Many assume all riders are now formally on payroll, but that isn’t the reality. A delivery worker named David has found himself employed through Stuart, a subcontractor using major platforms like Glovo, Uber, or Just Eat to mask the status of delivery personnel. This happens a year after a new driver employment rule came into effect, a rule many in the industry view as diluted and in practice, routinely ignored as the sector pushes back.
On August 12, 2021, the government’s grace period for platforms to implement the new rule ended. More than a year later, Glovo still appears to rely on a largely self-employed workforce. The Catalan company has surged in market share as competitors like Uber Eats denounce its approach and even propose offering to handle deliveries in-house. Uber has warned the minister, Yolanda Díaz, about the path other platforms might take, asking if the Glovo model should be followed.
Adrián Todolí, a professor of employment law at the University of Valencia, says, if a company avoids social security payments and refuses to provide fair wages, the result is a cheaper service at the cost of workers’ exploitation. Uber’s stance reflects a push to secure government action against what it calls unfair competition.
“If you want breakfast delivered from a trendy restaurant on a Sunday, you shouldn’t pay next to nothing”
Indeed, some steps have been taken. Glovo has faced several multi-million admissions for using fake self-employment, but Todolí notes it’s often more profitable for platforms to pay fines than to align with driver employment laws and reform their models. He advocates changing the sanction framework so penalties truly deter improper behavior. He compares it to pandemic-era football fines that were effectively just a day’s pay for players, not enough to deter violations.
subcontracted fleets
One tactic digital platforms used to sidestep rider law involved subcontracting. Firms like Stuart, Delivers, and Delorean emerged in cities where self-employed couriers worked after the law passed. The reality is that fleets for platforms like Uber have thrived thanks to these intermediaries, or through temporary employment agencies rather than through direct hiring of riders.
In Valencia, an example involved ETT “JY Hiring” hired as a courier service. The Provincial Labor and Social Security Inspectorate required the platform to hire 150 couriers as workers after a complaint from the CNT union last July.
Antonio Ruiz, a labor attorney who guided the case, explains that many firms shifted their fleets to temporary agencies or subcontractors after the driver law was published. Glovo, from the start, resisted full compliance and pursued mechanisms to remove the presumption of employment from the law’s text. The department of labor has warned hospitality venues that rely on riders for deliveries that they may face illegality.
Enforcement has its own tempo. Todolí notes that investigations can drag on for years because labor inspections interfere with processes. When penalties finally arrive, some firms have already earned profits that cover fines and then some. David, linked to the CGT union, describes ongoing audits and the slow pace of action, which hampers timely accountability.
Fast, cheap and at home
David explains Glovo uses a model where only certain workers are on payroll, while others remain outside the payroll as deliverers, often representing a minority of the workforce. Ghost supermarkets—warehouses spread across cities with staff who prepare customer orders—are a key feature of this approach.
The same model helped fuel the surge of ultra-fast delivery concepts like Gorillas and Bring, promising orders within ten minutes. These outfits bought several urban spaces and quickly expanded, but many stores were later shut down or downsized in Valencia and across Spain. Getir pressed on with fewer deliverers, while Gorillas exited the market entirely in some regions.
With such aggressive pricing, workers’ rights frequently take the hit. Todolí argues that ultra-cheap service is an illusion; it can be delivered, but only if workers are underpaid and treated as disposable. The broader takeaway is that the pricing model must reflect fair wages and workers’ protections if the service is to be sustainable.
David’s critique extends to government action. The law exists, but enforcement remains inconsistent, creating a sense of legitimacy for the model on the ground. Union members view the text as incomplete and see Glovo and Uber Eats as a sign that multinational corporations hold more sway than the state. At least the unions insist on strong enforcement to balance the interests of innovation and worker rights.