Gig Workers and Legal Ambiguity: Flexibility and Vulnerability in Indonesia
Keywords:
Employment Relations Financial Inclusion gig workers legal ambiguity social protectionAbstract
The rise of gig workers poses a fundamental challenge to modern labour law, where the flexibility offered by digital platforms contrasts sharply with workers’ socio-economic vulnerability. As of October 2025, Indonesia still lacks a comprehensive legal framework governing gig work. Existing regulations, such as Government Regulation No. 35 of 2021 on Fixed-Term Employment, fail to capture the distinctive features of algorithm mediated labour relations. In contrast to Malaysia’s Gig Workers Act 2025, Indonesian gig workers remain in legal grey area, and their designation as “partners” diminishes their bargaining power against platforms. The protection gap is evident in their limited participation in social security schemes like BPJS Employment and BPJS Health, leaving them exposed to occupational hazards, work-related illnesses, and income insecurity without sufficient compensation. In the financial sector, despite the rapid growth of fintech and digital banking under OJK Regulation No. 3 of 2024, gig workers’ financial inclusion remains limited. Irregular income, minimal credit history, and low financial literacy continue to restrict access to secure and affordable financial services. This study reveals the asymmetrical power dynamic between digital platforms and gig workers, in which algorithmic systems control pricing, performance assessment, and contract termination. It recommends the establishment of a dedicated regulatory framework recognising gig workers’ legal status, adaptive social security mechanisms, a stronger role for the Financial Services Authority in promoting inclusive financial innovation, targeted literacy initiatives, and transparent algorithmic governance: essential steps towards a fair and sustainable digital labour ecosystem.
References
Ahmad, M., & Wilkins, S. (2025). Purposive Sampling in Qualitative Research: A Framework for the Entire Journey. Quality & Quantity, 59, 1461–1479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-024- 02022-5
Byrne, D. (2022). A Worked Example of Braun and Clarke’s Approach to Reflexive Thematic Analysis. Quality & Quantity, 56, 1391–1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y
Casanovas, P., de Koker, L., & Hashmi, M. (2022). Law, Socio-Legal Governance, the Internet of Things, and Industry 4.0: A Middle-Out/Inside-Out Approach. MDPI, 5(1), 64-91. https://doi.org/10.3390/j5010005
Dollah, R., Maraining, A., Jafar, A., Joko, E.P., & Sakke, N. (2024). Exploring the Interdependence Model in Malaysia-Indonesia Relations: Insights from Sabah, Malaysia. Intellectual Discourse, 32(1). https://doi.org/10.31436/id.v32i1.1943
Duggan, J., Carbery, R., McDonnell, A., & Sherman, U. (2023). Algorithmic HRM Control in the Gig Economy: The App-Worker Perspective. Human Resource Management, 62(6), 883-899. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22168
Ferroglio, C.F.C., Ferro, G., & Neder, A.E. (2024). Regulatory Lag, Efficiency, and Performance Lessons From a Case Study. Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, 25(1), 43-66. https://doi.org/10.1177/17835917241251811
Gerber, C. (2020). Community Building on Crowdwork Platforms: Autonomy and Control of Online Workers Competition & Change, 25(2), 190-211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1024529420914472.
Li, A.K. (2021). Beyond Algorithmic Control: Flexibility, Intermediaries, and Paradox in the On-Demand Economy. Information, Communication & Society, 25(14), 2012–2027. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1924225
Mehta, M., & Kappal, J.M. (2025), Good, Bad and Ugly Experiences of Non-Binary Gender Inclusion at the Workplace to Frame Employee Value Proposition. Personnel Review, 54(2), 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2023-0878
Mohlmann, M., Zalmanson, L., Henfridsson, O., Gregory, R.W. (2021). Algorithmic Management of Work on Online Labor Platforms: When Matching Meets Control1. MIS Quarterly, 45(4), 1999–2022. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/15333
Montgomery T., & Baglioni, S. (2021). Defining the Gig Economy: Platform Capitalism and the Reinvention of Precarious Work. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 41(9- 10), 1012–1025. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-08-2020-0400
Perulli, A. (2022). A Critique of Self-Employment. European Labour Law Journal, 13(2), 305-322. https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221088604
Prasetyo, E.H. (2022). Legitimacy Building of Digital Platforms in the Informal Economy: Evidence From Indonesia. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 14(6), 1168– 1187. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-02-2021-0073
Raimi, L. (2025). Contributions of the Shadow Economy and Gig Economy to Entrepreneurship and Business Development in Emerging Economies: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 45(5-6), 567–585. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-12- 2024-0638
Salisbury, L. C., Nenkov, G. Y., Blanchard, S. J., Hill, R. P., Brown, A. L., & Martin, K. D. (2023). Beyond Income: Dynamic Consumer Financial Vulnerability. Journal of Marketing, 87(5), 657-678. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429221150910
Sankaran, K. (2022). Transition from the Informal to the Formal Economy: The Need for a Multi-faceted Approach. The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 65, 625-642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-022-00398-2
Sheehy, B., Boddy, C., & Murphy, B. (2020). Corporate Law and Corporate Psychopats. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28(4), 479-507. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1795000
Turhan, E., Smith, J., Tekin, F., & Aydin-Duzgit, S. (2025). Germany’s Central Role in EU-Turkey Relations and Its Implications for EU Foreign Policy: An Introduction. German Politics, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2025.2502836
Wulansari, A. D., Novianto, A., Keban, Y. T., & Hernawan, A. (2024). Hiding Behind the Platform: The Myth of Flexibility for Gig Workers in Indonesia. South East Asia Research, 32(1), 22–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/0967828X.2023.2292101
