A shift towards gig economies has resulted in significant setbacks for workers’ rights and protections across the globe. Being independent actors providing services and not employees of the companies they work for, gig workers are often faced with unfair compensation, lack of benefits, oppressive amounts of work, and lack of adequate legal protections. While gig economies benefit platforms, that can make massive profits by acting as middlemen, and consumers. who can access services instantly and often at low costs, workers often get a lousy deal. ‘Insta Maid’ – Urban Company’s newest offering – brings this into sharp focus and forces us to confront how workers are commodified and exploited for their labour as gig economies become the norm.
‘Insta Maid’ – Urban Company’s newest offering – brings this into sharp focus and forces us to confront how workers are commodified and exploited for their labour as gig economies become the norm.
Home Services brand Urban Company announced on March 13, 2025, that it is launching a new service called ‘Insta Maid’, wherein users can hire domestic workers to arrive at their homes within fifteen minutes. Costing INR 245 per hour, with an introductory offer price of INR 49, the service has currently been introduced in Mumbai but will expand to major cities in the following months.
However, the company faced criticism online for its use of the demeaning and gendered term ‘maid’, following which the platform has now changed the name of the service to ‘Insta Help’. Although, ‘Insta Maid’ has issues that run deeper than what would be the appropriate nomenclature. Urban Company claims that workers who put in six hours a day can earn INR 20,000 per month at a minimum, and will be provided health insurance and on-the-job life and accident coverage.
The company also made the tall claim that it intended to formalise an unorganised sector and uplift domestic workers. While all of this appears good on paper, a chasm exists between the claims that gig platforms make and the lived realities of the workers who provide these services.
The exploitation coded into gig work
Exploitation is inherent to such a model of work. Workers of quick commerce and gig platforms are not employees, they are gig workers – independent actors working on temporary agreements with these companies. While gig workers often get no benefits of traditional employment like steady wages, benefits, and job security, they also have to concede large portions of their income to these platforms as commissions.
Gig work, across the board, is exploitive in a myriad of ways. The frenzied demand for low-cost, instant services is strengthening the gig economy and the widespread acceptance of this exploitive employment model obscures the plight of underpaid, overworked, exploited workers behind claims of benefiting the working class by increasing work opportunities and facilitating easier access to them.
Often the sole beneficiaries of gig work are companies and consumers. While all gig platforms like to tout how they centre workers’ rights and well-being, this is far from the truth. A Fairwork India report assessing eleven platforms on metrics of fair pay, fair conditions, fair contracts, fair management, and fair representation found that, of the eleven major gig platforms assessed, Urban Company and Big Basket were the only companies that had a minimum wage policy, but none of the eleven platforms, including Urban Company, were able to provide evidence that every worker did indeed receive the minimum wage.
Even though Urban Company ranked among the top four scorers (all scoring six of a possible score of ten) as per the report, workers’ experiences tell a different tale.
Even though Urban Company ranked among the top four scorers (all scoring six of a possible score of ten) as per the report, workers’ experiences tell a different tale. In 2021, when Urban Company workers protested against the platform’s new punishing regulations, Urban Company responded by suing the protestors. In 2024, Urban Company workers in Hyderabad protested against the company for wage theft, arbitrary dismissals, and discriminatory practices and sought to register a police complaint.
In February this year, AC technicians working with the company protested due to lowered wages, large commissions, ID blocking, and the new requirement for submitting sixteen videos of each repair (as opposed to the previous four) leading to confrontations with consumers and subsequent poor ratings.
The National General Secretary of the Indian Federation of App-based Transport Workers and the Founder-President of the Telangana Gig and Platform Workers Union, Shaik Salauddin, condemned Urban Company’s ‘Insta-Maid’ for being exploitative. A press note and press release he shared with FII regarding the matter stated, ‘Urban Company’s introduction of a 15-minute maid booking service is an outright exploitation of gig and domestic workers under the guise of convenience.’
Calling it akin to ‘modern-day servitude‘, it further read, ‘Domestic workers, who are already in precarious conditions, will now be further commodified under the quick-commerce model. Urban Company has a history of imposing harsh rating systems, high platform commissions, and arbitrary penalties on workers. This new model will worsen working conditions, forcing workers to meet unrealistic service speeds at the cost of their health and dignity.‘
Problems of poor compensation, unjust treatment, overwork, and safety that all workers face due to class and caste factors in India are only exacerbated by the strengthening of gig economies, not resolved by them. And Urban Company’s claim that it seeks to formalise domestic work is a tall order with little clarity as to how it seeks to do that.
And Urban Company’s claim that it seeks to formalise domestic work is a tall order with little clarity as to how it seeks to do that.
Speaking to FII, Mallica Patel, a master’s student pursuing her thesis on gig work and unions at Ambedkar University, Delhi, said, ‘Formalisation will kill their entire economic model. It currently functions because of the low paid piece rate wages that it gives its workers. Also, what do they mean by formalisation? Simply registering workers or providing the status of a ‘worker’ to the gig workers. In this case, they will have to implement minimum wage, insurance, working hours across the board etcetera – something they cannot afford.‘
Handing control to platforms and customers in Urban Company’s model
Domestic work is often a good way for working-class women to earn a living. But this is largely because domestic workers in an area often form an informal understanding among each other to control prices to some degree and set some rules regarding working conditions. This is not to suggest that all the power lies in their hands and they are free from exploitation; traditional domestic work is plagued by a myriad of issues including exploitation, dehumanisation, classism, and casteism, but with a platform stepping in to mediate, whatever little control workers have to negotiate is also diluted.
Domestic workers hired by Urban Company have no say in how much is charged for the service they provide or how much of that they have to concede to the app in the form of platform commission. Further, in a traditional setting, domestic workers often set their hours and can choose how much they work and the nature of the work they do.
‘Insta Help’ takes this away too, by giving the algorithm entire control over how much work one is assigned and giving the remaining control regarding the nature of the work to the consumer, with little choice available to workers; completely disempowering them in the process.
Further, while Urban Company claims workers can make INR 150-180 per hour, whether they will be assigned work and how often is up to the algorithm. Further, arbitrary and permanent deactivation of workers’ IDs over ratings has been a frequent feature at Urban Company. Whatever little power domestic workers hold in traditional settings is conceded to such apps in a gig working model.
Noting how gig workers often get the short end of the stick, Patel said, ‘Workers working within the platform economy engage with algorithmic opaqueness and digital control. They work in what can be defined as ‘algorithmic insecurity’. In a physical space, the workers’ reputation is legitimised by client satisfaction and cannot be arbitrarily decided or quantified. This is completely lost in an opaque software-based measurement.‘
Domestic workers find some power in numbers and have increased bargaining power when they act together with a collective understanding; and however limited such power may be, it is still a crucial check against exploitation. But by making the prospect of collective action harder, platforms give gig workers little say in how much their labour should cost and how and when it should be provided.
But by making the prospect of collective action harder, platforms give gig workers little say in how much their labour should cost and how and when it should be provided.
Collective bargaining is actively frowned upon by platforms whose profit maximisation lies in worker exploitation. The Fairwork Report found that none of the platforms it assessed recognised any gig workers’ unions or collectives. Following protests in 2024, Urban Company’s CEO said, ‘Sometimes there is pressure on us. Local politicians and unions get involved; some may seek political mileage.‘
He added, ‘We are always open to talking to partners one-on-one and explaining our rationale. But we will not talk to people outside the UC community. We don’t recognize them and have no relation with them.’ By undermining unions and creating a system where workers find it harder to organise and speak as a collective, their ability to negotiate dwindles.
Further, the harms of this app-based model of domestic work extend to domestic workers who aren’t part of the gig and platform-based economy by diluting their bargaining power as well. If domestic workers seek to raise their wages, large platforms like Urban Company that can afford to provide cheaper costs will capture the market. This also has the effect of causing wage depression across the sector by fixing wages at prices artificially lowered by platforms for an edge in the market.
Concurring, Patel added, ‘Working independently is tough because the platforms have driven down the prices. This is what will happen with domestic workers too with the low-paid ‘insta maid’ service Urban Company is offering. It will drive a wedge in the existing market.’
In June 2023, Urban Company workers planned a nationwide protest against the lack of flexibility, and precarious access to work due to workers’ IDs being blocked and the criterion for a 70 per cent response rate that workers must maintain. Months later, workers of the platform who provide salon services protested unjust working conditions, alleging that the platform blocked their IDs if customers cancelled bookings or if they received ratings below 4.8. They also claimed newer workers were favoured and workers associated with the platform for a longer time found it harder to find work.
Blocked IDs lead to workers being deboarded from the platform, often permanently.
Blocked IDs lead to workers being deboarded from the platform, often permanently. Patel noted, ‘The lack of adequate rating, if not leading to deboarding leads to ‘retraining’ which is an added burden on the worker’s time and money. Further, penalties and ID are blocking for cancelling orders (even due to sickness etc.) or the slightest complaint by a customer – further enhancing the control of the companies and the customers.’
Inadequate provisions for worker safety
A majority of domestic workers in India are women. This gives rise to the question of how Urban Company seeks to ensure the safety of the women working for them. In a traditional setting, domestic workers can assess the safety of a potential workplace by enquiring with other domestic workers and safety concerns in particular homes can be flagged and widely relayed by word of mouth.
While not a foolproof method, such word-of-mouth allows for some degree of safety and informed decision-making. Workers also can meet and speak with potential employers before committing to working for them and can make an informed decision regarding workplace safety.
‘Insta Help’ doesn’t provide for any of these options. Domestic workers hired through the app won’t know who has hired them and they will have no information to access the safety of their workplace beforehand. Further, Urban Company’s harsh rating system and ID blocking make domestic workers further vulnerable because walking out of a potentially dangerous or uncomfortable situation can lead to deboarding from the platform and job loss due to poor customer ratings and exceeding the number of permissible cancellations per month.
Punyavathi, a Hyderabad-based domestic worker, told FII*, ‘I don’t think such a service is very safe. When we work in a colony or a particular area, we get to know other domestic workers who work there as well. We warn each other if there are safety concerns or if working in a particular house could be unsafe. Through an app, that option doesn’t exist. Having worked in the same area for several years, when we take on new work, we usually know who we are going to work for, but on such apps, everyone is anonymous and that can be quite unsafe.’
Highlighting the lack of safety provisions by platforms to ensure the safety of gig workers, Apoorva, President of App Karmchari Ekta Union (affiliated to AICCTU) told FII, ‘Where an employer-employee relationship is not acknowledged by the employer, the question that they have adequate measures for the safety of the workers has become moot. An employer is bound to ensure workplace safety mechanisms for their workers. When Urban Company calls their female workers ‘independent contractors’, they are not obligated to follow the PoSH act for the gig workers. They are not responsible for ensuring minimum wages, ESI, PF, health insurance, etc. So, for these companies to have any redressal mechanisms, they need to be held accountable as an employer by the government. What was established hundreds of years ago, that the employer is accountable for the lives and livelihoods of the workers, is rendered meaningless in the gig work model.‘
Beyond considerations of women’s workplace safety, platforms encroaching into the ambit of domestic work risks reducing women’s participation in domestic work.
Beyond considerations of women’s workplace safety, platforms encroaching into the ambit of domestic work risks reducing women’s participation in domestic work. Domestic work is often a more socio-economically and logistically feasible choice of work for many working-class women because it balances economic feasibility with socio-cultural and patriarchal considerations.
Women being engaged in domestic work often find more patriarchal – thus familial and social – sanction due to the highly gendered lens with which the job is viewed and the ability to accommodate logistical considerations such as providing childcare and other care work by allowing for more flexibility in working hours. The app-based model, due to its rigidity, doesn’t allow for such logistical feasibility and thus risks turning women away from the workforce.
Adding to this, Patel said, ‘Considering the dependence the middle class has on domestic work, this is almost an essential service which gives domestic workers a high bargaining power both inside (in the intrafamily dynamics) and outside (in the job market) the household. Further, it increased their bargaining power within the household as they had a source of income, sometimes as high or higher than their husbands – such that they were able to have a say in the decision-making about their children’s education or the household expenses.’
For quick-commerce platforms, capturing the market by meeting the consumer need for instant services at low and attractive costs is essential to make and maximise profit, which is the bottom line. However, turning profits while charging low prices is only possible by exploiting workers to provide cheap labour.
All gig platforms make inflated claims about centring workers’ rights, providing better economic opportunities, and revolutionising sectors for workers’ benefit, but this is often nothing more than an exercise in good PR. The real focus is often maximising profit, whatever the human cost.
We can now buy an iPhone on quick-commerce apps and have it delivered to us in ten minutes. Several posts are made on X (formerly Twitter) every day with someone complaining that their grocery delivery took fifteen minutes instead of five, as was promised. We can hire workers to do just about anything around our house for prices that seem like a steal.
However, in the cacophony of 10-minute delivery guarantees and too-good-to-be-true discounts and offers, it is easy to forget that platforms won’t concede their profits for anyone, workers or consumers; so, if a consumer is getting a great deal, it’s because a worker is not.
*This is the author’s free translation of the quote from Hindi.
Some of the quotes in this article have been edited for clarity and length.
About the author(s)
Akshita Prasad is a 21-year-old who intends to pursue a career in criminal law. She is currently pursuing an undergraduate degree in Social Sciences. She has been identifying as a feminist since the age of thirteen and has been writing about it since; she also writes about law, politics, pop culture, and the LGBTQIA+ community. If not writing or reading, she's scouring Netflix for a new TV show to watch or is on her millionth re-run.
