Bangkok: A one-year proposal is currently in motion aimed at verifying the employment status of platform workers, which could open the door for their inclusion under Section 33 of the Constitution.
According to Thai News Agency, Thammasat University academics emphasize that the government's primary objective within the year is to establish the employment status of platform workers and riders as "employees" rather than informal workers. This initiative involves classifying them based on ICSE-18 principles, implementing supportive legislation, and utilizing EU criteria to broaden their protection. If successful, these measures would facilitate their inclusion in the Social Security Act Section 33, thereby reinstating their rights and benefits.
Associate Professor Dr. Kritsada Teerakosalapong from the Faculty of Social Work at Thammasat University highlighted that recognizing platform workers and riders as "employees" is a tangible step the government can realistically achieve within a year, as announced on May 22, 2026. This step entails providing legal labor protections and basic welfare by integrating them into the social security system, which would ensure fairer rights and welfare for these workers.
Assistant Professor Dr. Kritsada proposed that the employment status should be verified according to ICSE-18 principles, which classify workers into two categories: independent/non-dependent workers (informal) and non-independent/dependent workers (employees). Platform workers engaged through applications, such as riders and cleaning staff, demonstrate a clear employment relationship due to the income received from platform companies, classifying them as non-independent workers or employees.
He further explained that misclassifying platform workers as informal workers deprives them of essential employment rights and benefits. Currently, they are limited to voluntary insurance under Section 40 of the social security system, which lacks employer contributions, unlike Section 33's mandatory insurance. Correctly classifying them under Section 33 would rectify this, involving platform companies in sharing responsibility for their welfare.
Moreover, the Thammasat University academic suggested that the government and Ministry of Labour should enact ministerial regulations under Section 22 of the Labour Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) to ensure riders receive comparable labor protection. Alternatively, specific legislation should be crafted for platform workers, encompassing both physical and online platform work, while avoiding incorrect definitions that could misclassify employment status.
He also emphasized the need for legislation to protect diverse platform worker groups beyond just riders, including creative workers and those hired through digital platforms. Additionally, aligning with the EU Platform Work Directive, which mandates protective legislation for platform workers in all EU member states by December 2, 2026, could further clarify employment status definitions.
Confirming platform workers' employment status would automatically include them under Section 33, urging the Ministry of Labour and the Social Security Office to develop a consistent social security system. This includes verifying employee status based on various criteria, such as working hours, and necessitating platform companies' participation in compensation funds due to the high risk of work-related accidents among riders.
A Thammasat University scholar also noted that, alongside addressing employment status, the government and Ministry of Labour should address other challenges. These include ensuring protection against work-related injuries, establishing a wage standard no less than a living wage, creating income security during unemployment, expanding retirement savings, and enhancing workers' rights through unions and collective bargaining mechanisms.