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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then