Some delivery platforms in Taiwan claim that they have a “contractual” relationship with their couriers so that they do not have to pay for the couriers’ national health insurance. This means that couriers would not receive any compensation if they have an accident in the course of their work. It leaves them with no safeguards as workers.
Many people do delivery work as a full-time job. It is unreasonable for delivery platforms, which profit handsomely from the couriers work, to completely shirk their responsibility when accidents occur.
The Uber Eats platform in the US takes out accident insurance for its couriers. Each courier’s accident insurance activates as soon as the customer places an order.
In Japan, Uber Eats pays for insurance coverage of up to ￥100 million (US$922,100) in compensation for vehicles and accident victims if their couriers have traffic accidents while delivering food.
Uber Eats in Japan has announced that it provides health insurance for its couriers. Now, couriers who are injured in accidents could receive insurance benefits of up to ￥250,000 for medical treatment. If they die, their dependents could receive a death benefit of up to ￥10 million.
Taiwanese laws have not caught up with the emerging gig and platform economies. The government should step up with substantial measures, such as stipulating that platforms must pay for accident insurance for couriers. Taiwanese authorities should not allow food delivery companies to evade the consequences of couriers’ occupational accidents or permit them to reduce their operating costs by passing the financial burden on to the public.
Companies that reap a “bonus dividend” from the sharing economy must bear their social responsibility. It should not be thought of as a business burden, but rather as the paramount value of business ethics.
Dino Wei works in the information industry.
Translated by Julian Clegg
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS