Digital Platform Worker Protection Requires Specific Regulatory Framework
Protection for individuals earning income through digital platforms is considered increasingly vital as Indonesia’s platform economy expands. However, it is argued that regulations should be developed within a specific framework that differs from formal employment relationships and should not be included in the Labour Protection Bill.
This view emerged during the public seminar “The Future of Gig and Platform Economy in Indonesia,” organised by the Segara Research Institute. The discussion brought together perspectives from think tanks, academics, industry associations, and partner communities to examine the impact of platform work regulation on protection, flexibility, income opportunities, and investment.
The digital platform economy has a broad scope, ranging from e-commerce, agritech, digital education, and healthcare to domestic services, freelancers, creators, transport, and delivery. Differences in business models, income patterns, levels of dependency, and working methods mean that a single approach may not be suitable for all forms of platform work.
Piter Abdullah, Policy and Program Director at the Prasasti Center for Policy Studies, stated that discussions regarding protection must begin with understanding the nature of the relationships within the platform economy. He noted that formal workers, platform partners, independent contractors, and project-based workers have different working methods, making it inaccurate to place them in the same employment category.
“We need to look at the character of the work first. Some are free to determine when they work, how long they work, and which tasks they want to take; they can even earn income from more than one source. This character differs from conventional employment relationships,” he said, as quoted from a press release on Friday (2/10/2026).
Abdullah believes that social protection, safety, transparency, and dispute resolution mechanisms still need to be strengthened. However, such protection does not necessarily have to be implemented through a change in status to a formal employee or the application of rights and obligations that substantially resemble conventional employment.
“The ultimate goal remains protection. But the design of that protection must follow the nature of the work. If the relationship and working methods are different, we need to be careful so that regulations do not impose a one-size-fits-all model,” he added.
The consequences of such changes must also be viewed from the perspective of employment opportunities. YB Kadarusman, Associate Professor at Prasetiya Mulya Business School and Senior Economist at the Segara Research Institute, argued that the impact of policy designs that make the costs and obligations of platform work approach conventional employment must be calculated.
“If a work model is changed so that its costs and obligations become equal to or similar to conventional employment, companies will certainly adjust their operating models, including the number of people they can involve,” he said.
According to Kadarusman, this is crucial because platforms have served as an entry point for people needing primary or supplementary income. “We want to provide protection, but if the design of that protection results in significantly fewer people being able to access work, then the impact on society must also be calculated.”
Therefore, the impact of policy should not be viewed solely from the perspective of those already within the ecosystem, but also regarding the potential changes in access for those in need of income-earning opportunities.