Platform Work Shouldn’t Be Forced into the Wage Framework

Delivery riders, parcel couriers, and designated drivers work in ways that differ from traditional wage employees. Rather than signing labor contracts, they typically enter into subcontracting or service contracts, and are generally paid based on the number of jobs completed, distance traveled, or time slots worked.

It is unreasonable to view this entire area through the same framework as traditional wage labor. Yet while deliberating the “minimum wage to be applied in 2027,” the Minimum Wage Commission is reviewing whether a separate minimum wage standard can be applied to piece-rate or similar forms of compensation. Imposing a wage standard on compensation that is not wages is, in itself, already a “category error.”

Piece-rate work and platform jobs originated as fundamentally different forms of work. Their working hours, workload, and contract structures all differ from traditional wage labor. The core value of these jobs lies in the fact that they allow people to work in a relatively flexible manner.

Many people chose this model because they expected to work when they wanted and as much as they wanted. To impose traditional wage standards on those who chose that flexibility is to force a different kind of work into the same framework.

The first thing undermined is the autonomy of contracts. That is because the state would be forcing workers and those assigning the work to retroactively conform to a uniform standard, even though they had already set terms by considering workload, compensation methods, and the degree of flexibility in choosing working hours.

If the government tries to control diverse forms of contracts by forcing them into standards designed for wage employees, only side effects will result. In addition, people who want to work will be harmed by having fewer types of jobs available to choose from.

Compensation in platform labor moves according to supply and demand, time slots, distance, and degree of difficulty. If a uniform wage standard is imposed on top of this, price signals will be distorted, and the cost will inevitably be passed on to consumers in the form of delivery fees, service charges, or higher minimum order amounts.

It is unrealistic to expect that if platforms are regulated, the platforms will absorb all the costs. When costs rise, companies respond by adjusting prices, changing assignment methods, or reducing the scope of operations. In the end, the costs created by misguided regulation are passed on to consumers and workers.

Above all, platform workers have a strong character as independent business operators. If that essence is ignored and the framework of the “minimum wage” is forcibly imposed on them, it will create greater confusion and side effects rather than protection. Attempts to bind increasingly diverse ways of working into a single framework, even if labeled “protection,” ultimately lead to fewer jobs themselves.

And in the end, the damage falls on everyone. Workers who lose gigs, consumers who face higher service fees, and businesses burdened with regulatory costs all become victims of this misguided approach. Regulation justified in the name of “protection” thus creates a vicious cycle that instead tightens its grip on the entire market.

Respecting the choices and autonomy of working people must be the starting point. The rational order is for the system to follow a model in which contract terms are freely set and contracts are respected. Forcibly imposing a uniform minimum wage standard destroys that starting point.

I hope the Minimum Wage Commission will make the wise choice of respecting contracts, rather than introducing “regulations” that reduce jobs.

Sung-no Choi, President, Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

---

Original title: 플랫폼 노동, 임금의 틀에 가둬선 안돼

Author: Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

Date: 2026-05-25

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=press&pn=1&idx=28967