Maternity Protection for Women in the Gig Economy: Challenges and Opportunities for Legal Reform in Indonesia
Keywords:
gig economy maternity protection women workers labor law gender justiceAbstract
The rise of the gig economy has created new opportunitiesfor women to participate in the labor market, offering a level of flexibility that conventional employment systems cannot always provide. However, this flexibility comes at the cost of the loss of basic social protections, particularly maternity protection. In Indonesia, maternity rights guaranteed under the Labor Law and the Job Creation Law apply only to formal employees with clearly defined employment relationships. Gig workers, classified as independent partners, are excluded from such protections. This situation creates a normative gap between Indonesia’s international commitments under CEDAW and ILO Convention No. 183, and the reality of national law, which remains rooted in an industrial-era paradigm. This study employs a normative juridical method with conceptual, comparative, and reflective-philosophical approaches. The analysis examines employment relationships including fixed-term contracts (PKWT), permanent employment contracts (PKWTT), and freelance arrangements and situates gig workers within Indonesia’s labor law framework, comparing these with practices in other jurisdictions that have ratified relevant international instruments. The findings indicate that the failure of the law to secure maternity rights for gig workers is not merely a regulatory void, but reflects a lag in the national legal paradigm in responding to structural changes in the digital economy. This study proposes a hybrid regulatory model that balances operational flexibility with basic social protection. The state should expand the legal definition of employment to include platform workers and require digital companies to contribute proportionally to social security schemes, including maternity insurance. In doing so, the law can fulfill its essential function: protecting human dignity and promoting social justice amid ongoing economic transformation.
References
Aloisi, A. (2016). Commoditized workers: Case study research on labor law issues arising from a set of “on-demand/gig economy” platforms. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 37(3), 653– 690.
De Stefano, V. (2016). The rise of the “just-in-time workforce”: On-demand work, crowdwork, and labor protection in the “gig-economy”. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 37(3), 471–504.
Fudge, J. (2017). Gender, inequality and the gig economy: The case of platform work. Social & Legal Studies, 26(4), 377–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663917727231
International Labour Organization (ILO). (2000). Maternity Protection Convention, 2000 (No. 183). Geneva: International Labour Office.
International Labour Organization (ILO). (1958). Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111). Geneva: International Labour Office.
International Labour Organization (ILO). (2021). Digital labour platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world. Geneva: International Labour Office.
Kalleberg, A. L., & Dunn, M. (2016). Good jobs, bad jobs in the gig economy. Perspectives on Work, 20(1), 10–14.
Kaelan. (2015). Pancasila: Ideologi terbuka dan dasar negara. Yogyakarta: Paradigma.
Latif, Y. (2018). Negara Paripurna: Historisitas, rasionalitas, dan aktualisasi Pancasila. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Rani, U., & Furrer, M. (2021). Digital labour platforms and new forms of flexible work in developing countries: Algorithmic management and the quest for decent work. International Labour Review, 160(1), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12141
Rosenblat, A. (2018). Uberland: How algorithms are rewriting the rules of work. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Standing, G. (2011). The Precariat: The new dangerous class. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
United Nations. (1979). Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). New York: United Nations.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Indonesian Legal Sources
Government of Indonesia. (1945). The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945).
Government of Indonesia. (2003). Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower (Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2003 tentang Ketenagakerjaan).
Government of Indonesia. (2020). Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation (Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2020 tentang Cipta Kerja).
Government of Indonesia. (2021). Government Regulation No. 35 of 2021 on Fixed-Term Employment Agreements, Outsourcing, Working Time, and Termination of Employment (Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 35 Tahun 2021 tentang Perjanjian Kerja Waktu Tertentu, Alih Daya, Waktu Kerja, dan Pemutusan Hubungan Kerja).
Government of Indonesia. (2011). Law No. 24 of 2011 on Social Security Administration (Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2011 tentang Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial).
Philosophical and Theoretical References
Freeman, M. D. A. (2011). Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence (8th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Nonet, P., & Selznick, P. (1978). Law and Society in Transition: Toward Responsive Law. New York: Harper & Row.
Pound, R. (1910). Law in books and law in action. American Law Review, 44(1), 12–36.
