Thailand Gig Economy Crushes Activist: Broken Promises and Digital Exploitation
This isn’t about 320 baht. It’s about a broken promise. Somyot Pruksakasemsuk, a labour activist in Thailand who once spent six years in prison for criticizing the monarchy, now finds himself chasing algorithms as a ride-hailing driver. After an eight-hour slog, platform fees and operating costs leave him scraping by — a brutal illustration of how the gig economy’s shimmering facade conceals a system designed to transfer risk onto workers while funnelling profits to platform giants.
“However hard life gets, I refuse to give up. Today, I have to struggle and turn to full-time platform driving.”
Reported by the Bangkok Post, Somyot’s story isn’t an anomaly; it’s a symptom. The “disruption” hailed as technological progress is increasingly a race to the bottom for labor. From Silicon Valley boardrooms to Sao Paulo favelas, the same script plays out: platform companies exploit their immense scale to extract maximum value from an increasingly vulnerable workforce.
But to focus solely on the platforms themselves is to miss the larger forces at play. Consider this: The erosion of worker power didn’t begin with Uber. The decline of union density, from nearly 35% of the US workforce in the 1950s to barely 10% today, coupled with the proliferation of “right-to-work” laws, systematically weakened collective bargaining. Globalization, fueled by trade agreements prioritizing capital mobility over labor standards, further exacerbated wage stagnation. Tech companies didn’t create these trends; they simply perfected their exploitation. They’re not the disease, but a virulent symptom.
The siren song of “flexibility” is hard to resist. The promise of setting your own hours, of being your own boss. Yet, that flexibility is a gilded cage. Workers shoulder the costs of vehicles, fuel, insurance, and healthcare, while platforms levy substantial commissions. As Assistant Professor Kritsada Theerakosonphong of Thammasat University points out, the “semi-independent” classification in Thailand, a legal fiction really, allows platforms to evade basic labor protections — accident insurance, social security — systematically shifting the burden of risk onto the individual. This isn’t just negligence; it’s a business model predicated on regulatory arbitrage.
Looking ahead, the relentless march of AI, automation, and algorithmic management promises even greater upheaval. The question is not whether technology will continue to “disrupt” the labor market — it will — but whether governments will step in to rewrite the rules of the game. Do we double down on a system that enriches a few at the expense of many, or do we proactively establish robust worker protections, redefine the employer-employee relationship for the 21st century, and ensure that the benefits of technological progress are shared more equitably? The alternative is a future where more and more people, like Somyot Pruksakasemsuk, are left stranded on the digital roadside. And that future isn’t inevitable; it’s a choice.
