RESCUING the SCAPEGOAT Introduction 1. the Gig Economy Is
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Platform Economy and Social Law : Key Issues in Comparative Perspective — Edited by Isabelle Daugareilh, Christophe Degryse and Philippe Pochet
The platform economy and social law : Key issues in comparative perspective — Edited by Isabelle Daugareilh, Christophe Degryse and Philippe Pochet Working Paper 2019.10 The platform economy and social law : Key issues in comparative perspective — Edited by Isabelle Daugareilh, Christophe Degryse and Philippe Pochet Working Paper 2019.10 european trade union institute Isabelle Daugareilh is Director of Research at the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) and at the Centre for Comparative Labour and Social Security Law (COMPTRASEC) of the University of Bordeaux. Christophe Degryse is Senior Researcher at the European Trade Union Institute and Head of the ETUI Foresight Unit. Contact: [email protected] Philippe Pochet is General Director of the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) and professor at the Université catholique de Louvain (UCL). Contact: [email protected] ETUI publications are published to elicit comment and to encourage debate. The views expressed are those of the author(s) alone and do not necessarily represent the views of the ETUI nor those of the members of its general assembly. Brussels, 2019 ©Publisher: ETUI aisbl, Brussels All rights reserved Print: ETUI Printshop, Brussels D/2019/10.574/25 ISSN: 1994-4446 (print version) ISSN: 1994-4454 (electronic version) The ETUI is financially supported by the European Union. The European Union is not responsible for any use made of the information contained in this publication. Contents Foreword ..................................................................................................................................................... -
Report on the Issues Raised by the EU Directive
1 EU Directive 2019/1152 Transparent and predicable working conditions EWL seminar Leicester 2021 Simone Dowsing Christie John Dan Holland Hanah Jeena 2 I 1. Describe what kind of casual or precarious working exists in your country (for example zero-hour contract; platform workers or on demand) and how widespread it is. Within an era of digitalisation, the ways in which individuals conduct their work has subsequently changed. These changes to the labour market have enabled flexible working arrangements to become more prevalent.1 Whilst this can be seen as beneficial, the various forms of precarious work that individuals enter into are insecure.2 New forms of business models have subsequently arisen due to the technological advancements that have adapted the labour market. 3 For instance, over the past two decades atypical work has become more prevalent. 4 Atypical working arrangements include non-standard forms of work such as agency work, part-time work and zero-hour contracts.5 Whilst the main feature of atypical work is flexibility and casual working schedules, due to the changes in the labour market, these features are common within typical forms of employment.6 For instance, full-time employment has become increasingly casual.7 Additionally, precarious work can include typical forms of employment, such as worker or employee. The work is nevertheless precarious as a result of the working arrangements, for instance, employers typically have a great amount of flexibility and are not obliged to provide workers with a set number of hours or any work at all.8 Zero-hour contracts are another form of atypical work in the UK. -
Nonwaivability in Labour Law Guy Davidov* Accepted for Publication
Nonwaivability in Labour Law Guy Davidov Accepted for publication in Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Abstract Nonwaivability is considered a basic principle of labour law. In most cases, it is needed to protect employees against coerced waivers. But what if an employee genuinely wants to waive some labour right, for example in return for a higher salary? This article explains why nonwaivability is generally justified even against the wishes of employees, for reasons of paternalism, harm to others, and second- order justifications. At the same time, in some cases there is room for intermediate solutions, that can be used to better respect the autonomy of employees, and achieve additional benefits, without undermining the goals of labour laws. The article employs this analysis to examine two concrete questions, as examples: waiving of ‘employee’ status and the individual opt-out from maximum weekly hours. In the latter context, while I critique the current law, I argue that some form of conditional waiver could be acceptable. 1. Introduction Nonwaivability is an important characteristic of labour law. Subject to some rare exceptions, employees’ rights as set in legislation are nonwaivable (sometimes also called mandatory, nondisclaimable, non-derogable, ‘floor of rights’ or jus cogens).1 This is considered a basic principle of labour law.2 Why do we impose employment rights on the parties, even when a specific employee supposedly does not want them? For labour law scholars this may seem obvious, which might explain Elias Lieberman Professor of Labour Law, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, [email protected]. This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. -
Exploring the Concept of Regulatory Space: Employment and Working Time Regulation in the Gig-Economy
EXPLORING THE CONCEPT OF REGULATORY SPACE: EMPLOYMENT AND WORKING TIME REGULATION IN THE GIG-ECONOMY A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities 2018 Cristina Inversi Alliance Manchester Business School People, Management and Organisations Division (Blank Page) 2 Table of Contents Declaration ......................................................................................................................... 8 Copyright statement ......................................................................................................... 9 List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... 10 List of Tables .................................................................................................................. 12 List of Images ................................................................................................................. 12 Abstract ............................................................................................................................ 13 Dedication ....................................................................................................................... 15 Preface and Acknowledgments .................................................................................. 17 Chapter 1 - Introduction ............................................................................................... 21 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... -
Taken for a Ride: Litigating the Digital Platform Model
International Lawyers Assisting Workers Network TAKEN FOR A RIDE: LITIGATING THE DIGITAL PLATFORM MODEL ISSUE BRIEF | MARCH 2021 1 Issue Brief: Taken for a Ride International Lawyers Assisting Workers Network The International Lawyers Assisting Workers (ILAW) Network is a membership organization composed of trade union and workers’ rights lawyers worldwide. The core mission of the ILAW Network is to unite legal practitioners and scholars in an exchange of information, ideas and strategies in order to best promote and defend the rights and interests of workers and their organizations wherever they may be. This report was made possible with funding from the Ford Foundation. The information contained in this report is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. Information in this report may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. The report contains links to other third-party websites, the ILAW Network does not recommend or endorse those contents, the links are only for convenience for the reader. The views expressed are those of the individual authors - not those of the ILAW Network as a whole. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. 2 Issue Brief: Taken for a Ride International Lawyers Assisting Workers Network Table of Contents Taken for a Ride: Litigating the Digital Platform Model FOREWORD 5 THE “GIG ECONOMY”: LITIGATING THE CAUSE OF -
What Next for Status After Uber? Posted on 24 March, 2021 by | Jesse Crozier | Hitesh Dhorajiwala
Employment What Next for Status after Uber? Posted on 24 March, 2021 by | Jesse Crozier | Hitesh Dhorajiwala The dust has now started to settle on the Supreme Court’s decision in Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 (‘Uber (SC)’). In this blog, Hitesh Dhorajiwala and Jesse Crozier examine to what extent the Supreme Court’s decision alters our understanding of “worker” status, and look at the practical consequences and future battlegrounds for disputes over status. Introduction Almost five years after the Employment Tribunal delivered its decision in Aslam v Uber BV [2016] 10 WLUK 681 (ET), the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in one of the most contentious pieces of employment law litigation of the last decade. Touching on some of the fundamental questions of what it is to be a “worker”, the Supreme Court refined the scope of the interpretive test articulated in Autoclenz v Belcher [2011] ICR 1157 (SC), holding unanimously that the courts and tribunals must take a ‘purposive’ approach to statutory protections in the employment arena. Facts The Uber case concerned the status of drivers who worked within the Uber app, and specifically whether those drivers were “workers” for the purpose of s 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, and the Working Time Regulations 1998 (now commonly referred to as “limb (b)” workers). Uber BV is the Dutch parent company of Uber London Ltd and the owner of the Uber app. Uber London held the private hire vehicle licence for London. The claimant drivers worked as drivers for passengers booked via the Uber app under a contract with Uber BV.