Yesterday evening [11/08/2026], the OPZZ Trade Union, Confederation of Labour, operating at Pyszne.pl, published a comprehensive open letter addressed to virtually all entities engaged in work for the platforms.
This is a response to the position of Takeaway Express (i.e., the Pyszne.pl platform), addressed to the Ministry of Family, Labor and Social Policy. In it, the Pyszne.pl management complains about the political pressure it has been under and the inspections conducted at their company.
The Trade Union’s letter is published in its entirety below.
Warsaw, 11/08/2026
OPEN LETTER
THE INTER-ENTERPRISE TRADE UNION ORGANIZATION OPERATING AT TAKEAWAY EXPRESS POLAND SP. Z O.O. (Pyszne.pl) ON PLATFORM WORK
To the Management Board of Takeaway Express Poland Sp z.o.o., digital job platform operators, fleet partners, the Ministry of Family, Labor and Social Policy, the Labor Protection Council, and all participants in the debate on the future of platform work in Poland
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We have carefully reviewed the open letter from Takeaway Express Poland Sp z.o.o., dated August 7, 2026, operating under the name Pyszne.pl, addressed to Minister Agnieszka Dziemianowicz-Bąk and the Labor Protection Council.
We appreciate that Takeaway recognizes the need for dialogue on the future of platform work in Poland. As individuals who have worked through this platform for years, we would like to supplement the presented picture with a perspective missing from the company’s position – the perspective of those who performed this work on a daily basis.
We do not question the company’s right to make business decisions. However, we question the portrayal of the platform work model solely as a technical choice between “flexibility” and “employment contract,” ignoring the actual conditions under which people perform this work.
1. “Flexibility” cannot be synonymous with transferring risk to the employee
The Management Board of Pyszne.pl cites a study showing that 87% of surveyed couriers want to flexibly choose their working hours and days.
We do not deny that flexibility is important to some couriers. However, we have repeatedly pointed out that the problem arises when flexibility becomes the only form of security for someone who actually makes a living from this work.
Couriers include students supplementing their studies, individuals with other sources of income, retirees, but also individuals for whom deliveries are their primary or secondary source of income. For the latter, “flexibility” is often not a privilege, but rather a shifting of the risk of a lack of orders, waiting times, and work costs onto the contractor. Therefore, the regulation of the entire market cannot be based solely on the assumption that every courier is an individual who can resign from work at any time and will not suffer any economic consequences.
2. The actual manner of performing work should not be determined by the title of the contract
Pyszne.pl indicates that a courier cooperating with a fleet partner will be able to decide when to work, whether to accept orders, and cooperate with multiple platforms.
This is precisely why we want to emphasize a fundamental point: the nature of the legal relationship should be determined by the actual conditions of performing work, not the structure of the contract itself or the formal transfer of the contract to an intermediary. For years, we have been working in a system where the platform:
Simply transferring a formal contract to a fleet partner does not automatically eliminate all these elements.
If the platform continues to organize work, monitor its execution, and use digital tools to make or support decisions regarding the individual performing the work, this should be assessed based on the actual way the work is performed.
This is also the direction implied by the European regulation on platform work and the draft law being prepared by the government.
3. A fleet partner cannot be a way to “exempt” the platform from responsibility.
We do not oppose the very existence of fleet partners.
We oppose a situation in which the intermediary becomes merely a formal employer or client, while the platform still makes the fundamental decisions regarding work organization.
If the platform decides how orders are assigned, the rules for using the application, the method of determining In light of the regulations regarding remuneration, work monitoring methods, or system access conditions, it is impossible to pretend that the platform is merely a neutral technological intermediary.
Therefore, we support the principle of joint and several liability of the platform and the intermediary.
The entity responsible for the operation of a given platform should be liable for the failure of intermediary companies to fulfill their obligations, so that individuals performing work will not have to engage in a long-term dispute over which of several entities is actually responsible for violating their rights.
4. The minimum hourly rate should be a real guarantee, not an accounting fiction
We believe that one of the fundamental elements of future regulation should be guaranteeing that individuals performing platform work receive remuneration no lower than the minimum hourly rate specified in the Minimum Wage Act.
This does not mean that commission-based remuneration should be abolished.
The platform can still pay for completed orders. However, there should be a guarantee that for the time the individual is actually available to the platform or performs the accepted order, their remuneration will not fall below the statutory minimum. This applies to both platforms that use schedules and slots, as well as platforms operating in an “offslot” model, where the contractor activates availability and waits for orders without signing up to a schedule or specific slots.
For platforms that use schedules or reserved time blocks, the period during which the person commits to being available to the platform should be included in working time.
For platforms operating without a schedule, the period of active availability during which the contractor remains ready to accept orders should be included.
It is unacceptable to create regulations in which the platform can transfer the entire risk of a lack of orders to the individual, who is simultaneously kept ready to accept them.
Wage should be actual remuneration.
The minimum hourly rate must also be the rate for work, not the sum of remuneration and reimbursement of expenses.
If a courier uses their own car, bicycle, scooter, telephone, tools, or materials necessary for the job, benefits representing reimbursement for the use of these should be paid regardless of the minimum wage. The platform should not be able to demonstrate compliance with the minimum wage by adding up the remuneration for work and the money that is actually intended only to cover the costs of performing it.
5. There should be no fees for the ability to perform work
We also propose introducing an express prohibition on charging individuals performing platform work fees related to the ability to perform this work.
This prohibition should include, in particular, fees for:
It is irrelevant whether such a fee is called a “commission,” “subscription,” “administrative fee,” “access fee,” or otherwise. If it is a condition for access to work or reduces the remuneration due for performing it, it should be treated as part of the platform’s operating costs, which should not be passed on to the person performing the work.
6. An algorithm cannot replace management simply because it is an algorithm
One of the most important elements of the proposed law is the regulation of algorithmic management.
This is particularly important in our industry.
For years, some of the most important decisions regarding daily work have been made via applications. For the person performing the work, it makes little difference whether the decision to allocate an order, limit account access, or change work conditions is made by a person sitting in an office or by an algorithm running on a server. The effect remains the same.
Computer programs and algorithms are merely tools, the operation of which is the sole responsibility of the entity using the tools. Platforms should identify the person responsible for the operation of such systems by name, and users (couriers) should be able to report malfunctioning functions that may affect their earnings and working conditions. Therefore, we support:
7. “Unreliable “Performing an order” cannot mean punishment for simply rejecting orders.
We are particularly closely monitoring solutions in which refusing to accept a certain number of orders may result in temporarily limiting access to an account.
If a person has the formal right to refuse an order, a system of economic sanctions cannot then create a situation in which the refusal is actually punished.
The classification of simply refusing to accept an order as “unfair execution of an order” raises even greater doubts.
It is impossible to “unfairly execute” an order that has not been accepted.
Legislators need to be particularly cautious here. The right to refuse an order should be a real right, not a right existing only on paper.
8. We disagree with presenting PIP inspections as a political attack
The Trade Union Organization is obligated to report to the appropriate state institutions any problems that arise regarding the organization of work, the legality of employment, settlements, and the protection of the rights of workers. We also initiated complaints with the National Labor Inspectorate, as we place our hopes on this institution to provide a fair resolution to the irregularities we believe exist.
On December 31, 2025, the National Labor Inspectorate, Wrocław branch, began an inspection of the Takeaway company. According to the inspection report, it concluded on April 3, 2026.
We regret to inform you that after the aforementioned inspection, the conditions of work performed deteriorated, forcing the Trade Union Board to resubmit a complaint to the National Labor Inspectorate, Wrocław branch, on May 27, 2026. The inspection began on June 26, 2026, and concluded on July 24, 2026. We are still awaiting the report from this inspection. Another inspection was ordered by the Minister of Labor and Social Policy in mid-July following media reports about the planned layoff of 4,491 couriers. In the opinion of the Trade Union’s Board, the inspections are justified, and we disagree with the position of Arkadiusz Krupicz, Managing Director of Pyszne.pl, regarding political pressure.
We, as a Trade Union, assure you that any company that we deem to be violating applicable law, or that we have any doubts about, will not hesitate to exercise our right to request an inspection from the appropriate institution. The Trade Union does not determine whether individual actions were carried out correctly.
If Takeaway believes it is operating legally, it should have the full right to present its arguments, evidence, and legal remedies.
9. The Need for Regulation of the Entire Market
The Trade Union’s position is identical to Takeaway’s on one point: the problem of platform work does not concern a single company; it is a regulatory challenge for the entire sector. We do not want standards to be raised solely at Pyszne.pl, while other platforms compete by reducing labor costs. Regulations should cover all entities organizing work via digital platforms – regardless of whether it’s food delivery, parcel delivery, shopping, passenger transportation, or in-home services.
A level playing field is necessary for both employees and businesses.
At the same time, we disagree with the idea that improving working conditions must mean eliminating flexibility. We want to combine both.
It is possible to create a system in which individuals can independently decide when they want to work, while still enjoying basic guarantees of remuneration, safety, and protection from arbitrary platform decisions.
10. Our Proposals for the Platform Work Act
In connection with the commencement of work on the Act on Performing Work via Digital Platforms, we propose that the legislature consider in particular:
1. Actual Assessment of the Employment Relationship – When assessing the existence of an employment relationship, the actual way in which work is organized and performed, including control exercised through applications and algorithmic systems, should be taken into account, not solely the content of the contract or the formal designation of an intermediary. 2. Minimum hourly wage – A person performing work via a digital platform should be entitled to a wage no lower than the minimum hourly rate specified in the Minimum Wage Act.
3. Neutrality of the work organization model – The minimum wage guarantee should apply to both the schedule model and the online work model.
4. Separation of wages from reimbursement – Reimbursement for the use of one’s own vehicle, equipment, tools, materials, or other resources necessary to perform the work should not be included in the minimum wage.
5. Prohibition of fees for access to work – Platforms and intermediaries should not charge workers for creating an account, accessing the platform, or otherwise Order processing, increasing access to orders, settlement of work, or payment of remuneration.
6. Protection against arbitrary account blocking – Decisions to suspend, limit, or delete an account should require human review, justification, and the possibility of appeal.
7. Protection of the right to refuse an order – If the legal model provides for the possibility of rejecting an order, exercising this right should not in itself constitute grounds for sanctions.
8. Joint and several liability of the platform and intermediary – The person performing the work should be able to effectively pursue their rights without having to decide which of the entities participating in the organization of work is responsible.
9. Full transparency of algorithmic management – The person performing the work should know which systems influence their remuneration, access to orders, work evaluation, and account access, and have the opportunity to challenge the decision made by such a system.
10. Level playing field for the entire market – Regulation should cover not only food delivery, but all forms of platform work based on digital organization, allocation, monitoring, or settlement of work.
11. Appeal to the Takeaway Management Board and other platforms/fleet partners
We do not expect companies to abandon their businesses or accept all our demands without discussion.
However, we expect that the people whose work generates revenue for these companies will also be on the other side of the table in this discussion.
If the Takeaway Management Board and other interested parties wish to engage in an industry dialogue, we are ready to participate.
However, dialogue cannot be limited to discussing how to organize deliveries as cheaply as possible.
It should also address how to ensure that the person performing the delivery can make a living from their work.
We do not want a market where companies compete based on who can most quickly transfer the risk of operating their business to the courier.
We want a market where competition is driven by the quality of technology, organization, and services, not by lowering labor standards.
12. To the Ministry of Family, Labor and Social Policy
We appeal to use the ongoing consultations to create a regulation that is not written solely from the perspective of platforms or solely from the perspective of traditional employment relationships.
Platform work is a new phenomenon and requires new, appropriate solutions.
However, it should not be assumed that the modernity of the business model means abandoning basic guarantees for workers.
Flexibility and security are not opposites.
It is possible to create a system in which people choose when they want to work, while also being guaranteed a minimum wage, protection against arbitrary account suspensions, transparency of algorithms, and the ability to effectively pursue their rights.
This is precisely what we expect from the Polish implementation of the Platform Work Directive.
In conclusion,
We urge all those interested in this common problem to discuss this issue at a common table. This table must include representatives of: platforms, fleet partners, employer organizations, individuals performing work and the trade unions representing them, the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy, the National Labor Inspectorate, the Chancellery of the President of the Republic of Poland, and all those who care about regulating the platform work market, because we believe that platform work:
But above all, it is still work performed by people.
And their interests should be one of the fundamental points of reference when creating the rules according to which this market will operate in the coming years.
On behalf of the Board of the Inter-Enterprise Organization of OPZZ, Confederation of Labor, Adam Szafraniec – Chairman
And also:
THERE ARE 3 MONTHS AND 20 DAYS LEFT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLATFORM WORK DIRECTIVE.