<p>Algorithmic management systems now govern the working conditions of tens of millions of workers globally, yet organizational practices consistently fall short of emerging ethical standards. This article investigates what ethical obligations organizations have when deploying algorithmic management systems, and how current practices measure against those obligations. Through a structured analysis combining a literature review of published empirical studies, regulatory document analysis spanning four jurisdictions, and supplementary practitioner field observation from last-mile delivery operations, this study identifies four persistent gaps between what ethical frameworks require and what organizations deliver. Published evidence reveals that most algorithmically managed workers lack meaningful access to system transparency, that contestability mechanisms are rare and largely performative, that dignity considerations remain absent from system design, and that regulatory responses are fragmented across jurisdictions. Drawing on organizational justice theory, the capabilities approach, surveillance capitalism scholarship, and the emerging regulatory consensus reflected in the EU Platform Work Directive and the OECD AI Principles, this article proposes the TCDV ethical framework (Transparency, Contestability, Dignity, Voice) as a testable evaluative instrument that operationalizes established ethical principles into domain-specific criteria for algorithmic workforce governance, including a four-level scoring rubric and empirically testable propositions. The article further examines the psychological toll of algorithmic management and the differential impact on workers in the Global South.</p>