A three-day strike by Glovo riders across Spain ended yesterday [26 April]. Organised by the CCOO union, the strike was historic as it was the first national strike of food delivery couriers in the country.
Glovo is the largest food delivery platform in Spain and it became one of the country's largest employers in July 2025, when it finally agreed to employ all of its riders after resisting the 'Rider Law' (which established a legal presumption of employment in the food delivery sector) for four years.
However, since becoming employees - some of which are hired directly by Glovo while others are hired via sub-contractors - riders have reported significant labour abuses. CCOO has denounced what it has described as a system of "bogus employment" which has replaced the previous regime of bogus self-employment. Glovo announced that it was firing 750 riders across Spain in March, but CCOO say it had been covertly cutting riders long before then through what the union says is an "illegal" and "repressive" disciplinary and sanctions regime.
Talks via an arbitration process took place between CCOO and Glovo in early April but with no resolution, CCOO called the three-day strike with five key demands: to stop the firing of 750 riders, that the disciplinary dismissals and sanctions' regime end, that a collective agreement is negotiated, and that Glovo stops its union-busting efforts.
To discuss the strike, the Gig Economy Project spoke to Carlos Sola de la Torre-Verdejo from FSC-CCOO, the section of the union which organises riders.
GEP: What sort of participation have you had in the strike?
Carlos: It is difficult to say exactly because without a set workplace to go to it is hard to measure the exact participation. What we know is that the strike has had a significant impact on Glovo. For example, around the outskirts of Madrid, in places like Fuenlabrada and Rivas, there has not been a single order delivered and there has been 100% participation. In provinces like Almería, Navarra, A Coruña, Valencia, Alicante, Las Palmas, Álava, Pontevedra and Tarragona, the strike has been observed.
We know that in the places in the country where there are workers' committees and where there is strong union organisation, the strike has had a powerful impact, because we were able to raise awareness among the workers, and then organise pickets and rallies. But we know that beyond where CCOO has an established presence, there are places where things are happening autonomously.
GEP: What has Glovo's response been to the strike?
Carlos: They've tried to downplay the strike, to minimise its importance. Every time I've contacted them in these three days, it's been to threaten them with legal action. We've already filed a preventive complaint, and next week we'll file a complaint for violating the right to strike. This is because they've filled the positions of striking workers with subcontracted fleet employees. And not only from the fleets and contractors, but they've also diverted Glovo orders to Catcher, which is the platform that continues to operate with freelancers. This is illegal, and that's why we're reporting it preventively. But the company hasn't responded officially to the strike.
GEP: Since the riders at Glovo became employees last July, has there been a greater movement towards unionisation?
Carlos: Yes, without a doubt. There is now 137 workers' committees of Glovo across Spain, CCOO has the majority in 80 of them, and other unions have organisation too. That shows there is clearly an organisational will among the workers to try to improve working conditions.
The difference now is the riders have the right to unionise. As self-employed workers, they couldn't unionise; they could be affiliated with a union, but they couldn't establish union organisation within the company, they couldn't hold union elections, so it was much more difficult for them.
It is true that many of the riders preferred to remain self-employed, but that paradigm is changing; many are realising that the salaried model offers them greater protections and rights than the self-employed model.
Now, the real challenge is to achieve decent working conditions and eliminate the fear that exists. Currently, a repressive sanctions regime is being applied, dismissing workers for practically anything: taking too long to complete an order, deviating from the route, and so forth. They blame workers for things they shouldn't, causing thousands upon thousands of dismissals. This is what we have to stop.
The other big challenge is to achieve an adapted collective agreement. Currently, Glovo is operating under an old 2006 collective agreement. The workers need an agreement adapted to the present day, one that is negotiated with current employee representatives in the company.
We cannot truly say that the Rider Law has served to give rights to workers until they have decent working conditions. Until then, they don't see the Rider Law as progress. But it's not the fault of the law itself, but of the conditions imposed since the riders became employees, as Glovo is basically applying conditions that were set 20 years ago.
GEP: Do sub-contracted riders face worse conditions than those employed directly by Glovo?
Carlos: It depends. There are around 30 sub-contracting companies which work with Glovo and they are competing with each other for riders, and sometimes they offer the riders more than they get from the 2006 collective agreement.
But these offers don't last. Imagine you run a recruitment campaign where you say, "I'm going to pay you 1600 euros," but then after three months the rider realises that it was just smoke and mirrors, that they are being given the same agreement as Glovo, and that the conditions are the same or even worse, because the pressure on the riders is even greater in many of these sub-contractors.
Some of the sub-contracting fleets are starting to apply extra-statutory agreements signed with company unions. These are yellow unions for the company that have signed agreements that are basically to the liking to the courier employers' association. Flits [a sub-contractor], for example, they've started applying a yellow union agreement. These agreements let these companies say they have improved things but in reality it is the minimum wage plus 1%. That's not a real improvement.
In reality, the conditions at the subcontractor are very similar to those of Glovo. Many workers come to the union saying, "Look, they haven't paid me for two months", or "they're not paying me what they said they would." We have people who have worked for five of these sub-contractors, they've been laid off from one and gone to another, and they say the conditions are the same.
In the end, whether you work for Glovo directly or through a sub-contractor, it is Glovo that manages the worker through the algorithm.
GEP: What about the Spanish Government, could they intervene in this situation?
Carlos: Yes. Firstly, they can intervene when it comes to the company's compliance with basic rights. We are calling on the Labour Inspectorate to take action on this. We are saying to the government that it is not enough just to enforce the Rider Law; you have to enforce the rest of the articles of the Workers' Statute that are being violated by these companies.
In addition to that, I think that the transposition of the EU Platform Work Directive opens up an opportunity to try to expand the law. To say that not only do the companies have to employ the workers, they also have to apply a series of minimum standards. For example, one idea is to create a special regulatory regime in food delivery in the same way as there is already one for domestic workers in Spain. Of course, this requires a major debate about what is the best way to transpose the European Platform Directive, but I think there are many opportunities.
But the first step is to enforce the most basic labour rights. That does not require the transposition of any law; it requires the government to intervene to ensure compliance with the current laws.
Ben Wray, Gig Economy Project co-ordinator
