A new workforce has emerged on the streets of Delhi: men and women carrying shopping bags for customers who do not wish to carry their own. Known locally as “bag carriers,” these workers operate without formal contracts, relying on cash payments and word-of-mouth referrals. The phenomenon has caught the attention of UK investors who see parallels with the gig economy models that have reshaped labour markets in Western cities. But questions about exploitation and worker protections remain unanswered.
The service is simple: a customer hires a bag carrier to accompany them on a shopping trip, carrying purchases from store to home. Payment is negotiated on the spot, typically between 50 and 200 rupees per hour, the equivalent of less than a pound. There is no minimum wage guarantee, no social security, and no recourse in cases of dispute. Advocates for the workers describe the arrangement as precarious, noting that income is inconsistent and that workers are vulnerable to sudden termination or refusal of payment.
Proponents, however, argue that the model offers flexibility and low barriers to entry. Workers need no capital or training, and can choose their own hours. In a city where formal employment is scarce, bag carrying provides an immediate source of cash. Some workers report earning enough to support their families, though they acknowledge the instability.
UK investors are reportedly studying the model as a potential template for similar services in British cities. The concept of person-to-person delivery for small items has already taken root in London with apps like TaskRabbit and Deliveroo. But those platforms provide a digital infrastructure, insurance, and customer service. Delhi’s bag carriers operate entirely offline, with no intermediary to handle disputes or ensure fair treatment.
The comparison raises regulatory questions. In the United Kingdom, gig economy workers have fought for worker status and employment rights, leading to landmark court cases. If bag carrier services were to launch in London without those protections, they could face legal challenges under UK employment law. Investors would need to navigate a complex landscape of regulations designed to prevent the very exploitation that Delhi’s system exemplifies.
Observers caution that the line between entrepreneurship and exploitation is thin. Without a structured framework, workers may be at risk of low pay, long hours, and unsafe conditions. On the other hand, formalising the model could add costs that reduce the viability of the service. The challenge for investors is to find a middle ground that offers dignity and security without destroying the flexibility that attracts workers in the first place.
As the global economy continues to move towards on-demand labour, Delhi’s bag carriers offer a useful case study. They demonstrate the resilience of informal markets and the appetite for low-cost services. But they also highlight the structural deficiencies that leave workers without recourse. UK investors considering the model would be wise to examine not just the profit potential but the broader implications for labour rights and social policy.
