First, there is no labor contract between the platform and the rider. The relationship between platform and rider is different from that between general enterprises and employees. There is no stable labor contract relationship between the platform and the rider. The platform also does not need to pay social insurance for them, so there is no insurance protection in the event of a car accident in the rider's area, and the rider's income comes from the commission fee for their takeaway.
In this way, once the rider needs to be hospitalized, he loses all financial resources, and this practice of the platform can be said to be a loophole in the law, which avoids the labor cost in this way.
Second, the platform to transfer the contradiction between riders and consumers should be riders, but the management platform has transferred the contradiction to the wages and social welfare that should have been paid to riders by the platform. However, the contradiction between riders and consumers is very big, which makes both riders and consumers very embarrassed. The platform makes full use of this.
So the platform is very bad, and he didn't consider the rider's contribution to their platform.
Third, the income of starters is not guaranteed. The income of takeaway riders can only be obtained through the delivery of each order. Once they have a rest, they can't get income. Therefore, take-away riders can only repeat their work every day, and once they work overtime, most of their income will be deducted, so take-away riders should be punctual every day.
They often risk running red lights or, er, violating traffic laws, which will bring great danger to their lives. Therefore, riders rely on the risk of their own lives to get negligible income.