Digital Intermediation and Precarity: Experiences of Domestic Workers in Chile’s Platform Labor Economy

Abstract

This article explores the implications of digital labor intermediation platforms in paid domestic work (PDW) in Chile, a sector historically marked by informality and vulnerability. Drawing on a qualitative study conducted with members of the Federation of Domestic Workers’ Unions of Chile (FESINTRACAP), we analyze the narratives of workers who engage with digital platforms to access employment. We propose that these platforms, while expanding job search opportunities, reproduce and exacerbate precarious working conditions by weakening employment relationships, increasing surveillance through rating systems, and reinforcing structural inequalities such as gender, class, and migratory status. Using a grounded theory approach, we identify six thematic categories: (1) Access and Technological Transition, (2) Recruitment and Labor Matching Modalities, (3) Procedures and Technological Requirements, (4) Use of Ratings and Reputation, (5) Perceptions of Autonomy vs. Dependency, and (6) Lack of Regulation and Legal Guarantees. Our findings suggest that digital intermediation reconfigures labor relations under a neoliberal logic of individual responsibility while failing to provide institutional protections. We argue that the digitalization of labor intermediation in PDW deepens the sector’s historical patterns of invisibility and exclusion, highlighting the urgent need for regulatory frameworks that address the specificities of this type of employment.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, the intersection of technological advancement and labor market restructuring has generated profound transformations in how work is accessed, organized, and controlled. Digital platforms—often presented as innovative tools to connect workers and employers—have rapidly expanded into a wide range of sectors, including transportation, logistics, and increasingly, paid domestic work. While these platforms promise flexibility and efficiency, they also introduce new forms of precarity, informality, and opacity in labor relations, particularly for marginalized groups [1,2].

Paid domestic work in Latin America has long been shaped by social hierarchies of gender, class, and race. In Chile, as in the broader region, this labor is predominantly performed by women and remains marked by structural inequalities, informality, and a lack of legal recognition [3,4,5]. Although legal reforms—such as Chile’s Law No. 21.431—have sought to extend protections to platform-based workers, these advances are uneven and do not always address the specific vulnerabilities of domestic workers whose labor takes place in private households and is governed by trust-based, often informal, arrangements.

Drawing on qualitative research conducted with members of the National Federation of Domestic Workers’ Unions (FESINTRACAP), we analyze how these platforms mediate labor relations, restructure access to employment, and reproduce or transform existing patterns of exclusion. As previous research has noted, platforms in this sector tend to promote either a “marketplace” model, which facilitates ongoing but informal labor relationships, or an “on-demand” model, which prioritizes short-term, highly flexible arrangements [6,7].

By examining workers’ narratives, this study highlights both the opportunities and tensions introduced by platform intermediation in domestic labor. On one hand, platforms expand access to job opportunities and offer a degree of control over scheduling. On the other hand, they often fail to ensure adequate protections, enable exploitative practices such as arbitrary ratings and lack of complaint mechanisms, and perpetuate social inequalities through overexposure and discrimination based on race, nationality, and class [8,9,10]. This research calls attention to the urgent need for regulatory frameworks that ensure fairness and accountability in platform-mediated domestic work.

2. Literature Review

Social, economic, political, and cultural changes have significantly altered the landscape of labor, impacting broader social systems in their entirety. These transformations have influenced the evolution of labor markets as well as the formulation of employment strategies, shaping gender relations, worker identities, and subjectivities.

Women workers—particularly those engaged in paid domestic labor—are situated within a labor market that is precarious, segmented, unstable, and marked by informality [3,11]. These conditions subject women to labor relations characterized by subordination, hierarchy, and internalized marginalization [3,4,12,13].

Within this context of exclusion and structural vulnerability, women become a highly flexible, expendable, and hyper-precarious labor force that sustains the neoliberal labor model. As Sánchez and Villarroel [4] argue, following Honneth [14], women face social devaluation within a labor market that discriminates, de-skills [15], and segments them.

Paid domestic work represents a sector historically relegated to invisibility and precarity, performed almost exclusively by women, and shaped by structural dynamics of power, inequality, and intersecting forms of class, gender, and racial violence [5].

In Latin America and the Caribbean, approximately 14.8 million women are engaged in paid domestic work—a sector that constitutes a crucial source of employment for women. Nevertheless, it remains defined by labor precarity, insufficient legal protections, and standards that fall significantly below those established by the International Labour Organization (ILO) for Decent Work [13].

The nature of domestic labor leaves women especially exposed to informality and systematic violations of their labor rights. In recent years, both in Chile and across Latin America, progress has been made toward the development of more robust legal frameworks that increasingly recognize the essential role of domestic work in sustaining family life, and thus incorporate a range of labor rights.

However, regulatory frameworks across the region vary widely in how they govern paid domestic work. They reflect diverse conditions under which women carry out this labor—from legislation that seeks parity with other forms of employment to more regressive norms regarding working hours, rest periods, paid leave, and sickness or maternity benefits [4].

Despite progress in legal and social protection frameworks, domestic workers continue to face instability and insecurity arising from broader shifts in social structures and the functioning of economic, legal, and cultural systems.

2.1. Digital Labor Intermediation

Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) play a fundamental role in an increasingly globalized society, having significantly improved the efficiency of bureaucratic procedures and administrative processes, thereby facilitating citizens’ daily lives. In the labor sphere, ICTs have become essential tools for accessing the job market, operating as innovative mechanisms that optimize the recruitment process by matching candidates with job opportunities. These technological developments have transformed the nature of labor relations. Today, both job access and the execution of work are mediated by technologies such as internet connectivity, email, and digital means of contracting. As Cardona [1] (p. 157) notes, the “automated processing of data and information relating to workers, the application of new technologies in labor surveillance and control, and remote work are some of the manifestations of the widespread integration of digital technologies in the workplace.”

A particularly significant transformation brought about by digital technologies is the expansion of digital platforms across all sectors, especially in the world of work, where they have become central to the coordination among market actors—companies, clients, and workers. Platforms have emerged as a new business model capable of managing vast quantities of data, enabling monopolistic consolidation by large corporations. These online platforms take a variety of forms and are evolving at an unprecedented pace. Today, they encompass everything from social networks, search engines, and digital advertising to payment services, communication tools, and collaborative economy systems. Their reach extends across virtually all economic sectors.

Digital platforms have had a considerable impact on the structure and organization of labor markets, particularly due to their ability to facilitate interaction among diverse users and data flows within a shared digital environment. According to the International Labour Organization [16], the rise in digital labor platforms constitutes one of the most significant transformations in the world of work over the past decade. The global expansion of platforms like Uber has consolidated the notion of digitized labor and ushered in what has been termed the “uberization” of employment—a concept used to describe the sweeping changes that digitalization has introduced in labor relations.

Defining digital platforms is particularly complex due to the lack of a unified analytical framework across disciplines [17,18]. Measuring their scope and the number of individuals involved—especially workers—presents even greater challenges [19,20,21]. The success of platform-based business models lies in their low-cost structure, often operating in unregulated environments, wherein service providers may also be users, effectively transforming workers into “partners” of the platform [18,20,21].

Within neoliberal labor market structures, platforms often act as amplifiers of labor precarity. They contribute to downward pressure on wages, minimize or bypass contractual obligations, and promote labor individualization and class segmentation, thereby limiting the potential for collective action [21,22,23]. In this regard, Blanchard [2] (p. 19) notes that “the growth of the platform economy poses regulatory challenges, particularly concerning workers’ legal status and working conditions.”

In Chile, as in much of Latin America and the Caribbean, the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath have accelerated the widespread adoption of digital platforms for the provision of services—a trend that is unlikely to be reversed. Economic digitalization and shifts in consumption habits have facilitated the normalization of platform-mediated life and labor.

Responding to this phenomenon, Chile enacted Law No. 21.431 [24]—commonly known as the “Uber Law”—which amended the national labor code to regulate the contractual relationships of workers employed by digital service platforms. The law outlines the operational framework for these companies, defining a digital platform as:

“a company that, for profit, administers or manages an informatic or technological system executable via mobile or fixed devices, which enables a digital platform worker to provide services to users of that system within a defined geographic territory, including but not limited to the retrieval, distribution, and/or delivery of goods or merchandise, passenger transport, or other services” (Art. 152 quáter Q, Law No. 21.431) [24].

2.2. Platform Economy and the Uberization of Work

The phenomenon of “uberization” of labor within the platform economy embodies a transformative shift in work arrangements, characterized by several defining features that present both empowering and challenging aspects for gig workers. This essay will explore these characteristics based on various scholarly perspectives and research findings.

One primary characteristic of the uberization of labor is the reliance on digital platforms to mediate transactions between workers and consumers. Platforms like Uber or Airbnb act as intermediaries that connect gig workers with their clientele, often removing traditional employer-employee relationships from the equation [25,26]. This shift reflects a broader trend toward a freelance or contract-based labor model, where gig workers primarily engage in short-term, task-oriented work rather than permanent employment [27,28]. As noted by Dedema and Rosenbaum, these digital platforms have emerged as central players in the labor market, effectively redefining the nature of work and workers’ relationships to their tasks and clients [25].

Moreover, the gig economy is characterized by significant flexibility in work arrangements. Workers enjoy the autonomy to choose their tasks and set their schedules, allowing for potential work–life balance that traditional employment structures often do not afford [27,29]. This flexibility can enhance job satisfaction for many gig workers, especially those who prioritize personal autonomy over stability [30]. However, this same flexibility often comes at the cost of job security and financial stability, making workers vulnerable to fluctuations in demand and, ultimately, economic insecurity [28,31].

Algorithmic management represents another critical feature of the uberization of labor. Digital platforms employ complex algorithms to oversee the performance and behavior of gig workers, effectively replacing traditional management styles with technology-driven oversight [32]. While this management approach can enhance efficiencies for platform operators, it also raises concerns regarding the treatment of gig workers, as it can lead to a lack of transparency and unpredictable working conditions [33]. Workers often report feeling monitored and pressured to adhere to performance metrics set by these algorithms, which can exacerbate stress and job dissatisfaction [34].

In parallel, the gig economy operates under a model that frequently sidesteps the traditional labor protections afforded to full-time employees. Many gig workers lack access to essential benefits such as health insurance, unemployment benefits, and retirement plans, creating a precarious work environment that leaves them vulnerable [35,36]. This lack of protection can amplify feelings of exploitation and uncertainty, as workers must navigate a landscape where their rights and responsibilities are often ambiguous and undefined [37]. Consequently, advocating for improved labor rights and protections has become a vital discourse in understanding the gig economy’s implications for social equity and worker well-being [38].

The socio-economic dynamics of the gig economy are further complicated by the issue of social safety nets. As gig workers often operate as independent contractors, they do not benefit from the safety nets that protect traditional employees, leaving them exposed to economic risks. This aspect—coupled with digital platforms’ tendency to prioritize profit over worker welfare—creates an environment that can perpetuate income inequality and exacerbate precarity [33,39]. Indeed, studies have indicated that gig workers frequently struggle to achieve financial stability, leading to adverse mental health outcomes and diminished quality of life [40].

Additionally, the globalization of the gig economy has facilitated the emergence of a diverse workforce, bringing together individuals from varying socio-economic backgrounds across different geographical locations. This interconnectedness presents both opportunities for cross-cultural exchange and collaboration, as well as a potential race to the bottom concerning labor standards, as companies may capitalize on lower-wage labor markets [37,41]. As a result, gig work can reflect broader economic disparities and the challenges of equitable labor practices in a global context [42].

Moreover, the nature of gig work often requires continual skills development and adaptation, making lifelong learning essential for workers who wish to remain competitive in a rapidly evolving job market [28,43]. Platforms typically do not provide structured training for gig workers, placing the onus on individuals to seek educational opportunities independently [44]. This dynamic can be particularly daunting for those entering the gig economy without prior experience or the means to invest in their professional development [45].

In sum, the main characteristics of the uberization of labor in the platform economy intertwine flexibility with precariousness, algorithmic management with a lack of protections, and globalization with localized challenges. As workers navigate this emerging labor landscape, the implications for their autonomy, security, and overall well-being are profound, highlighting the urgent need for policy intervention and regulatory oversight to ensure fair treatment and sustainable growth within this new economy.

The platform economy has increasingly become associated with labor precarization, particularly in the Global South, where historical patterns of deregulation are being compounded by the rise in gig work. Various scholarly perspectives elucidate how the platform economy mirrors and deepen past labor dynamics, exacerbates vulnerabilities, and creates new forms of exploitation.

One of the primary ways the platform economy reproduces historical patterns of deregulation is through the erosion of traditional labor protections. The informal sector has long been characterized by a lack of regulatory oversight and legal protections for workers, conditions that the gig economy replicates and intensifies. Many platform workers, such as ride-hailing drivers and food delivery personnel, are classified as independent contractors rather than employees, allowing companies to bypass minimum wage laws, labor rights, and health benefits that were standard in more regulated employment models [46,47,48]. This shift reflects a broader trend toward precarization, where workers find themselves in increasingly vulnerable positions without the safety nets that were previously afforded to them [49,50].

The commodification of labor is a hallmark of the gig economy, where platforms leverage technology to treat human labor as a commodity subject to market fluctuations. This commodification reinforces historical patterns of exploitation, effectively reducing labor to its lowest price point while removing any semblance of worker autonomy or control [51]. Many platform workers are subjected to algorithmic management practices that dictate their work hours and rates of pay, leaving them with little power to negotiate better conditions or wages, echoing historical labor struggles where the imbalance of power remained heavily tilted towards employers [52].

Moreover, the growth trajectory of the platform economy is often predicated on existing socio-economic inequalities, particularly in the Global South, where access to reliable jobs is limited. This reality fosters a labor landscape where marginalized groups—including women, minorities, and those without higher education—are more likely to engage in precarious gig work. For instance, the digital hustle economy creates a vicious cycle of dependency for these workers, as they are pushed into volatile work that does not provide a stable income, reflecting patterns of marginalization that have existed in informal sectors for decades [49,53]. The risk of economic instability is further magnified by the platform’s dependence on unpredictable market dynamics, normalizing precarious conditions among workers [54].

In addition to economic factors, cultural and social dimensions of labor are reshaped in the platform economy. Many gig workers in the Global South are attracted to platform work through promises of flexibility and autonomy, yet they often find themselves ensnared in a precarious cycle where such promises fail to materialize. Instead, they frequently experience heightened levels of stress and anxiety due to unpredictable incomes and demanding performance metrics imposed by the platforms [51]. This aligns with historical patterns of labor, where the ideal of autonomy was often coupled with significant burdens, leading to disillusionment among workers who expected better conditions [55].

Furthermore, the global nature of the platform economy allows for a new form of capital accumulation that exploits cheaper labor in the Global South while reinforcing inequalities on a global scale [56]. This outsourcing model perpetuates existing disparities, representing a modern iteration of exploitative labor practices. Workers face intense competition not only from local laborers but from a worldwide pool, creating a race to the bottom in terms of wages and working conditions, reminiscent of exploitative labor practices seen in earlier capitalist phases [52].

The advent of surveillance technologies further shapes the conditions of labor in the platform economy. Gig workers face monitoring and control that mirrors historical labor practices, now facilitated by technology. Platforms utilize data analytics and algorithmic management to track worker performance, which often leads to punitive measures for poor performance, fostering a culture of fear among workers [51]. This form of surveillance reinforces the power imbalance between workers and management, echoing the historical challenges faced by workers asserting their rights against powerful industrial bosses.

Another notable trend is the increasing isolation experienced by gig workers. Traditionally, labor movements relied on collective organization, underpinned by solidarity and mutual support among workers to advocate for rights and protections. However, the gig economy’s structure fosters individualism, complicating efforts for workers to unite against common grievances. This fragmentation of labor activists hampers the formation of unions or coalitions, leaving workers more vulnerable to exploitation [57,58]. Historically, labor injustices were often addressed through collective action; in today’s context, the gig economy’s framework thwarts such collaborative efforts.

Education and skills development form another area where the platform economy mirrors historical inequities. Many gig roles require specific skills that workers are often expected to acquire independently, without support or training from employers, further entrenching socioeconomic divides [59]. This reliance on self-directed professional development can disadvantage those already lacking resources or opportunities to enhance their skills, perpetuating a cycle of disadvantage and precarity.

Additionally, gig platforms often impose psychological stressors that can impact workers’ mental health. The precarious nature of gig work not only leads to economic strains but also fosters existential uncertainties affecting overall life satisfaction and well-being [52,60]. Research indicates that precarious workers experience higher rates of anxiety and depression, patterns historically associated with unstable and exploitative labor conditions [57,59].

In summation, the platform economy encapsulates and intensifies historical patterns of labor deregulation and precarity, particularly evident in the Global South. By perpetuating exploitative labor relations, commodifying work, and reinforcing economic and social inequalities, the platform economy reflects a modern iteration of past labor struggles. As the landscape of work continues to evolve, it is crucial to recognize these patterns to advocate for policies that protect workers’ rights amidst unprecedented shifts in labor dynamics.

2.3. Digital Platforms and Paid Domestic Work

Digital platforms that facilitate the offering and intermediation of paid domestic work have gained increasing relevance in Latin America and Chile, especially in the context of the labor market restructuring that intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic. While these platforms exhibit certain particularities, they share key structural characteristics with other types of platforms. They function primarily as technological intermediaries that connect those seeking a service with those willing to provide it. In most cases, they do not assume an active role in the employment relationship, as subcontracting is generally absent [2,6,61,62,63,64].

By acting as labor intermediaries for domestic workers, these platforms have contributed to employment arrangements that foster precariousness, as they enable the circumvention of contractual obligations and legal frameworks specific to domestic labor. They facilitate the transformation of employment relationships, reinforcing asymmetries and increasing informality through the proliferation of short-term, unstable work [65].

Platforms dedicated to domestic service provision often implement control systems based on workers’ reputational scores. These systems rely on rating mechanisms grounded in arbitrary and subjective evaluations of what constitutes “good service.” Such one-sided evaluation schemes pressure domestic workers to perform tasks beyond the originally agreed duties to secure high ratings from employers—without recourse to formal complaint mechanisms in the face of abuse or unfair treatment [8,10,66,67,68].

Given that paid domestic work takes place within private households and is traditionally based on trust, the advent of platform labor intermediation has redefined this trust as a mechanism of identity exposure. Workers are often required to publicly verify their identities through various means—including the online publication of criminal background checks and child protection clearances, as well as linking to their personal social media profiles [9,69]. This hyper-visibility contributes to a digital space that reproduces forms of discrimination—not only based on workers’ professional competencies but also on racial, ethnic, national, and class-based attributes.

Regarding recruitment practices, digital platforms have redefined the structure of labor intermediation [6] (designing market-based mechanisms that match employers and domestic workers through algorithmically mediated selection processes).

Recent studies on how platforms operate within the domestic labor sector identify two primary models. The first is a “marketplace” model, in which the platform aims to reduce entry barriers for a wide array of service providers and enables the possibility of ongoing, regular work relationships. The second is an “on-demand” model, where platforms offer specific and sporadic services without promoting formal or continuous employment relationships between workers and clients [6,7].

These developments raise pressing questions about whether digital platforms have the potential to formalize this historically marginalized form of labor—or whether, instead, they deepen the structural informality and deregulation that have long characterized paid domestic work.

In Chile, in particular, there is limited data on the operation and impact of digital platforms within the domestic service sector. The following section presents insights from an empirical study conducted by the Federación de Sindicatos de Trabajadoras de Casa Particular de Chile (FESINTRACAP), aimed at foregrounding the changing conditions and emerging dynamics of job intermediation. The study analyzes the narratives of ten paid domestic workers regarding their experiences with digital platforms. The analysis was conducted using grounded theory methodology, employing open, axial, and selective coding techniques.

2.4. Situating Chile Within Latin American Scholarship

The landscape of private domestic work and platform labor in Chile has increasingly captured the attention of both academic and policy debates, reflecting the complex intersection of labor markets, gendered inequalities, and economic precarity. Recent studies illustrate how digital platforms have transformed the experiences of domestic workers—most of whom are women—by introducing new modalities of control while simultaneously creating spaces for worker agency [70]. Historically, domestic labor in Chile has inherited entrenched colonial and class hierarchies, with women, particularly migrant women, facing persistent barriers to adequate employment conditions and access to labor protections [70,71]. This duality—where platforms offer both new possibilities and reproduce structural inequities—frames Chile’s contribution to regional debates on platformization.

In comparative terms, Chile occupies a middle ground in Latin America’s regulatory landscape. Argentina’s Law 26.844 (2013) and Uruguay’s system of sectoral bargaining and inspection mechanisms have long underpinned relatively higher rates of formalization [72]. Mexico and Peru have only recently extended protections, through the IMSS reform (2019) and Law 31047 (2020), respectively [73,74]. Chile’s reforms between 2008 and 2015 introduced minimum wage coverage, limits on working hours, and ratification of ILO Convention 189, yet enforcement remains limited, particularly for part-time, multi-employer arrangements [75]. The persistence of high informality despite advanced statutory guarantees highlights the institutional contradictions that shape how platforms interact with domestic work.

The precarization of labor driven by platform capitalism is evident in the Chilean case. Morales and Stecher [76] argue that the autonomy celebrated by platforms often masks neo-normative control mechanisms, in which algorithmic management reproduces worker dependence while obscuring employer responsibilities. While digital intermediation introduces flexibility and facilitates job matching, it simultaneously perpetuates economic vulnerability, especially for workers with unstable immigration status [77,78,79]. These dynamics are not unique to Chile but illustrate how neoliberal logics of “flexibility” travel across the region while adapting to national contexts.

Legislative responses such as Act N° 21.431 have attempted to address these challenges by regulating the conditions of gig workers, including those engaged in domestic work [24,80]. The law’s provisions—written contracts, proportional minimum earnings, social security access, and algorithmic transparency—are regionally innovative. Yet, evidence from interviews suggests that regulations frequently fall short in effectively improving job quality, either due to weak enforcement capacity or because they do not capture the fragmented realities of short-hour domestic work [80]. Thus, while Chile’s legal framework is pioneering in the region, its practical impact remains contested.

The intersection of gender equity and platform work is particularly visible in Chile’s policy discourse. The Gender Parity Initiative, for example, underscores the importance of reconciling family responsibilities with employment commitments, especially for domestic workers who simultaneously shoulder unpaid caregiving obligations [81]. Without deliberate policy design that incorporates gendered labor dynamics, platformization risks reinforcing the invisibility and exploitation of women’s work. This highlights a broader point: while digital platforms are technologically novel, the inequalities they intersect with are deeply gendered and long-standing.

Comparative evidence illustrates the importance of organizational models in shaping worker outcomes. Colombia’s Hogarú, which directly employs domestic workers, has been evaluated positively by Fairwork [82] for providing contracts and social protection, while Argentina’s Zolvers facilitates formalization through its compliance services, leading to significantly higher registration rates among part-time workers [72]. In contrast, Brazilian and Mexican platforms have often relied on independent contractor classifications that reproduce precarity [83]. Chile’s smaller platform ecology is dominated by Zolvers, whose presence offers potential for formalization, but the impact of Law 21.431 on shaping marketplace behavior is still to be observed.

Worker experiences of autonomy and job satisfaction further complicate the picture. Research on mobile platform workers demonstrates that autonomy and social support, key elements of job satisfaction, are often undermined by algorithmic forms of control [84,85]. Domestic workers in Chile describe similar contradictions: while platforms grant flexibility in scheduling, algorithmic management and rating systems create new dependencies and anxieties, echoing broader findings in the gig economy [77]. These tensions resonate regionally but in Chile intersect with particular vulnerabilities linked to migrant status and fragmented employment patterns.

The agency of migrant workers deserves special attention. Bonhomme et al. [71] document strategies whereby migrant women navigate digital platforms not only as spaces of subordination but also as arenas for tactical resistance. These strategies include leveraging rating systems, selectively accepting clients, and using digital mediation to diversify employment opportunities. In Chile, where migrants now constitute a large share of domestic workers, such practices illustrate both the resilience of workers and the structural limitations of platformized “empowerment.”

Collective organization and mobilization among gig workers are also emerging themes in Chile. Morales and Martínez [78,79] note that collective action has begun to surface in response to the persistent precarity of platform work, echoing broader mobilizations across the Latin American region. Although domestic worker unions in Chile remain fragmented, the convergence of platform labor with existing traditions of organizing domestic work may provide a foundation for renewed collective claims. Such mobilizations reveal that the demand for fair treatment and improved labor standards is not only articulated through law but also through grassroots worker agency.

From a theoretical perspective, situating Chile alongside other Latin American cases clarifies both shared vulnerabilities and specific national configurations. Unlike Uruguay, where sectoral councils institutionalize bargaining, or Colombia, where Hogarú exemplifies a firm-level model of formalization, Chile’s experiment lies in applying a horizontal platform law to household services. Unlike Argentina, where compliance innovation came from platforms themselves, Chile relies on statutory design to discipline intermediaries. These contrasts demonstrate that platformization outcomes are mediated less by technology than by national institutional frameworks and enforcement capacity [73,86].

The COVID-19 pandemic further underscored these dynamics. In Brazil and Mexico, platform workers in domestic and care services lost work abruptly, exposing their lack of protection [74]. In Argentina, Zolvers maintained contributions for registered workers even as demand fell [72]. In Chile, migrant domestic workers bore the brunt of exclusion from relief programs, highlighting how informality and migration status intersect to deepen vulnerability [73]. These experiences demonstrate that platforms are not safety nets; institutional design and enforcement capacity remain decisive.

In conclusion, Chile contributes to Latin American scholarship by illustrating how advanced statutory rights, high informality in part-time employment, and strong migration flows interact with platformization. Its distinctive feature lies in the coexistence of a pioneering regulatory statute and persistent structural barriers to enforcement. While many features of precarious platform labor are common across the region, the Chilean case offers analytical value by showing how digital intermediation interacts with national labor regimes, gendered divisions of labor, and migration dynamics. Continued research and advocacy are essential to ensure that platformization evolves toward protecting rather than undermining the rights of vulnerable domestic workers.

3. Materials and Methods

This study employs a qualitative research design grounded in interpretivist epistemology, aiming to explore the lived experiences and perceptions of paid domestic workers in Chile regarding digital labor intermediation. The methodological approach is informed by grounded theory [87,88], which allowed for the systematic development of categories and themes emerging inductively from the data. This framework is particularly appropriate for investigating underexplored social phenomena, such as the intersection of platformization and domestic labor in the Chilean context.

3.1. Data Collection

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews conducted with ten paid domestic workers affiliated with the Federación de Sindicatos de Trabajadoras de Casa Particular de Chile (FESINTRACAP). Participants were selected using purposive sampling to ensure diversity in age, geographic location, and experience using digital platforms to access employment. Interviews were conducted between December 2023 and October 2024, in both in-person and remote modalities, depending on the availability and location of the participants. Each interview lasted between 45 and 60 min and was conducted in Spanish.

The interview guide was designed to elicit participants’ experiences with platform use, perceptions of flexibility and control, changes in recruitment practices, perceptions of job security and rights, and perceived exposure or discrimination facilitated by digital intermediation. All interviews were recorded with informed consent, transcribed verbatim, and anonymized to protect participants’ identities.

The decision to conduct ten in-depth interviews followed a qualitative strategy of theoretical sampling, which prioritizes the diversity of trajectories and experiences linked to the phenomenon rather than statistical representativeness. This approach enabled a deeper examination of the meanings participants attribute to their work, while accounting for the heterogeneity of contexts in which domestic labor is performed.

Participants were selected according to variables such as age, nationality, willingness to participate, and union membership, ensuring a range of situations relevant to the analysis. Of the ten interviewees, six were Chilean and four were migrant workers active in the Chilean labor market, thus providing both comparative and transnational perspectives essential for understanding the intersection of gender, migration, and platformization in paid domestic work.

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of interview participants (own elaboration, 2025).

Number of Interviewees	Age Range	Nationality	Years of Union Membership
2	30–40 years	Chilean	5 years
2	30–40 years	Bolivian	2 years
2	40–50 years	Peruvian	4 years
2	51–60 years	Chilean	10 years
2	61 and above	Chilean	15 years

summarizes the sociodemographic characteristics of the ten participants included in the study.

3.2. Analytical Strategy

The data analysis was conducted following the classic procedures of grounded theory, namely open coding, axial coding, and selective coding [88]. This iterative process allowed for the identification of recurring patterns and the construction of analytical categories that explain how domestic workers interpret and navigate their interactions with digital labor platforms. Coding was performed manually by the research team, employing constant comparative methods to refine emerging categories, ensure internal consistency, and achieve theoretical saturation.

The analytical process was oriented toward capturing both the structural dimensions of platform-mediated labor—such as informality, precarity, and algorithmic control—and the subjective experiences of workers, including perceptions of autonomy, exposure, and discrimination. Theoretical saturation was reached when categories related to job search mechanisms, the mediation of digital platforms, and tensions with labor regulations began to recur without introducing new elements.

Following the stages of grounded theory, the analysis produced analytical matrices that linked concepts and enabled the transition from initial descriptions to more interpretive readings of the findings. The sample size and fieldwork period are justified by the inherent access difficulties of the sector and by the need to capture dynamic and changing processes, ensuring the analytical validity of the study. It is important to emphasize that this article forms part of a larger research project on paid domestic work. The relationships among selective, axial, and open coding are summarized in

Table 2. Coding matrix: selective, axial, and open coding (own elaboration, 2025).

Selective Coding	Axial Coding	Open Coding
General characteristics of people linked to platforms	Housework and care	Reproductive work; low social value; multifunctionality
	Extensive career paths	Continuity of domestic service; platforms
	Territorialization	Internal migration; community networks
	Care ventures	Role of bidders/administrators
Observed practices of the platforms	Access and business option	From informal ‘data’ to digitalization
	Contracts ‘checklist’	Flexibility/autonomy vs. regulatory precariousness
	Expansion/update	Differences between traditional and digital agencies
	Types of platforms	Social networks; websites; hybrid agencies
	Usage procedures (workers/offers)	Profiles; filters; training; ‘match’
	Place of final employers	HR intermediation; distance from the employer
Deregulation of platforms	Precarious reporting channels	Difficulty filing claims; greater migrant vulnerability
	Uncertain regulatory framework	Tax and labor opacity
Tense perception and assessment	Overall rating	Flexibility vs. lack of seriousness/neatness
	Search effectiveness	Interviews rather than placement; insistence
	Quality of employers	Greater heterogeneity; discrimination
	Role of bidders/administrators	Partial escort and security
	Operation / bad practices	Repeated ads; lack of security
	Personal safety	Risks of violence and harassment
	Labor rights and wages	Fee slips; variable pay; absence of social security

, which presents the main analytical categories emerging from the data.

3.3. Ethical Considerations

The study received approval and institutional support from FESINTRACAP and the Solidarity Center (https://www.solidaritycenter.org/, accessed on 10 July 2025), as part of broader advocacy efforts to promote decent work for domestic workers in Latin America. All participants provided informed consent prior to their participation. The research adheres to the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, ensuring voluntary participation, confidentiality, and the right to withdraw at any time.

This research was also embedded in two parallel initiatives: (1) the fieldwork carried out by Dr. Rosa Villarroel Valdés in her advisory role for FESINTRACAP, aimed at producing policy briefs and advocacy materials; and (2) an undergraduate research project conducted as part of the Seminar I and II courses in the Social Work program at Universidad Andrés Bello, Viña del Mar campus, with the participation of students Fiorella Bertulio, Florencia Fabres, Valentina Fredes, and Vivian Lilly.

4. Results

The following section presents the main findings of the study, derived from the in-depth interviews conducted with ten paid domestic workers affiliated with FESINTRACAP. These women, the majority of whom migrated from rural regions to urban centers such as Santiago, have extensive experience in domestic labor and diverse levels of familiarity with digital platforms. Their testimonies offer insight into how platform-based intermediation is reshaping employment access, labor conditions, and the meanings attached to domestic work in Chile’s evolving platform economy.

The analysis is structured around five thematic dimensions that emerged through grounded theory coding procedures: (1) the transition from traditional to digital job-seeking practices; (2) the use and navigation of platforms and digital tools; (3) the impact of platforms on contractual relations, social protections, and labor rights; (4) the normalization of informality and individualized risk; and (5) the absence of regulatory oversight and collective mechanisms of accountability. These dimensions capture both the opportunities and contradictions inherent in digital labor intermediation, particularly as experienced by a historically marginalized and feminized workforce.

4.1. Experiences with Digital Labor Intermediation Platforms in the Paid Domestic Work Sector in Chile

Being a domestic worker and securing employment that adequately meets one’s economic needs is, in itself, a complex endeavor. Furthermore, the search for a work environment that satisfies the conditions of decent work, as defined by the International Labour Organization (ILO), has become increasingly challenging in recent years.

The paid domestic workers affiliated with FESINTRACAP are, for the most part, women who have migrated from rural areas to the capital city of Santiago in search of better labor opportunities. As one participant shared, “I’m from Temuco. Like most of the people who migrated, let’s say, from the regions to Santiago—about 80%” (E3).

These are women who dedicate their lives to serving others—their employers [4]. The tasks they perform range from childcare and eldercare to pet care and the full array of household responsibilities. One interviewee described her role as follows: “We do everything that needs to be done in a house. From household cleaning and managing resources to making sure nothing is missing, that everyone is comfortable, happy, and well taken care of” (E4).

Despite this comprehensive dedication, the participants recognized that their engagement in domestic labor has led them through a variety of working conditions—ranging from formal employment with adequate social protections to informal, precarious, and even abusive arrangements. Many noted that the COVID-19 pandemic marked a turning point in the sector, as digital platforms began to rapidly penetrate the domestic labor market, altering the ways in which jobs are accessed and generating new forms of labor exploitation that operate outside the scope of existing legal protections in Chile.

4.2. The Emergence of Digital Platforms

The transformation in how domestic workers search for and access employment opportunities is clearly reflected in their narratives. Participants describe a shift from traditional job-seeking methods—such as posting ads in newspapers or relying on word-of-mouth recommendations—to the increasing use of digital platforms and social media.

“It used to be through contacts, or like a friend would tell you (…) In my last job, I started uploading my résumé, and I realized there were possibilities and that it could be done online, which is like more modern” (E3).

While employment was previously obtained through face-to-face contacts or printed classified ads, workers today identify a broader range of opportunities available via the internet, which has diversified their employment prospects:

“Well, for example, I used to post on El Mercurio, or El Rastro. So I went through different things, and I realized there was a wide range of options, alternatives” (E3).

Nevertheless, the use of digital platforms for employment remains in a phase of partial adoption, as not all workers engage with them systematically. Participants also note that traditional employment agencies have had to adapt: some have modernized their operations by incorporating tools such as Instagram and WhatsApp, while others have become obsolete.

“Employment agencies too—I think they’ve updated themselves. Some agencies have kind of become outdated (…) and others are already using Instagram” (E3).

Several specific platforms—such as Chile Trabajo, JOB, Yapo, Nanamía, and Babysitter—were mentioned by participants as useful tools that have facilitated more efficient access to job opportunities. In this context, the digitalization of labor intermediation has led to a diversification of recruitment channels, with traditional and digital methods now coexisting in the employment landscape.

In terms of accessibility and digital literacy, the participants expressed differing perspectives. On one hand, they emphasized the importance of social support when navigating digital tools, often relying on more experienced peers for guidance:

“You usually get into it through someone who’s a little more prepared than you and starts giving you advice” (E3).

On the other hand, some workers articulated a discourse of self-sufficiency, asserting their ability to manage digital platforms independently and highlighting the availability of online tutorials and learning resources:

“I manage on my own” (regarding platform use) (E3). “Nowadays the internet gives you everything, there’s a tutorial (…) If someone doesn’t know how, it’s because they don’t want to learn. Today you have all the means to access information—unlimited” (E3).

This perspective reflects a meritocratic view of information access, suggesting that digital proficiency is merely a matter of individual will. However, such narratives risk obscuring deeper structural barriers such as the digital divide, unequal access to technology, and disparities in digital literacy. Overall, the testimonies suggest that while the internet may appear to democratize access to employment information, the actual user experience is still mediated by factors such as social capital, individual autonomy, and digital skills.

4.3. Procedures and Platform Use

The increasing digitalization of recruitment processes within the paid domestic work sector has required workers to engage with new mechanisms of employment intermediation, wherein online platforms and social media play a key role. This shift involves a set of digital competencies and adaptations to the procedural norms imposed by platforms.

Most digital platforms require domestic workers to upload their résumés and complete registration forms in order to create a personal profile—demands that presuppose a basic familiarity with digital tools and internet-based technologies.

“Most of them ask you to upload your résumé, or they say you need to include a short bio (…) not necessarily your full work history, but others definitely require you to upload a résumé” (E3).

In response to these changes, some employment agencies have modernized their systems, allowing users to register and be matched to job offers through digital means. These innovations have made job searching more streamlined and accessible. However, notable differences persist in how platforms handle worker profiles: some require only brief descriptions, while others ask for detailed employment histories, which influences both the degree of formality in the hiring process and the level of personal data exposure involved.

“And the agencies that also operate through platforms (…) some of them are modernizing—you fill out forms, and then they contact you and everything” (E3).

There appears to be a variety of procedures for accessing jobs via digital platforms. In some cases, platforms are affiliated with formal agencies that offer structured support; in others, they function as standalone applications that simply enable a “matchmaking” system between labor supply and demand. In the latter model, there is no intermediary actor to regulate the employment relationship, the worker’s role, or contractual terms.

“Yes, there are platforms [for domestic work] where they register, set up their profiles, and the families call them” (E7).

This form of intermediation reflects an adaptation to digital technologies and, in some cases, promotes greater organization in the recruitment and training of workers. However, the process continues to rely heavily on the real-time availability and responsiveness of domestic workers, as well as on the informal and variable ways in which employment relationships are established in this specific labor sector.

4.4. Deregulation in the Use of Digital Platforms for Paid Domestic Work

The experiences of the participants clearly highlight the lack of regulation and oversight in the use of digital platforms for hiring domestic workers, resulting in an environment marked by uncertainty and vulnerability. One notable shift is the transformation of labor intermediation itself: hiring is increasingly conducted through third parties—such as agencies or digital platforms—rather than through direct agreements with employers. This shift obscures responsibility in cases of labor conflict. As one worker explains, “It’s very rare to go directly to the person you want to work for” (E3), illustrating how the platform-based model introduces a layer of distance between employer and worker that undermines the possibility of establishing clear, mutual agreements regarding working conditions.

Moreover, the absence of formal contracts in many of these arrangements exacerbates insecurity. As another participant notes, “If you’re working by the day or by the hour, they might not even give you a contract. So that doesn’t give you any guarantees” (E3). Without legal documentation, workers are left unprotected in the event of disputes or mistreatment. From the perspective of union leaders, the lack of platform regulation is deeply concerning. One representative stated, “We don’t view [digital platforms] favorably as long as everything remains unregulated” (E4), underscoring the urgent need for legal frameworks that safeguard workers’ rights.

The absence of clear regulatory frameworks also hampers inspection processes and the ability to hold intermediaries accountable in cases of abuse or exploitation. A union leader draws a sharp contrast between traditional employment agencies and digital platforms, stating, “We’ve been at odds with employment agencies for years, but at least we know where they are, we know who their representatives are” (E4). In contrast, the opacity of digital platforms frequently makes it impossible to identify or reach those responsible. This lack of transparency has particularly harsh consequences for migrant domestic workers and those in vulnerable situations, who often lack accessible mechanisms to assert their rights. One participant asked: “Who could they file a complaint with? Where would we go? Most of them were undocumented foreign women. Even worse, they had no way to seek help” (E4).

While some platforms offer the theoretical possibility of filing complaints—“At least you can upload a contract and file a complaint,” one participant noted (E3)—there is no guarantee that these mechanisms will be enforced. This reinforces the need for a more robust and enforceable regulatory framework. Union representatives also pointed out the prolonged absence of state intervention on this issue, despite repeated warnings: “We’ve been meeting for almost two years (…) we went and said, ‘Hey, something is going on here’” (E4).

These testimonies underscore the urgency of establishing clear regulations governing the use of digital platforms in paid domestic work. As one union leader concluded, it is ultimately the responsibility of the state to design mechanisms that protect both workers and employers:

“They [the State] will have to decide what mechanisms to use to regulate this, to ensure it’s safe for both workers and employers” (E4).

4.5. Synthesis of Findings: Dimensions of Platform-Mediated Domestic Work

To enhance the analytical clarity of the empirical material presented in the previous sections, this subsection systematizes and synthesizes the main findings through six key thematic categories that emerged from the grounded analysis. These categories provide a structured overview of how digital labor intermediation platforms reshape the experience of paid domestic workers in Chile. Each category encapsulates a set of common patterns in the workers’ testimonies and is paired with an interpretive reading grounded in sociological literature on digital labor and precarity.

This synthetic table serves both a descriptive and analytical function: it identifies recurring empirical elements across the interviews and interprets their significance in relation to broader processes of platformization, labor informality, and structural inequality. The table aims to support the articulation of policy and theoretical reflections presented in the discussion and conclusion sections.

The findings summarized in the table demonstrate that digital intermediation not only introduces new logistical modalities for accessing employment but also reshapes existing power asymmetries and mechanisms of labor control. The coexistence of partial digital literacy among workers with opaque technological infrastructures generates heightened vulnerability and fragmented accountability within the sector.

The evidence further confirms that platform-mediated domestic work reproduces long-standing patterns of exclusion and exploitation historically associated with this occupation [3,5,13]. Far from operating as neutral intermediaries, digital platforms function as active agents in redefining the boundaries of informality, legitimacy, and labor discipline [2,8,66,67,68]. Through algorithmic management and rating systems, they embed new forms of surveillance and dependency that resonate with earlier trajectories of precarious labor in the region [21,22,23].

The synthesis presented in

Table 3. Synthesis of findings on the use of digital labor intermediation platforms in paid domestic work.

Thematic Category	Key Empirical Findings	Analytical Interpretation
Access and Technological Transition	Domestic workers shifted from traditional job search methods (e.g., referrals, newspapers) to a partial use of digital platforms.	This reflects a gradual and uneven digitalization process, marked by generational and digital literacy divides.
Recruitment and Labor Matching Modalities	Two models were identified: formalized digital employment agencies and unregulated matching platforms.	These modalities blur employer responsibility and foster informal and unstable employment relationships.
Procedures and Technological Requirements	Platforms often require uploading CVs, completing work histories, and verifying identity through digital means.	These practices increase informational asymmetry and worker exposure, reinforcing power imbalances in hiring.
Use of Ratings and Reputation	Workers feel pressured to go beyond contractual obligations to secure positive reviews from employers.	A digital disciplinary regime emerges, promoting self-exploitation and silencing reports of abuse.
Perceptions of Autonomy vs. Dependency	Some workers report independent use of platforms; others depend on peers for digital support.	This reveals a tension between empowerment narratives and structural inequalities in digital labor access.
Lack of Regulation and Legal Guarantees	Informal hiring practices and opaque accountability structures increase vulnerability and reduce legal protection.	The absence of regulation exacerbates precarity, especially among migrant and undocumented domestic workers.

plays a pivotal role in organizing the empirical material of this study. By condensing complex narratives into thematic categories, the table provides an overview that not only supports scholarly interpretation but also informs policy debate. Beyond offering analytical clarity, this systematization underscores the implications of digital intermediation for the regulation of paid domestic work, highlighting the urgent need for legislative frameworks that confront historical vulnerabilities while responding to emerging digital arrangements [24,65]. In this regard, the table not only summarizes the main contributions of our research but also constitutes a practical tool for advancing both academic inquiry and policy design in this field.

5. Discussion

The findings reveal a nuanced and often precarious reality in which digital platforms both expand employment opportunities and reproduce—or even deepen—existing patterns of vulnerability and informality.

Digital labor intermediation is often framed in the literature as a technological innovation capable of democratizing access to work and improving matching efficiency between labor supply and demand [17,18]. However, in the case of paid domestic work, this promise is severely limited by structural inequalities. Far from simply acting as neutral connectors, platforms shape labor dynamics through algorithmic controls, asymmetric information flows, and unregulated employment arrangements [2,8,63]. In particular, these platforms facilitate a fragmentation of the employment relationship, weakening the possibility of formal contracts, legal accountability, and collective bargaining [22,23].

The transition from traditional forms of employment intermediation—such as word-of-mouth or newspaper classifieds—to digital platforms is not merely technological. It entails a redefinition of social relations, trust mechanisms, and visibility. On one hand, platforms are perceived by some participants as providing broader and more accessible opportunities. On the other, they also promote individualization and meritocratic discourses that obscure digital divides, reinforce racial, ethnic, and class-based discrimination, and increase the exposure of workers’ private information [9,69].

The coexistence of on-demand and marketplace models for domestic services [7] further complicates the regulatory landscape. These models vary in terms of their formalization, transparency, and accountability. Some enable long-term relationships between employers and workers, while others offer sporadic gigs devoid of contractual guarantees. In both cases, however, platforms often remain legally invisible and unaccountable—creating what Pereyra [6] describe as a new “zone of ambiguity” in labor law.

Our data show that digital intermediation in the PDW sector in Chile does not eliminate precarity; it transforms it. New forms of algorithmic control emerge under the guise of reputation systems and user reviews, which in practice pressure domestic workers to go beyond their contractual duties without any mechanism for contesting employer abuse [66,67,68]. The promise of flexibility is undermined by instability, informational asymmetries, and a lack of state oversight.

Furthermore, the role of the state is conspicuously absent in most of these interactions. Although Chile has passed Law No. 21.431 [24], which seeks to regulate labor relationships in digital platform companies, its scope does not fully cover the specificities of paid domestic work. Participants in this study emphasized the lack of mechanisms for filing complaints or seeking redress, particularly among migrant and undocumented workers—those most vulnerable to exclusion and abuse. Their testimonies underscore the urgent need for policy interventions tailored to the realities of platform-mediated domestic labor.

In sum, this paper highlights the importance of understanding digital labor platforms not as passive intermediaries, but as active agents shaping labor markets and employment relations. For the PDW sector in Chile, the challenge lies not only in integrating technology but in ensuring that such integration is accompanied by protective regulation, social recognition, and labor justice.

6. Conclusions

The present study examined the experiences of women engaged in paid domestic work (PDW) in Chile with respect to the increasing role of digital platforms in labor intermediation. Drawing on qualitative data from interviews with workers affiliated with FESINTRACAP, the findings contribute to a growing body of literature that interrogates the complex relationship between technological innovation, labor market restructuring, and social inequality.

Digital platforms, far from being neutral or merely facilitative, operate as active actors that reconfigure the way labor is accessed, regulated, and experienced. In the context of domestic work, these platforms reproduce existing vulnerabilities while introducing new mechanisms of surveillance, control, and informality. Although some workers acknowledge the expanded visibility and opportunities afforded by platforms, these perceived advantages are frequently offset by precarious working conditions, a lack of formal contracts, and the absence of legal guarantees. The transformation of the employment relationship—now mediated through algorithmic systems and opaque governance structures—poses significant challenges to the achievement of decent work as defined by the International Labour Organization [16].

One of the most salient conclusions of this study is the mismatch between the technological modernization of labor intermediation and the regulatory lag in protecting workers’ rights. While Law No. 21.431 represents a step forward in Chile’s efforts to regulate digital labor platforms, its limited scope excludes the specific dynamics of the PDW sector. The workers’ testimonies make clear that many platform-based arrangements occur outside the purview of current labor law, resulting in a lack of enforceable standards, accountability, and social protection. This situation disproportionately affects migrant and undocumented women, who face additional barriers in accessing legal recourse and navigating digital environments.

Moreover, the findings highlight that digital intermediation is not experienced uniformly. Access to platforms, the ability to complete registration processes, and the capacity to engage with algorithmic systems depend heavily on digital literacy, social capital, and prior knowledge of technology. This reaffirms that digitalization does not necessarily equal democratization. Rather, it may exacerbate inequalities, especially in sectors like domestic work that are historically undervalued and feminized.

The normalization of client-driven rating systems introduces a new dimension of asymmetry, in which workers are incentivized to over-perform or comply with unreasonable demands to secure favorable reviews—without reciprocal mechanisms for evaluating employers or denouncing abuse. Such systems promote individualized responsibility and conceal power imbalances behind discourses of meritocracy and professionalism. These dynamics intensify emotional labor and create new forms of precariousness under the appearance of flexibility and autonomy.

Considering these findings, the study calls for the urgent development of regulatory frameworks specifically designed for platform-mediated domestic work. These should ensure enforceable labor rights, mechanisms for formalization, clear lines of accountability, and protection against discrimination and exploitation. Furthermore, policy design must consider intersectional inequalities related to gender, migration status, and digital exclusion.

Ultimately, while digital platforms present opportunities for innovation in labor intermediation, their impact must be assessed critically. Technological progress cannot be pursued at the expense of labor protections and social justice. The challenge ahead lies in articulating a governance model that integrates digitalization with dignity, equity, and collective rights in the world of work.

Beyond regulatory development, public policy must actively incorporate a gender-sensitive and intersectional lens when addressing digital labor intermediation in paid domestic work. This includes designing digital literacy programs targeted at women in precarious employment, especially migrants and low-income groups, to ensure equitable access to technological tools and platforms. The state must also assume a proactive role in monitoring and supervising platform operations, ensuring that labor standards are upheld regardless of the contractual modality. The invisibility and fragmentation of domestic work—exacerbated by digital mediation—demand comprehensive policies that bridge the gap between technological advancement and labor justice. Strengthening the institutional role of labor inspection agencies and fostering tripartite dialogs with worker organizations and platform companies are crucial steps toward effective governance.

From a research standpoint, future studies should further investigate the socio-technical configurations of digital platforms and their differentiated impacts across various segments of informal and feminized labor. Longitudinal and comparative studies across Latin American contexts could enrich the understanding of how regulatory environments shape worker outcomes under platform capitalism. Moreover, incorporating mixed methods approaches—combining ethnographic data with digital trace analysis or algorithm audits—could provide deeper insights into the ways platforms operationalize control and classification of workers. Lastly, co-produced research with worker-led unions or associations would contribute to democratizing knowledge production and aligning academic inquiry with emancipatory practices.

Regarding the study’s limitations, it is important to acknowledge that, given its qualitative design, the analysis does not aim to establish causal inferences or provide statistically generalizable explanations. Rather, its primary contribution lies in examining how precariousness in paid domestic work is shaped within the Chilean context, particularly in relation to the growing role of digital platforms in recruitment and labor intermediation. The focus is therefore on capturing the experiences, interpretations, and meanings that workers attribute to these transformations, with the intention of generating analytical insights rather than universalizable cause–effect relationships.