Gender and precarity in platform work: Old inequalities in the new world of work

• Published date: 01 July 2022
• Author: Christine Gerber
• Date: 01 July 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12233

Received: 20 August 2021

|

Revised: 5 January 2022

|

Accepted: 27 January 2022

DOI: 10.1111/ntwe.12233

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Gender and precarity in platform work:

Old inequalities in the new world of work

Christine Gerber

Berlin Social Science Center, Research

Group “Globalization, Work and

Production”, Berlin, Germany

Correspondence

Christine Gerber, Berlin Social Science

Center, Research Group “Globalization,

Work and Production”, Reichpietschufer

50, 10785 Berlin, Germany.

Email: christine.gerber@wzb.eu

Abstract

Platform work creates a work model that is both a

curse and a blessing for vulnerable labour market

segments. Based on research on female precarity, the

article expects that remote platform work—so‐called

crowdwork—could especially attract women who need

to combine income and care responsibilities. This

article investigates whether women experience more

precarity on crowdwork platforms than men, and why

their risks differ. It analyses data from a quantitative

survey with crowdworkers in Germany and the United

States. The results indicate higher precarity risks for

women due to care work, which are also indirectly

mediated via the employment status. The higher

commodification of labour and weaker social infra-

structure lead to generally greater precarity risks for

platform workers in the United States. The high

differences between women and men in Germany

underline the gendered nature of labour market

dualization and precarization as well as the traditional

division of housework. Policy measures should address

both platform work and these structural inequalities.

New Technol Work Employ. 2022;37:206–230.206

|

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ntwe

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and

reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2022 The Authors. New Technology, Work and Employment published by Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

1|INTRODUCTION

In the capitalist division of labour, women are in a structurally vulnerable labour market

position as they often face a ‘second shift’of unpaid care work, including in particular

housework and childcare, that are central for the reproduction of labour (Hochschild &

Machung, 2012).

1

Especially in countries with a weaker welfare state and social infrastructure,

‘the gendered division of housework and care activities, which are unpaid and undervalued, but

also never completed’limits the extent and time available for paid work and negatively affects

women's bargaining position in the labour market (Piasna & Drahokoupil, 2017, p. 326). Even

without care responsibilities, women often find themselves in a segmented labour market,

including the undervalued tertiary sector, as societal stereotypes and legacies translate into

structural inequalities (Bettio et al., 2013; England, 2005).

Against this background of structural constraints on women's workforce participation, the

question has been raised of whether the gig economy improves, transforms or aggravates

gender inequalities. In platform work, app‐or internet‐based companies mediate jobs ‘on‐

demand’to formally independent workers. Supporters argue that platform work can function

as a ‘social equalizer’by providing easy and less discriminatory access to income for otherwise

disadvantaged groups (Hoang et al., 2020, p. 3). Aside from the income, the spatial and

temporal flexibility has been shown to be a significant motivator for people to pursue platform

work (Berg et al., 2018; Schor & Vallas, 2021). This is especially the case for the remote form of

platform work, so‐called crowdwork. Platforms such as Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) and

Upwork organise location‐independent services that are performed online. Women with care

responsibilities could therefore turn towards working such fragmented online gigs as they can

flexibly self‐select jobs, interrupt whenever required—and most importantly stay at home

(Adams‐Prassl & Berg, 2017).

Throughout history, however, home‐based solo self‐employment has been among the most

precarious strategies for income generation—characterised as it is by individualisation, low

incomes and social insecurity. In addition, the algorithmic management of platform work is

intensifying fragmentation, invisibility and competition (Irani, 2013). Crowdwork could thus

reinforce women's placement in a secondary and more precarious labour market and enhance

their dependence on a partner (Piasna & Drahokoupil, 2017; Rubery &Piasna, 2016).

Gender‐sensitive studies on platform work—as well as studies focusing on other

dimensions of inequality—are still scarce (Adams‐Prassl & Berg, 2017; Churchill & Craig, 2019;

MacDonald & Giazitzoglu, 2019; Piasna & Drahokoupil, 2017). This article addresses this gap

by asking to what extent gender differences are reproduced within crowdwork. The analysis

builds on data from an online survey with 1131 crowdworkers based in Germany and the

United States performing both micro‐and macrowork. This enables a comparison of distinct

institutional contexts and skill levels. First, the article compares the socioeconomic

backgrounds and working conditions of men and women in the sample, and second, examines

to what extent gender directly or indirectly affects precarity risks. The analysis is guided by the

assumption that these should differ between men and women as a result of distinct positions on

the labour market (framed as economic precarity) and distinct positions in the household

(framed as household precarity). The conceptual focus is thus on the interplay between gender,

employment and welfare systems.

The findings indicate higher precarity risks for women in the sample. These higher risks

can be directly linked to the unequal division of unpaid care and domestic work, and indirectly

to fragmented and precarious employment backgrounds. An important finding involves the

|

207