Former political prisoner Somyot laments harsh reality of ride-hailing work
He laid the blame on high platform deductions and rising costs overall.
Posting on his Facebook page, Somyot shared insights as a ride-hail driver working eight-hour shifts.
He lamented that after a full day on the road, the ride-hailing platform deducted 40% of his earnings, leaving him with just 900 baht. Once he factored in 500 baht for petrol and 80 baht for a single meal, he was left with 320 baht for a day's labour.
He wrote, "However hard life gets, I refuse to give up. Today, I have to struggle and turn to full-time platform driving."
He questioned how working people could maintain any sense of dignity when left with so little, while platform companies reap billion-baht profits each year.
Somyot is widely known as a long-time advocate of labour rights and democratic reforms. Once the editor of the magazine Voice of Taksin, he was convicted and sentenced for lese majeste under Section 112 of the Criminal Code and served six years in prison before his release in 2018. He has since resumed his activism with the "24 June Democracy Group".
In response, Grab said Somyot was classed as a GrabCar driver, not a food delivery rider, and that the standard maximum commission Grab takes is no more than 25%.
Grab was asking Somyot for further clarification and looking to clear up any misunderstanding over platform deductions.
Asst Prof Kritsada Theerakosonphong of Thammasat University has warned that current laws wrongly label riders as 'semi-independent', denying them key protections like accident insurance even as they face company rules and real job risks. He has called for reform so riders receive the same welfare as regular workers, with companies made responsible for their safety.
The incident has highlighted the broader challenges facing ride-hailing drivers and gig workers, many of whom continue to grapple with high commissions, rising operating costs, and the struggle to earn a living wage in today's platform-driven economy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bangkok Post
2 days ago
- Bangkok Post
Woman jailed for ‘Face Off' cosmetic surgery scam
The Criminal Court sentenced Xeping Chaiyasan to four years in prison for defrauding the public through a cosmetic surgery scheme known as 'Face Off.' Xeping, 52, widely promoted as a plastic surgery specialist, was found guilty under Sections 341 and 343 of the Criminal Code for public fraud, Section 14(1) of the Computer Crime Act for inputting false data and the Consumer Protection Act for misleading advertising. The case, filed by Yupin Saenkam from Roi Et, centred on Xeping's role in promoting and arranging facial surgeries between August 2017 and August 2018. The project falsely claimed procedures were performed at world-class hospitals with minimal or no scarring and negligible swelling. These misleading claims persuaded the plaintiff and others to undergo surgery, paying hundreds of thousands of baht. Ms Yupin said she paid 368,500 baht for a facelift but was left with disfiguring scars, chronic pain, numbness, itching and a distorted face caused by broken internal threads. Her ear was reportedly deformed, resulting in a witch-like appearance. The court ruled that the offences were part of a single scheme, imposing the maximum applicable sentence. Only Xeping, the first defendant, was indicted after a preliminary case review. At the hearing, both Xeping and the plaintiff's lawyer, Phinyophat Chittawan, appeared in court. Xeping is currently applying for bail while filing an appeal. A source said this is not her first conviction. The Criminal Court has previously handed down prison sentences to Xeping and her associates in several other cases involving similar fraudulent cosmetic procedures.
Bangkok Post
23-07-2025
- Bangkok Post
Senate panel backs amnesty for ‘reckless, impulsive' youth
A Senate committee is backing an amnesty for young people who may have committed political offences out of recklessness or impulsiveness according to a spokesman. The Senate Committee on Political Development, Public Participation, Human Rights, Liberties and Consumer Protection convened on Tuesday to review four amnesty bills, three of which are also before a House committee. The House on July 16 passed three amnesty bills out of the five under consideration during first reading. The three bills that passed came from the United Thai Nation, Khru Thai and Bhumjaithai parties. The bills that did not pass were proposed by the People's Party and a civil society group backed by 36,723 signatories. The Senate committee, however, invited all five sponsors to give more details about their bills. Four showed up but Bhumjaithai was not represented, said Senator Pornchai Wiriyalert, the committee spokesman. He said the committee aimed to assess whether the bills could lead to national reconciliation after two decades of political conflict, while also addressing growing public criticism. Sen Pornchai said the four amnesty bills can be categorised into two types. The first type clearly specifies which offences would be covered by the amnesty. This approach allows for swift adoption, as those found guilty under the defined offences would automatically receive amnesty once the laws are passed. However, it is viewed by many as potentially unjust, as it could be seen as favouring one side over the other. The second type does not pre-define offences but instead proposes a review committee to evaluate individual cases. While this allows for more thorough and case-by-case consideration, it may result in lengthy deliberations, he said. Sen Pornchai said some bills propose granting an amnesty for serious criminal offences, such as terrorism, treason (Section 113 of the Criminal Code), illegal arms possession (Section 114), or arson, while excluding those charged under Section 112 (the lese-majeste law), which carries penalties of three to 15 years in prison. He added many of these Section 112 cases involve non-violent online activities, such as posting or sharing content on Facebook, with some offenders receiving prison terms exceeding 20 years. The committee said that if Section 112 offences were politically motivated rather than intended to cause unrest, they should be eligible for an amnesty. As the proposed bills include the formation of committees to evaluate cases, the Senate committee also urged that these bodies be inclusive and not dominated by any single political side.
Bangkok Post
21-07-2025
- Bangkok Post
Former political prisoner Somyot laments harsh reality of ride-hailing work
Labour activist and former political prisoner Somyot Pruksakasemsuk has reignited debate about gig-worker exploitation, revealing that he earned just 320 baht from a full day working as a ride-hail driver. He laid the blame on high platform deductions and rising costs overall. Posting on his Facebook page, Somyot shared insights as a ride-hail driver working eight-hour shifts. He lamented that after a full day on the road, the ride-hailing platform deducted 40% of his earnings, leaving him with just 900 baht. Once he factored in 500 baht for petrol and 80 baht for a single meal, he was left with 320 baht for a day's labour. He wrote, "However hard life gets, I refuse to give up. Today, I have to struggle and turn to full-time platform driving." He questioned how working people could maintain any sense of dignity when left with so little, while platform companies reap billion-baht profits each year. Somyot is widely known as a long-time advocate of labour rights and democratic reforms. Once the editor of the magazine Voice of Taksin, he was convicted and sentenced for lese majeste under Section 112 of the Criminal Code and served six years in prison before his release in 2018. He has since resumed his activism with the "24 June Democracy Group". In response, Grab said Somyot was classed as a GrabCar driver, not a food delivery rider, and that the standard maximum commission Grab takes is no more than 25%. Grab was asking Somyot for further clarification and looking to clear up any misunderstanding over platform deductions. Asst Prof Kritsada Theerakosonphong of Thammasat University has warned that current laws wrongly label riders as 'semi-independent', denying them key protections like accident insurance even as they face company rules and real job risks. He has called for reform so riders receive the same welfare as regular workers, with companies made responsible for their safety. The incident has highlighted the broader challenges facing ride-hailing drivers and gig workers, many of whom continue to grapple with high commissions, rising operating costs, and the struggle to earn a living wage in today's platform-driven economy.
