html.
De Stefano V (2016) Introduction: Crowdsourcing, the Gig-Economy and the Law. Comparative Labor
Law & Policy Journal 37(3): 461-470.
Dixon M, Roscigno VJ and Hodson R. (2004) Unions, Solidarity, and Striking. Social Forces 83 (1):
3–33.
Fantasia R (1988) Cultures of Solidarity: Consciousness, Action, and Contemporary American
Workers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
25
Gandini A (2018) Labour process theory and the gig economy. Human Relations 00, 1-18 (accessed 16
February 2019).
Harrison J, MacGibbon L and Morton M (2001) Regimes of Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research:
The Rigors of Reciprocity. Qualitative Inquiry 7(3): 323–345.
Hodson R, Welsh S, Rieble S, Jamison CS and Creighton S (1993) Is worker solidarity undermined by
autonomy and participation? Patterns from the ethnographic literature. American Sociological Review
58(3): 398-416.
Hodson R (1997) Group Relations at Work: Solidarity, Conflict, and Relations With Management.
Work and Occupations 24(4): 426–452.
Hyman R (1999) Imagined solidarities: can trade unions resist globalization?. Globalization and labour
relations: 94-115.
Huws U, Spencer N, Syrdal D and Holts K (2017) Work in the European gig economy. Foundation for
European Progressive Studies.
Kolers AH (2012) Dynamics of Solidarity. Journal of Political Philosophy 20(4): 365–383.
Lee H. and Staples R (2018) Digital Solidarity among workers. Industrielle Beziehungen 25 (4): 495–
517.
Lehdonvirta V (2016) Algorithms That Divide and Unite: Delocalization, Identity, and Collective
Action in ‘Microwork’. In Flecker J (ed) Space, place and global digital work. London: Palgrave-
Macmillan, 53-80.
Martinez Lucio M and Stewart P (1997) The Paradox of Contemporary Labour Process Theory: The
Rediscovery of Labour and the Disappearance of Collectivism. Capital & Class 21(2): 49 - 77.
Milan S (2014) The ethics of social movement research. In Della Porta D (Ed) Methodological Practices
in Social Movement Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26
Moore P V, Upchurch M and Whittaker X (2017) Humans and Machines at Work. London: Palgrave-
Macmillan.
Mulholland K (2004) Workplace resistance in an Irish call centre: slammin’, scammin’ smokin’ an’
leavin. Work, Employment and Society 18(4): 709–724.
Office for National Statistics (2018) Labour disputes in the UK: 2017. Available at:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/workplacedisputesandworkingco
nditions/articles/labourdisputes/2017
O’Sullivan M and Turner T (2013) Facilitators and Inhibitors of Collective Action: A Case Study of a
US‐Owned Manufacturing Plant. British Journal of Industrial Relations 51(4): 689-708.
Polletta F (1998) “Free Spaces” in Collective Action. Theory and Society 28(1): 1-38.
Roma Today (2018) Viaggio nel mondo dei rider, parla Foodora: “L’84% dei nostri lavoratori non è
insoddisfatto”. 12 June 2018. Available at: http://www.romatoday.it/economia/riders-consegne-lavoro-
contratto-foodora.html
Scholz T (2017) Uberworked and underpaid: How workers are disrupting the digital economy. Malden,
MA: Polity.
Shapiro A (2018) Between autonomy and control: Strategies of arbitrage in the ‘on-demand’ economy.
New Media & Society 20(8): 2954–2971.
Simms M (2012) Imagined Solidarities: Where Is Class in Union Organising?. Capital & Class 36(1):
97–115.
Simms M and Dean D (2015) Mobilising contingent workers: An analysis of two successful cases.
Economic and Industrial Democracy 36(1): 173–190.
Snow D A and Benford R (1988) Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International
social movement research: 197-217.
27
Spradley JP (1979) The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanich College
Publisher.
Stjernø S (2004) Solidarity in Europe: The History of an Idea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tassinari, A and Maccarrone, V (2017a) Striking the Startups. Jacobin. Available at:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/foodora-strike-turin-gig-economy-startups-uber
Tassinari, A and Maccarrone, V (2017b), “The mobilisation of gig economy couriers in Italy: some
lessons for the trade union movement.” Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 25(3):
353-357.
Tassinari, A and Maccarrone, V (2018), “Le mobilitazioni dei fattorini della gig economy in Italia:
forme organizzative e implicazioni per la rappresentanza”, Quaderni di Rassegna Sindacale: Lavori, 2.
Thompson P and van den Broek D (2010) Managerial control and workplace regimes: an introduction.
Work, employment and society 24(3): 1-12.
Touraine A, Wieviorka M and Dubet F (1987) The Workers’ Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Vallas SP (1987) The Labor Process as a Source of Class Consciousness: A Critical Examination.
Sociological Forum 2(2): 237–256.
van Doorn N (2017) Platform labor: on the gendered and racialized exploitation of low-income service
work in the ‘on-demand’ economy. Information, Communication & Society 20(6): 898-914.
Veen A, Barratt T and Goods C (2019) Platform-Capital’s ‘App-etite’ for Control: A Labour Process
Analysis of Food-Delivery Work in Australia. Work, Employment and Society 00: 1–19 (Accessed 17
May 2019).
Waters F and Woodcock J (2017) Far From Seamless: a Workers’ Inquiry at Deliveroo. Viewpoint
Magazine, 20 September 2017.
28
Wilde R (2007) The concept of solidarity: Emerging from the theoretical shadows?. The British Journal
of Politics and International Relations 9(1): 171–181.
Wood AJ, Lehdonvirta V and Graham M (2018) Workers of the Internet unite? Online freelancer
organisation among remote gig economy workers in six Asian and African countries. New Technology,
Work and Employment 33(2): 95-112.
Woodcock J (2016) Deliveroo and UberEats: organising in the gig economy in the UK. Connessioni
Precarie. Available at: http://www.connessioniprecarie.org/2016/11/11/deliveroo-and-ubereats-
organising-in-the-gig-economy-in-the-uk/
Yin RK (2013) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications.
Author biographies:
Arianna Tassinari is a PhD student in the Industrial Relations Research Unit (IRRU), Warwick Business
School, University of Warwick.
Vincenzo Maccarrone is a PhD student in Industrial Relations at Smurfit Graduate School of
Business, University College Dublin.
29
Figure 1 Four-sided model of food delivery platforms (author’s own elaboration)
30
Figure 2 Solidarity in the gig economy: summary of findings
31