Bridging implementation gaps in Gig Workers Act

Correcting the flaws: Structural challenges must be resolved before the Act can be effectively enforced. — MUHAMAD SHAHRIL ROSLI/The Star

AS the Gig Workers Act 2025 (Act 872) officially comes into force today, My Mobility Vision Sdn Bhd (MMV) and a cross-sector coalition of industry partners, government agencies, academics, think tanks and gig worker associations have released a policy roadmap to bridge the implementation gaps that stand between a well-intentioned Act and one that is genuinely life-changing.

Titled “Operationalising ‘Fair Earnings’ under Act 872”, this roadmap follows a high-level roundtable held on March 9 that identified structural challenges to be resolved before the Act’s provisions can be effectively enforced.

Chief among them is the cost burden carried by gig workers, which is invisible in the Act’s current earnings framework.

Fuel, maintenance, insurance, platform commissions and social protection contributions can collectively consume between 70% and 80% of gross revenue.

A policy anchored to gross income figures will overstate what workers take home and understate the protection they actually need.

The coalition has tabled 10 actions, each mapped to a specific provision of the Act.

1. Transparent formation of the consultative council. The selection process must be based on merit and openly representative of workers, platforms of all sizes, regulators and independent technical experts. The council’s institutional legitimacy and, by extension, the Act’s legitimacy depends on how it is built.
2. Shift to an earnings determination framework. Regulation should define how earnings are calculated, not impose static wage floors that cannot accommodate a sector spanning 15 distinct business models. Sector-specific and platform-differentiated approaches, already contemplated under S.47(1) (a–b), should be activated from the outset.
3. Establish a standardised cost basket. Under S.47(1)(b), the government must define a framework accounting for direct costs such as fuel, maintenance, insurance, platform fees as well as idle and waiting time. This basket should be reviewed and updated periodically against market data.
4. Adopt net earnings as the policy benchmark. Policy must be anchored to post-deduction income, not gross figures. Operators should be required to display estimated net earnings to workers before they accept an assignment, giving every gig worker informed consent over every task.
5. Implement dynamic, data-driven earnings floors. The council should be empowered under S.47(1)(f) to recalibrate earnings floors in response to real-world cost fluctuations such as fuel prices. Static floors become stale floors.
6. Workers active across multiple platforms face duplicate PERKESO contributions and fragmented income records. The government should fast-track data-linking systems enabling cross-platform income aggregation, as contemplated under S.83(c) and S.83(g). Every ringgit lost to duplication is a ringgit taken from a worker.
7. Mandatory PERKESO contributions should be introduced through a managed transition supported by incentives and subsidies for workers and platforms alike. Abrupt mandates without transition infrastructure produce non-compliance, not protection.
8. Under S.8(2), operators must disclose how automated systems affect workers’ assignments and conditions. Minimum disclosure standards covering fare breakdowns and key pricing factors must be codified with clear boundaries protecting legitimate proprietary algorithms from unlimited scrutiny.
9. The deactivation provisions under Section 14 require clearer procedural architecture: graduated penalties, defined compensation during suspension periods and time-bound dispute resolution. These must be specified through subsidiary legislation or early council guidelines and not left to platform discretion.
10. Introduce tiered compliance requirements for smaller platforms. Uniform compliance obligations will disproportionately burden smaller operators, accelerate market consolidation and erode the competitive diversity that ultimately serves workers best. Tiered requirements by platform size, regulatory sandboxes and targeted technical support are not concessions; they are sound market design.

Malaysia’s gig workers do not need symbolic protection. They need a framework that works, one that accounts for their real costs, governs with precision rather than presumption, and treats the consultative council as a serious institution rather than a compliance checkbox.

MY MOBILITY VISION

Kuala Lumpur