Palabras clave
plataforma de reparto a domicilio
pandemia COVID-19
trabajo precario
etnografía para Internet
Cómo citar
Resumen
Esta investigación se centró en comprender las percepciones y experiencias de los repartidores de plataformas digitales sobre sus condiciones laborales durante la pandemia de COVID-19 en Bogotá, D.C., Colombia. Así, realizamos una investigación etnográfica para Internet en grupos de repartidores a través de Facebook y WhatsApp. Evidenciamos el empeoramiento de las ya precarias condiciones laborales y sus efectos en la salud y calidad de vida de los repartidores, expresados en sus imaginarios de la enfermedad, la (in)visibilidad de ellos como trabajadores, las desafiantes condiciones materiales de vida durante la pandemia y la falta de bioseguridad a la que fueron sometidos. Este trabajo proporciona evidencia empírica para revelar la dimensión humana del trabajo de entrega de plataformas en un contexto sindémico, lo que indica la necesidad de políticas integrales que articulen el desarrollo económico con la protección social y laboral en las nuevas formas de trabajo.
1. Míguez P. Recent transformations in work processes: from automation to the information revolution. Work and society X. 2008;(11): p.1-20.
2. Antunes R. O privilégio da servidão: o novo proletariado de serviços na era digital. (1ª ed., pp.328). São Paulo: Boitempo Editorial; 2018.
3. Popan C. Embodied precariat and digital control in the “gig economy”: the mobile labor of food delivery workers. Journal of Urban Technology. 2021; 31(1): p. 109–128.
4. De Stefano V. The rise of the just-in-time workforce: on-demand work, crowdwork, and labor protection in the gig-economy. Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal. 2016; 37(3): p. 461-471.
5. Frey CB, Osborne MA. The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerization? Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2017; 114: p. 254-280.
6. Gandini A. Labor process theory and the gig economy. Human Relations. 2019; 72(6): p.1039-1056.
7. Paché G. Inside delivery platforms: the Covid-19 pandemic and after. Journal of Supply Chain Management: Research and Practice. 2020; 14(2): p. 1-9.
8. International Labor Organization. (2021). World Employment and Social Outlook: The role of digital labor platforms in transforming the world of work, p. 285. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_771749.pdf
9. Woodcock J, Graham M. The gig economy: a critical introduction. Cambridge: Polity; 2020.
10. International Labor Organization. From industrial work to work by digital platforms: post-Fordism employment relations. Blog. 2019.
11. Standing G. The precariat. A new social class. Barcelona: Past and Present; 2013
12. Del Bono A. Digital platform workers. Working conditions in home delivery platforms in Argentina. Sociological Issues: Journal of Social Studies. 2019;21 (083). https://www.questiessociologia.fahce.unlp.edu.ar/article/view/CSe083/11631
13. Chen Y, Ping S, Linchuan J. Deliver on the promise of the platform economy. It for change, India; 2020. https://itforchange.net/platformpolitics/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/China-Research-Report.pdf
14. Anwar MA, Graham M. Between a rock and a hard place: freedom, flexibility, precarity and vulnerability in the gig economy in Africa. Competition and Change. 2021; 25 (2): p. 237-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/1024529420914473
15. Mulcahy D. The gig economy: the complete guide to getting better work, taking more time off, and financing the life you want. New York: American Management Association; 2017.
16. Muntaner C. Digital platforms, gig economy, precarious employment, and the invisible hand of social class’, International Journal of Health Services. 2018; 48 (4): p. 597-600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020731418801413
17. Berg L, Furrer M, Harmon E, Rani U, Silberman. Digital platforms and the future of work. How to promote decent work in the digital world. International Labor Office. Geneva; 2019.
18. Ottaviano J, O’Farrell J, Maito M. Union organization of digital platform workers and criteria for public policy design. Analysis 49. 2019. https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/argentinien/15913.pdf
19. Grimshaw D. International organizations and the future of work: How new technologies and inequality shaped the narratives in 2019. Journal of Industrial Relations. 2020; 62 (3): p. 477-507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185620913129
20. Rappi. How Rappi was born explained by its founder Simon Borrero. 2018 https://blog.rappi.com/como-nacio-rappi/
21. Velásquez J, Bustos A. Rappi: the transition from a dream to a super app. Graduate work. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Colombia: 2019.
22. Wood AJ, Graham M, Lehdonvirta V, Hjorth I. Good gig, bad gig: Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society, 2019; 33 (1): p. 56-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018785616
23. Tassinari A, Maccarrone V. Riders on the storm: workplace solidarity among gig economy couriers in Italy and the UK. Work, Employment and Society. 2020; 34 (1): p. 35-54.
24. Yu Z, Treré E, Bonini T. The emergence of algorithmic solidarity: unveiling mutual aid practices and resistance among Chinese delivery workers. Media International Australia. 2022; 183 (1): p. 107-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X221074793
25. Barratt T, Goods C, Veen A. ‘I’m my own boss…’: Active intermediation and ‘entrepreneurial’ worker agency in the Australian gig-economy. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. 2020; 52 (8): p. 1643-1661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X20914346
26. Sánchez D, Maldonado OJ, Agudelo-Londoño SM, Hernández M, Hernández L, Suárez-Morales ZB, et al. (2024). Infrastructuring platform delivery work: exclusions, coercions and resistance in delivery platforms’ migrant work in Bogotá, Colombia. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society. 2024; 7(1): p. 1-18 https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2024.2343161
27. Gandini L, Prieto V, Lozano-Ascencio F. New mobilities in Latin America: Venezuelan migration in crisis contexts and responses in the region. Notebooks Geographical. 2020;59 (3): p. 103-121.
28. Fairwork. Fairwork Colombia Scores 2022: the impact of cost of living and decent income challenges on the platform economy; 2023. https://fair.work/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2023/06/Fairwork-Colombia-Report-2022-ES-red.pdf .
29. Jaramillo J. PLADTS seminar held online by the Universities of Rosario and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, in. “ Sustainable development and digital platforms: the case of riders”. Bogota, DC; 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiIwoio41wo
30. Polkowska D. Platform work during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study of Glovo couriers in Poland. European Societies. 2021; 23(1): p. s321-s331.
31. Ripani L, Rucci G, Vazquez C. Platform economics and pandemic: time for greater coordination. IDB Improving Lives. 2020. https://blogs.iadb.org/trabajo/es/economia-de-plataformas-y-pandemia-es-hora-de-una-mayor-coordinacion/
32. Altenried M, Bojadživev M, Wallis M. Platform (im)mobilities: migration and the gig economy in times of COVID-19. MoLab Inventory of Mobilities and Socioeconomic Changes; 2021, p. 4. https://doi.org/10.48509/MoLab.6415
33. Ortiz-Prado E, Henriquez-Trujillo AR, Rivera-Olivero IA, Lozada T, Garcia-Bereguiain MA. High prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among food delivery riders. A case study from Quito, Ecuador. Science of the Total Environment. 2021; 770: p. 145-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145225
34. Tapia T. COVID-19: quarantine-exempt bodies. 070. 2020: https://cerosetenta.uniandes.edu.co/covid-19-cuerpos-exentos-de-cuarentena/
35. Nazruzila MN, Kamal H. Covid-19 Outbreak: opportunity or risk for gig economy Workers. IntiJournal 2020:057. http://intijournal.newinti.edu.my
36. Castoriadis C. The instituting social imaginary. Erogenous Zone; 1997.
37. Castoriadis C, Vicens, A. La institución imaginaria de la sociedad (Vol. 2). México: Tusquets; 2013.
38. Venturini T, Latour B. The social fabric: digital traces and quali-quantitative Methods. In Proceedings of Future en Seine 2009. 2010; p. 87-101.
39. Pink S, et al. Digital ethnography. Principles and practice. Madrid: Morata; 2019.
40. Caliandro A. Digital methods for ethnography: analytical concepts for ethnographers Exploring Social Media Environments. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 2018; 47(5): p. 551-578. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0891241617702960
41. Hine C. Virtual Ethnography. London: SAGE Publications; 2020.
42. Hine C. Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, Embodied and Everyday Bloomsbury Publishing Plc; 2015.
43. Miller D, Slater D. The Internet: an ethnographic approach. New York: Routledge; 2020.
44. Escobar A. Welcome to Cyberia: notes on the anthropology of cyberculture. Current Anthropology. 1994; 35(3): p. 211-231. https://doi.org/10.7440/res22.2005.01
45. Murthy D. (2008). Digital ethnography: an examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociology. 2008; 42 (5): p. 837-855. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038508094565
46. Beneito-Montagut R. Ethnography goes online: towards a user- centered methodology to research interpersonal communication on the Internet. Qualitative Research. 2011; 11(6): p. 716-735. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111413368
47. Boellstorff T, Nardi B, Pearce, C, Taylor, TH. Ethnography and virtual worlds: a Handbook of Method. Princeton University Press; 2012 https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400845286
48. Kӓihkӧ I. Conflict chatnography: instant messaging apps, social media and conflict ethnography in Ukraine. Ethnography. 2018; 21(1); 71-91. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1466138118781640
49. Kozinets R. (1998). On Netography: initial reflections of consumer research Investigations of Cyberculture. Advances in Consumer Research. 1998; 25; p. 366-371.
50. Hannerz U. ‘Being there… And there… And there! Reflections on multi-site ethnography.’ Ethnography. 2003; 4 (2): p. 201-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/14661381030042003
51. Diz C, González Granados P, Prieto Arratibel A. Relearning to work: caring knowledges in the management of algorithms among riders. Disparities. Journal of Anthropology. 2023; 78 (1). https://doi.org/10.3989/dra.2023.001d
52. Pink S., et al. Digital Ethnography. SAGE Publications; 2015.
53. Bárcenas K, Preza N. (2019). Challenges of digital ethnography in onlife fieldwork. Virtualis; 2019; 10(18): p. 134-151 https://doi.org/10.2123/virtualis.v10i18.287
54. Akemu O, Abdelnour S. Confronting the digital: doing ethnography in modern organizational settings. Organizational Research Methods. 2020; 23(2).
55. Agudelo-Londoño SM, Suárez-Morales ZB, Hernández Díaz MR, Mantilla-León, L. Entre plataformas de reparto y redes de repartidores: reflexiones desde una etnografía para Internet durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Revista de Antropología Social. 2024;33(1): p. 1-18 https://dx.doi.org/10.5209/raso.95176
56. Apouey B, Roulet A, Solar I & Stabile M. Gig workers during the COVID-19 crisis in France: financial precarity and mental well-being. Journal Urban Health. 2020; 97(6): p. 776-795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-020-00480-4
57. Katta S, Badger A, Graham M, Howson K, Ustek-Spilda F, Bertolini A. ‘(Dis)embeddedness and (de)commodification: COVID-19, Uber, and the unraveling logics of the gig economy’. Dialogues in Human Geography. 2020; 10(2): p. 203-207.
58. Friedman G. Workers without employers: shadow corporations and the rise of the gig economy. Review of Keynesian Economics. 2014; 2(2): p. 171-188.
59. Vargas D, Castañeda, OJ, Hernández M. Technolegal expulsions: platform food delivery workers and work regulations in Colombia. Journal of Labor and Society. 2022; 25(1): p. 33-59.
60. Fonseca Y. Trabajadores de plataformas digitales de reparto: un estudio de derecho comparado y análisis concreto en la ciudad de Tunja, Colombia. Estudios Socio-Jurídicos. 2024; 26(2): p. 1-36.
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Derechos de autor 2025 Zuly Bibiana Suárez Morales, Mabel Rocio Hernández Díaz, Laura Clemencia Mantilla León, Sandra Milena Agudelo Londoño