Young Workers on Digital Labor Platforms: Uncovering the Double Autonomy Paradox

Abstract

Drawing on interviews with 12 young adults in the Danish digital labor market, this article investigates how young workers on digital labor platforms experience the tension between ‘algorithmic management’ and autonomy. Digital labor platforms promise autonomy to workers, but the study shows that the platforms in varying degrees exert control over the labor process in different stages of the work. The inherent non-transparency of the algorithmic management systems makes it difficult for the young workers to understand the underlying mechanisms of the platforms. While the young workers’ autonomy in some important ways is restricted by the algorithmic management systems, the young workers have all chosen the platform work because they feel that it allows them to control where and when they work. We propose the conceptualization ‘the double autonomy paradox of young workers’ to describe this phenomenon.

Hybrid Work Patterns: A Latent Class Analysis of Platform Workers in Denmark

“…We have chosen to label this group as new labor market entrants primarily due to their age and employment status. These variables indicate that this group are in a phase of their life cycle, where they have just entered the labor market and they will most likely shift labor market position later in their career, as we know that young people tend to be highly mobile (Sloth Laursen et al 2021). These findings are, however, not surprising, as young people with limited career trajectories tend to be overrepresented among other groups of non-standard workers and thus the so-called periphery segment on the labor market according to much segmentation and platform studies, as well as in line with our expectations (Berg 2016;Healy et al 2017;Pesole et al 2018).…”

“…Some have even argued that digital platforms can have disruptive effects on the labor market due to these changes (Danish Disruption Council 2019;Hauben et al 2020;Urzi Brancati et al 2019). This is also the case in the Nordic countries, where the first empirical studies of platform work highlight work practices characterized by new forms of flexibility with associated social risks (Jesnes 2019;Oppegaard 2020;Sloth Laursen et al 2021).…”

Technodiscipline of Work: Does Post-Pandemic Platform Employment Generate New Psychosocial Risks?

“…The first is that it is currently expanding globally, particularly in countries such as Spain (an estimated 18% are platform workers) or the UK [ 28 ]. Secondly, it is a form of work that is often considered to be the “future of work” [ 29 ]. The conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic have led to an expansion of these work models, which indicates that this is a perspective that is becoming established, thus the importance of legislating and analysing it in depth.…”

“…Although the scientific literature needs to explore these economic models in more depth, it has already been found that their associated occupational risks include a loss of job control and low autonomy [ 29 ], an increase in job insecurity [ 16 ] and a decline in employment-derived income [ 29 ]. This is related to the phenomenon of in-work poverty, defined as those people who are employed but do not earn above the poverty line.…”

“…Psychologically, mathematics is thought of as absolute, therefore unquestionable and generally indecipherable. As a result, the digital discipline of work confronts the consciousness of the worker with a mathematical examination—almost mystical—of constant evaluation [ 29 ], to which the person submits themselves, putting at stake not only the future of their work performance but time and again their worth as a worker or employee.…”