The article provides an argument that the platform is the site of Burawoy’s workplace games. The game observed on the platform used a pattern quite similar to one diagnosed by Burawoy, successfully employing coercion and consent to control the workforce. Control on the platform has a general nature which combines technological, organisational and normative aspects. Work on the app is coordinated by adopting a co-optation strategy, reducing conflicts by enabling mobility, and remuneration from the platform is based on a piece-rate system. Yet, the modern game, labelled in the paper as Ride-Pass, is different from the one described by Burawoy. Due the game is taking place in the service sector, the article argues that it is structured around two mutually connected stakes: working time and self-recognition. The article contributes to the Labour Process Theory, supporting its conclusions with a long-lasting study among Polish platform workers (53 interviews with Uber’s drivers).
BainPTaylorP (2000) Entrapped by the ‘electronic panopticon’? Worker resistance in the call centre. New Technology, Work and Employment15(1): 2–18.
2.
BravermanH (1998 [1974]) Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (25th Anniversary). New York: Monthly Review Press.
3.
BurawoyM (1979) Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process Under Monopoly Capitalism. London; Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
4.
Couto de OliveiraR (2021) Gamification and uberized work in application companies. Revista de Administração de Empresas61(4): 1–10.
5.
EdwardsPK (1986) Conflict at Work: A Materialist Analysis of Workplace Relations. Oxford: Blackwell.
6.
EdwardsR (1979) Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books.
7.
FrenkelSJ (2006) Service workers in search of decent work. In: AckroydSBattRThompsonP, et al (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Work and Organization. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 356–375.
8.
FrenkenKFuenfschillingL (2021) The rise of online platforms and the triumph of the corporation. Sociologica14: 101–113.
9.
GandiniA (2019) Labour process theory and the gig economy. Human Relations72(6): 1039–1056.
GlaserBStraussA (2017) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Routledge.
12.
HallJVKruegerAB (2017) An analysis of the labor market for Uber’s driver-partners in the United States. ILR Review71: 3705–3732.
13.
KelloggKValentineMChristinA (2020) Algorithms at work: the new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals14(1): 366–410.
14.
LawrenceF (2022) They were taking us for a ride’: how Uber used investor cash to seduce drivers. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/12/they-were-taking-us-for-a-ride-how-uber-used-investor-cash-to-seduce-drivers (accessed 15 August 2021).
15.
MikaBPolkowskaD (2022) Work‐on‐demand in patchwork capitalism: the peculiar case of uber’s fleet partners in Poland. New Technology, Work and Employment, 38(3): 513–528, DOI:10.1111/ntwe.12262
16.
MikaBWinczewskiD (2024) The Work-on-Demand Platform as a Part of Monopoly Capital: The Example of a Global Ride-Hailing Company. Polish Sociological Review1(225)/24: 32–47.
17.
PolkowskaDMikaB (2022) Is it possible to outsmart Uber? Individual working tactics within platform work in Poland, European Societies25(4): 606–626, DOI: 10.1080/14616696.2022.2156578.
18.
RosenblatAStarkL (2016) Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: a case study of Uber’s drivers. International Journal of Communication10: 3758–3784.
19.
RowlinsonMHassardJ (2000) Marxist political economy, revolutionary politics, and labor process theory. International Studies of Management & Organization30(4): 85–111.
20.
SchorJ (2020) After the Gig: How the Sharing Economy Got Hijacked and How to Win It Back. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
21.
ShaliniDBathiniRD (2021) Microtargeting control: explicating algorithmic control and nudges in platform-mediated cab driving in India. New Technology, Work and Employment36(1): 74–93.
22.
ShapiroA (2018) Between autonomy and control: strategies of arbitrage in the ‘on-demand’ economy. New Media & Society20(8): 2954–2971.
23.
SmithC (2006) The double indeterminacy of labour power: labour effort and labour mobility. Work, Employment & Society20(2): 389–402.
24.
SmithC (2015) Continuity and change in labor process analysis forty years after labor and monopoly capital. Labor Studies Journal40(3): 222–242.
25.
SrnicekN (2016) Platform Capitalism. New York: Polity Press.
26.
ThompsonP (1989) The Nature of Work: An Introduction to Debates on the Labour Process. 2nd ed.London: Palgrave Macmillan.
27.
ThompsonPLaaserK (2021) Beyond technological determinism: revitalising labour process analyses of technology, capital and labour. Work in the Global Economy1(1): 139–159.
28.
ThompsonPSmithC (2009) Labour power and labour process: contesting the marginality of the sociology of work. Sociology43(5): 913–930.
29.
WarhurstCThompsonP (1998) Hands, hearts and minds changing work and workers at the end of the century. In: WarhurstCThompsonP (eds) Workplaces of the Future. London: Macmillan Press, pp. 1–24.
30.
WarhurstCThompsonPNicksonDP (2008) Labour process theory putting the materialism back into the meaning of service work. In: MacdonaldCLKorczynskiM (eds) Service Work: Critical Perspectives. New York and London: Routledge, pp. 91–112.
31.
WoodA (2020) Despotism on Demand: How Power Operates in the Flexible Workplace. New York: Cornell University Press.
32.
YinRK (2013) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
