Radio New Zealand

The International Labour Organization (ILO) has adopted the first binding international standards for gig workers, establishing global rules for pay, safety, and algorithmic management in the ride-hailing and food delivery sectors. While the agreement marks a significant shift in labor protections, enforcement remains subject to individual government ratification, with the United States voting against the measure citing concerns over economic flexibility.

How does the new ILO convention protect gig workers?

The new standards mandate protections that apply to workers regardless of whether they are classified as employees or independent contractors. According to the ILO, these protections include guaranteed occupational safety and health measures, minimum remuneration, and safeguards against unjustified termination or account deactivation. The convention also requires platforms to provide transparency regarding how automated systems—or algorithms—influence pay and work access. Amanda Brown, vice chair of the ILO’s Workers’ Group, described the agreement as a landmark moment that recognizes individuals in the gig economy who were previously left without international legal status.

Why did the United States vote against the agreement?

The United States joined seven other nations, including New Zealand, in voting against the convention. US representative Lorenzo Riboni stated that the government opposes “prescriptive binding” rules in sectors that are rapidly evolving. According to the US delegation, rigid regulations may hinder innovation and potentially harm the very workers the policies aim to support. This stance contrasts with the 406 members, including Germany, France, China, and Japan, who voted in favor of the adoption. The UK and India chose to abstain from the final vote.

What challenges remain for global enforcement?

While the ILO has established a global “floor” for labor standards, it lacks direct enforcement power. Lena Simet, a senior advisor on economic justice at Human Rights Watch, noted that the effectiveness of these rules depends entirely on national governments. Countries must first ratify the convention and then incorporate it into domestic law. Once ratified, the convention creates a legal pathway for workers to hold platforms accountable in court. However, the current disparity in worker pay remains a hurdle; a 2025 Human Rights Watch report found that US platform workers earned a median of US$5.12 per hour after expenses, falling roughly 30% below the federal minimum wage.

Future trends in algorithmic management

The requirement for platforms to disclose how automated systems function marks a shift toward “algorithmic accountability.” In the past, companies often treated their dispatch and pay algorithms as proprietary trade secrets. Under the new standards, platforms are now expected to explain the logic behind automated decisions that affect a worker’s livelihood. This transparency mandate is expected to influence future labor litigation, as courts may now have a standardized international benchmark to measure whether a platform’s management practices are fair or discriminatory.

Frequently Asked Questions

• Does this convention automatically change my pay?
  No. The convention must be ratified and enacted into law by your national government before it carries legal weight in your country.
• Which countries supported the new standards?
  A total of 406 members voted in favor, including Germany, France, China, Japan, and South Africa.
• Does the ILO have the power to fine companies?
  No. The ILO does not have enforcement power, but its members can file complaints that trigger investigations and create political pressure on governments to enforce labor laws.
• What is “algorithmic management”?
  It refers to the use of software and automated systems to monitor, assign tasks, and determine pay for workers on platforms like Uber or DoorDash.

Are you a gig worker or an industry stakeholder? Share your thoughts on how these new standards might affect your local economy in the comments section below, or subscribe to our newsletter for ongoing updates on international labor policy.

Former chief ombudsman Sir Peter Boshier has called for urgent reforms to the Official Information Act (OIA) after revealing he once threatened to refer Te Whatu Ora to the Solicitor-General for prosecution due to persistent non-compliance. Boshier, who served as ombudsman from December 2015 to March 2025, cited a lack of legal consequences for agencies that ignore information requests as a primary failure in the current system.

Why is the Official Information Act facing calls for reform?

The push for legislative change follows a report by consultancy firm TBL, which estimates the annual cost of processing OIA requests has surged by 293 percent over the past decade. According to the report, costs rose from $46.7 million in the 2015/16 financial year to $183.6 million in 2024/25, with projections suggesting expenses could reach $342 million by 2030/31. Critics of the current system, including investigative journalist Andrea Vance, argue that the absence of penalties for agencies that withhold information undermines democratic transparency.

How do agencies handle information requests?

Boshier observed that many government agencies struggle with a “multi-layered” approach to information requests, frequently treating simple queries as complex, time-consuming tasks. During his tenure, Boshier handled over 14,000 complaints and conducted 37 proactive investigations. He noted that agencies often exhaust the full 20-day statutory response window for requests that could be answered much faster. He characterized the bureaucratic response in some departments as “making a mountain out of a molehill,” noting that this inefficiency hampers the public’s right to participate in government decision-making.

What are the proposed solutions for OIA non-compliance?

Proposed reforms focus on two main areas: structural independence and legal accountability. Andrea Vance advocates for the creation of independent, dedicated teams within government agencies specifically tasked with handling information requests to separate them from standard departmental workflows. Furthermore, there is growing support for introducing penalties for agencies that fail to release information. Currently, the OIA lacks a mechanism to punish departments that hold back data until a time that is “politically convenient,” a practice that advocates argue erodes public trust.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are there penalties for agencies that ignore OIA requests?

Currently, there are no direct financial or legal penalties for agencies that fail to comply with the Official Information Act, a gap that former chief ombudsman Sir Peter Boshier has identified as a significant legislative flaw.

Why have the costs of OIA requests increased so significantly?

While the TBL report cites a 293 percent increase in costs, data indicates that a significant portion of this growth stems from administrative changes, such as the police reclassifying media enquiries as formal OIA requests starting in 2018/19.

What percentage of public spending goes toward OIA compliance?

Critics of the rising cost estimates point out that the $180 million annual figure represents approximately 0.25 percent of total annual public spending, arguing that transparency remains a cost-effective pillar of democracy.

What are your thoughts on the transparency of government agencies? Share your experiences with the OIA process in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for ongoing updates on public sector accountability.