Navigating the Future of Ride-Hailing: How to Accurately Define and Protect Technology Drivers Without Compromising Operational Flexibility

The rapid expansion of the digital platform economy has fundamentally transformed urban mobility and delivery services across Southeast Asia, particularly in Vietnam. However, this growth has brought structural labor disputes to the forefront. Recent controversies surrounding commission rates, fare adjustments, platform fees, and income deductions on every trip have reignited a complex socio-economic debate. As regulatory bodies step in to demand transparency from platform operators, and as drivers voice their growing dissatisfaction through collective actions—such as recent app shutdowns—policymakers face a pressing dilemma: How to accurately define, or "identify," technology drivers to safeguard their fundamental labor and social welfare rights while preserving the inherent flexibility of the gig economy.

This article examines the core policy gaps, the evolving legal landscape, the socioeconomic realities of modern gig workers, and potential regulatory pathways to establish a sustainable framework for platform labor in Vietnam.

The Shifting Reality of the Gig Economy: From Side Hustle to Primary Livelihood

For years, ride-hailing was widely perceived as a supplementary source of income—a flexible side hustle for individuals looking to monetize spare time using personal motorcycles. However, recent data collected by labor organizations and academic institutions reveals a profound shift in this occupational reality.

According to a rapid survey conducted jointly by the Center for Counseling and Support for Workers (under the Ho Chi Minh City Confederation of Labor) and the Ho Chi Minh City Social Security (BHXH) office, approximately 93.6% of surveyed drivers operating on platforms like Grab, Be, and Xanh SM now consider ride-hailing their primary occupation. The data indicates that 46.1% of these workers labor between 8 to 10 hours a day, while 35.5% consistently work over 10 hours daily to secure a living wage.

Despite generating gross revenues that may appear competitive—with some drivers reporting monthly earnings around 15 million VND after enduring grueling 13- to 15-hour shifts—the net financial reality paints a starkly different picture. When factoring in operational expenses such as fuel, vehicle depreciation, smartphone upgrades, mobile data packages, routine vehicle maintenance, and the constant risk of traffic accidents, real earnings diminish significantly. Furthermore, any disruption caused by illness or injury results in an immediate loss of income, exposing the vulnerability of these workers.

Policy Gaps and Social Security Deficits

The structural tension within the platform economy becomes most apparent when examining social security coverage. Statistics presented by PGS-TS Nguyen Duc Loc, Director of the Social Life Research Institute, highlight a severe welfare deficit among gig workers:

• 82.4% of surveyed drivers do not participate in compulsory social insurance (BHXH).
• 87.3% lack unemployment insurance.
• 57.5% possess no personal accident insurance.
• 33.1% do not have health insurance (BHYT), despite over 75% purchasing mandatory vehicle insurance.

This paradox—where a driver’s vehicle is legally insured, yet the human operator remains largely unprotected against basic life risks—underscores a major regulatory vacuum. When disputes arise over fuel price hikes, unexpected fee deductions, or traffic accidents, a fundamental legal ambiguity emerges: Are these individuals independent business contractors, or are they traditional employees?

From a tax perspective, ride-hailing drivers are frequently classified as independent business individuals, with platforms withholding, declaring, and paying taxes on their behalf. Yet, when issues concerning social insurance, workplace injuries, incentive bonuses, or grievance procedures come into play, the question of labor classification grows exponentially more complicated. Drivers possess the autonomy to log in or log off at will, yet they have zero control over fare pricing structures, customer data acquisition, algorithmic dispatching, or account suspension policies dictated by the platform.

Legal Perspectives: Between Employee Status and Independent Contracting

Legal experts emphasize that labeling all technology drivers under a single, rigid category is legally and practically unfeasible.

Ho Chi Minh City-based attorney Hoang Ha notes that the defining characteristic of the gig economy is operational flexibility. Drivers choose when to work, how long to stay online, and can even operate across multiple platforms simultaneously. Applying a traditional employment framework to this model would undermine its greatest advantage: flexibility. However, treating drivers entirely as isolated independent contractors also creates severe power imbalances. Although drivers choose their working hours, they do not set prices, control customer bases, or manage payment routing. Their incomes remain vulnerable to unilateral platform fee adjustments, shifting bonus criteria, and arbitrary account deactivations.

Echoing this sentiment, attorney Diep Nang Binh points to Article 13, Clause 1 of Vietnam’s 2019 Labor Code, which stipulates that regardless of contractual terminology, if an agreement involves paid labor, salary, and the management, administration, and supervision of one party over the other, it may be legally recognized as an employment contract.

In the traditional transport sector, specialized laws clearly delineate the responsibilities of transport business units toward drivers. However, these frameworks cannot be automatically applied to two-wheel ride-hailing, delivery services, and other app-based micro-tasks. Consequently, regulators must evaluate each model based on the actual degree of platform control versus driver autonomy.

Recommendations for a Sustainable Platform Labor Framework

To bridge these policy gaps without stifling innovation, legal and labor experts advocate for a balanced, multi-tiered regulatory approach centered on three key pillars:

1. Radical Income Transparency

Drivers must have complete clarity regarding financial transactions. This includes knowing the exact amount paid by the customer, the specific deductions made by the platform, the calculation methodology, and the final net payout. Transparency should extend beyond commission rates to include predictive earnings for each trip, alongside accessible data logs to resolve financial disputes efficiently. Furthermore, any adjustments to fees, revenue-sharing ratios, or performance metrics must be communicated well in advance, rather than presenting workers with a binary choice of acceptance or platform exit.

2. Clear Grievance and Account Management Mechanisms

Account deactivation or suspension directly threatens a driver’s immediate livelihood. Platforms must establish transparent, evidence-based review processes for account penalties. When restrictions are applied, operators should provide clear justifications and establish a functional feedback channel allowing drivers to appeal decisions, rather than relying entirely on automated algorithms.

3. Tailored Social Security Models

Rather than enforcing traditional, rigid social insurance structures designed for standard corporate employees, policymakers should explore progressive, flexible social protection models. These could include graduated contribution tiers subsidized or co-funded proportionally by platforms, ensuring that drivers are not forced to shoulder the entirety of occupational risks alone. The primary goal of official identification is not to convert hundreds of thousands of independent drivers into traditional corporate desk staff, but rather to establish a statutory "floor of minimum rights" that protects workers while preserving the core flexibility of the gig economy.

Conclusion

The ongoing debates over platform fees, commission structures, and driver classification serve as a critical wake-up call for regulators, tech enterprises, and society at large. While the technological innovation of ride-hailing platforms has generated millions of flexible earning opportunities, it has simultaneously exposed millions of workers to structural vulnerabilities. Establishing a fair, modern legal framework that respects operational flexibility while guaranteeing basic labor rights, social security, and economic transparency is no longer optional—it is a fundamental requirement for the sustainable development of Vietnam’s digital economy.