DOCSLIB.ORG

The Platform Economy and Social Law : Key Issues in Comparative Perspective — Edited by Isabelle Daugareilh, Christophe Degryse and Philippe Pochet

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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 ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 7 Section 1 Technological disruption, social dereliction? ............................................................................ 11 1. Industry and employment ............................................................................................................ 13 2. The platform economy: key issues ............................................................................................ 19 3. By way of conclusion: the end of the employment relationship? ................................... 29 Bibliographical references ................................................................................................................. 31 Section 2 A comparative legal approach.......................................................................................................... 35 Austria, Günther Löschnigg................................................................................................................... 37 Belgium, Céline Wattecamps .............................................................................................................. 44 France, Isabelle Daugareilh................................................................................................................... 51 Italy, Silvia Borelli ..................................................................................................................................... 63 The Netherlands, Nicola Gundt .......................................................................................................... 74 Romania, Felicia Roşioru ...................................................................................................................... 84 Spain, Miguel Rodríguez-Piñero Royo ................................................................................................ 92 Switzerland, Jean-Philippe Dunand and Pascal Mahon............................................................ 107 United Kingdom, Luke Mason........................................................................................................... 114 United States, Kieran Van den Bergh ............................................................................................. 125 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 139 WP 2019.10 3 The platform economy and social law: Key issues in comparative perspective Foreword Isabelle Daugareilh, Christophe Degryse and Philippe Pochet The topic of the platform economy and its social effects has been the subject of ongoing academic interest and social debate for many years now. Despite the fact that numerous studies have been published, the subject remains difficult to grasp and contextualise due to a lack of accurate and reliable data – in particular in terms of the sector’s economic weight and volume of employment. A further difficulty is that the platform economy is a generic term covering many different business models. For several years now, the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) has been focusing its research on the digitalisation of the economy and on the platform economy, mainly from a work and employment perspective. What working conditions are platform workers subjected to, how are they trying to organise, what rights do they have, what can they do to uphold them? For its part, Bordeaux University’s Centre for Comparative Labour and Social Security Law (COMPTRASEC) held a European workshop in November 2018 dedicated to a comparative legal approach to the platform economy and the questions it raises in terms of social legislation. Ten countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States) representing a wide variety of legal traditions and faced with different levels of digitalisation of the economy were analysed by legal experts for labour and social security affairs: what are the legal conflicts arising from this new business model, how is national jurispru - dence evolving, how are the respective players adapting their strategies? This legal perspective reveals that the platforms are trying to use the gaps and ambiguities in social legislation to arrive at an interpretation in which their business model abrogates all social responsibility towards those working for them. Various court rulings seek to enforce this legislation or instead question the very definition of a worker and an employer. These cases brought to the courts by those involved (very often collective cases) in an attempt to redress the balance of power mean that legislation is set to play a role in renewing the social contract. The work done in parallel by the ETUI and Comptrasec was destined to merge at some stage. This has since happened, with this publication the result thereof. As readers will see, this project complements the legal approach with a general analysis from a historical perspective, contextualising the evolution of WP 2019.10 5 Edited by Isabelle Daugareilh, Christophe Degryse and Philippe Pochet industrial relations in light of technological developments1. This comple - mentary approach enables us to move on from the sterile and often simplistic debates over such questions as: “are robots going to steal our jobs?”; “Are digital platforms on the verge of destroying our social models?” As such, neither robots nor platforms pose such threats. Looked at from a social perspective, technology cannot be analysed on its own. This always has to be done in conjunction with the business model that uses it. The issue at stake is thus how these technologies are being used by certain business models. This merits a wider debate, to which this publication aims to contribute. This debate needs to be constructive, not just focusing on a certain technology, but also on how it is being used by those managing it and on the threats it poses to society at large. This is also a field necessitating laws, as laws can stake the boundaries of the context in which innovations develop. The main feature of this publication lies in this complementary approach. The social and legal questions posed by the platformisation of the economy are very similar to those posed by the social transformations of past industrial revolutions; transformations which served as a lever for bygone institutions to establish, step by step, the social models we now enjoy. What is at stake here is the emergence of a renewed social contract. We hope that this novel approach will help readers to better identify the challenges and to highlight the important role of the actors involved. 1. It is not by chance that our two institutions both belong to the international CRIMT project aimed at taking stock of, and as far as possible comparing, institutional innovations in different fields. 6 WP 2019.10 The platform economy and social law: Key issues in comparative perspective Introduction Christophe Degryse2 The recent emergence of the platform economy, symbolised in Europe by the two frontrunners Uber and Deliveroo, is reshaping business and the way it is conducted. As often seen in similar reconfigurations, a certain fuzziness surrounds this emerging business model and its potential impacts on the economy and labour markets. But what exactly is a digital platform, one of the most decisive technology-driven developments in recent times? And how is it set to turn upside-down the economic and social world as we currently know it? In the first section, we will be looking at the link between technological innovation, the transformation of business (and management) models and the evolution of work. While it is obviously not possible to go through the whole history of technological progress and its effects
Recommended publications
  • RESCUING the SCAPEGOAT Introduction 1. the Gig Economy Is

    RESCUING the SCAPEGOAT Introduction 1. the Gig Economy Is

    THE GIG ECONOMY: RESCUING THE SCAPEGOAT CORY FOGLIANI* Introduction 1. The gig economy is often held out as a group of wealthy, multinational organisations that use mobile applications to skirt the edges of the law and exploit vulnerable workers.1 According to the General Secretary of the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain, no company better epitomises the gig economy than Uber.2 2. There can be little doubt that Uber has gone to great extents to disguise the relationships it has with its drivers so as to avoid labour laws. So far it has been successful in doing so in Australia.3 But is the gig economy the creature that enables companies like Uber to exploit their labour? 3. This paper will start by defining the gig economy. It will then suggest that the current gaps in Australia’s labour laws are not a by-product of the gig economy but are instead caused by the under-regulation of dependent contracting. This paper will then look at a selection of cases from the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Australia involving labour law claims by Uber drivers against Uber. Finally, this paper will suggest that the state and federal parliaments could better protect the working class in Australia by extending Australia’s labour laws to cover dependent contractors. * BCom, LLB, LLM(Res). Cory Fogliani is an employment and industrial lawyer in Perth, Western Australia. This paper was prepared as a part of a seminar presentation to the Law Society of Western Australia on 15 February 2018. This paper was created and released for educational purposes only.
  • Report on the Issues Raised by the EU Directive

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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.