Social Europe

politics, economy and employment & labour

  • Themes
    • Strategic autonomy
    • War in Ukraine
    • European digital sphere
    • Recovery and resilience
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Dossiers
    • Occasional Papers
    • Research Essays
    • Brexit Paper Series
  • Podcast
  • Videos
  • Newsletter

Regulating digital work: from laisser-faire to fairness

Nicola Countouris 8th December 2021

The proposal for an EU directive on platform work about to emerge is welcome, yet insufficient—and no substitute for national action.

platform work,directive
At the mercy of the platform (kentoh/shutterstock.com)

Comprehensive and fair regulation of working conditions, collective representation, social-security rights and the fiscal position of platform workers lies at the heart of the challenges presented by the ‘gig’ economy. The adoption of a European Union directive on working conditions in platform work could deepen the debate on the future of work in an increasingly digitalised economy.

EU intervention alone will not however resolve many of the core regulatory questions emerging from this debate. National governments and parliaments will need to step up.

Pervasive anomie

The French legal scholar Alain Supiot contends: ‘We are in a normative chaos at the international level, in a regime of generalised irresponsibility.’ There is no better example than the pervasive anomie under which in the last decade the platform economy has been allowed to grow fivefold, virtually in the absence of any national—let alone supranational—regulation.

This negligent, laisser-faire attitude towards the manifold challenges presented by platform work can be contrasted with the much more hands-on approach parliaments and governments took just a generation ago, dealing with the emergence of what used to be referred to (before it became ‘normal’) as ‘atypical work’. By the early 1990s most EU member states had passed a vast array of statutes regulating in great detail part-time, fixed-term and agency work. As a rule, these waves of national regulatory activity preceded EU action in this domain by a decade or two.


Our job is keeping you informed!


Subscribe to our free newsletter and stay up to date with the latest Social Europe content. We will never send you spam and you can unsubscribe anytime.

Sign up here

It is a sign of our times—and of the ‘generalised irresponsibility’ lamented by Supiot—that, this time around, the European Commission is putting forward proposals to protect platform workers well in advance of any comparable action at national level, with member states at best attempting to protect certain types of workers (such as couriers) and at worst ignoring the problem.

By contrast, national judiciaries have pulled their weight on the issue. While this has greatly benefited many litigants, they have not been able to offer the comprehensive regulatory solutions only legislative action can provide.

EU intervention is welcome and essential to regulate a phenomenon with an undeniable transnational dimension. But a directive alone is unlikely to exhaust the need for further, national regulatory action.

Really workers?

First, there are already indications that the regulatory efforts of the EU will fall short of what is needed to address the central question in the debate: are platform workers really workers? In casting the personal scope of application of the forthcoming directive, it is difficult to see the EU going much beyond the definition contained in the 2019 directive on transparent and predictable working conditions.

Armed with that formulation alone—albeit in many ways broader than any in previous EU labour-law instruments—the Court of Justice of the EU is unlikely to remedy the faux pas of its 2020 decision in Yodel. There the presence of a substitution clause in a courier’s contract with a food-delivery platform was seen as an indication of autonomy and entrepreneurship, thus negating employment status.

In this light, De Stefano and Aloisi argue that much broader scope would be necessary, as also posited in a recent study for the European Economic and Social Committee. But it’s unlikely that the commission will have the courage to embrace this challenge.

Collective bargaining

A second concern is over the right to bargain collectively. Commission proposals have refused to engage earnestly with this, leaving it to the directorate-general on competition and its initiative on collective bargaining for the self-employed. 

Even the broadest regulatory option attached to that initiative would fall short of the need for collective representation of platform workers, many of whom are likely to be labelled, or misclassified, as self-employed. Comprehensive regulation of powerful multinational platforms cannot be achieved if unions representing vulnerable workers have one hand tied behind their backs by competition authorities.


We need your support


Social Europe is an independent publisher and we believe in freely available content. For this model to be sustainable, however, we depend on the solidarity of our readers. Become a Social Europe member for less than 5 Euro per month and help us produce more articles, podcasts and videos. Thank you very much for your support!

Become a Social Europe Member

Finally, action is likely to be constrained by the limited competence of EU law-making institutions, in social security and taxation in particular. Recommendation 2019/387 on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed is weakened by the lack of precise definitions of what a worker and self-employed individual are, as well as by its non-binding nature. Member states will no doubt have to intervene with a sense of purpose, recognising that ‘the majority of workers on digital labour platforms do not have social security coverage’. 

Taxation is even thornier. Problems arising from the tax status of nominally self-employed workers are compounded by jurisdictional conflicts and the lack of firm EU competence.

Socialising losses

These four issues—scope, collective bargaining, social security and taxation—lie at the heart of the equity and distributional challenges of regulating the business model of platform companies, a model which too often privatises profits while socialising losses. As a recent policy document from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development put it, regulators should ‘guarantee a level playing field among firms by preventing platform operators from gaining a competitive advantage by avoiding their obligations and responsibilities’.

Unfortunately, EU intervention alone will not resolve these regulatory conundrums. National governments and parliaments will need to step up their efforts. In this respect, their implementation of an EU directive on working conditions in platform work should inspire some joined-up thinking on the future of work in an increasingly digitalised economy.

Pics1 1
Nicola Countouris

Nicola Countouris is director of the Research Department at the European Trade Union Institute and a professor in labour and European law at University College London.

You are here: Home / Economy / Regulating digital work: from laisser-faire to fairness

Most Popular Posts

Visentini,ITUC,Qatar,Fight Impunity,50,000 Visentini, ‘Fight Impunity’, the ITUC and QatarFrank Hoffer
Russian soldiers' mothers,war,Ukraine The Ukraine war and Russian soldiers’ mothersJennifer Mathers and Natasha Danilova
IGU,documents,International Gas Union,lobby,lobbying,sustainable finance taxonomy,green gas,EU,COP ‘Gaslighting’ Europe on fossil fuelsFaye Holder
Schengen,Fortress Europe,Romania,Bulgaria Romania and Bulgaria stuck in EU’s second tierMagdalena Ulceluse
income inequality,inequality,Gini,1 per cent,elephant chart,elephant Global income inequality: time to revise the elephantBranko Milanovic

Most Recent Posts

energy transition,Europe,wind and solar Europe’s energy transition starts to speed upDave Jones
equality bodies,gender equality Setting standards for national equality bodiesEvelyn Collins
Pakistan,flooding,floods Flooded Pakistan, symbol of climate injusticeZareen Zahid Qureshi
reality check,EU foreign policy,Russia Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: a reality check for the EUHeidi Mauer, Richard Whitman and Nicholas Wright
permanent EU investment fund,Recovery and Resilience Facility,public investment,RRF Towards a permanent EU investment fundPhilipp Heimberger and Andreas Lichtenberger

Other Social Europe Publications

front cover scaled Towards a social-democratic century?
Cover e1655225066994 National recovery and resilience plans
Untitled design The transatlantic relationship
Women Corona e1631700896969 500 Women and the coronavirus crisis
sere12 1 RE No. 12: Why No Economic Democracy in Sweden?

Foundation for European Progressive Studies Advertisement

The winter issue of the Progressive Post magazine from FEPS is out!

The sequence of recent catastrophes has thrust new words into our vocabulary—'polycrisis', for example, even 'permacrisis'. These challenges have multiple origins, reinforce each other and cannot be tackled individually. But could they also be opportunities for the EU?

This issue offers compelling analyses on the European health union, multilateralism and international co-operation, the state of the union, political alternatives to the narrative imposed by the right and much more!


DOWNLOAD HERE

Hans Böckler Stiftung Advertisement

The macroeconomic effects of re-applying the EU fiscal rules

Against the background of the European Commission's reform plans for the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), this policy brief uses the macroeconometric multi-country model NiGEM to simulate the macroeconomic implications of the most relevant reform options from 2024 onwards. Next to a return to the existing and unreformed rules, the most prominent options include an expenditure rule linked to a debt anchor.

Our results for the euro area and its four biggest economies—France, Italy, Germany and Spain—indicate that returning to the rules of the SGP would lead to severe cuts in public spending, particularly if the SGP rules were interpreted as in the past. A more flexible interpretation would only somewhat ease the fiscal-adjustment burden. An expenditure rule along the lines of the European Fiscal Board would, however, not necessarily alleviate that burden in and of itself.

Our simulations show great care must be taken to specify the expenditure rule, such that fiscal consolidation is achieved in a growth-friendly way. Raising the debt ceiling to 90 per cent of gross domestic product and applying less demanding fiscal adjustments, as proposed by the IMK, would go a long way.


DOWNLOAD HERE

ILO advertisement

Global Wage Report 2022-23: The impact of inflation and COVID-19 on wages and purchasing power

The International Labour Organization's Global Wage Report is a key reference on wages and wage inequality for the academic community and policy-makers around the world.

This eighth edition of the report, The Impact of inflation and COVID-19 on wages and purchasing power, examines the evolution of real wages, giving a unique picture of wage trends globally and by region. The report includes evidence on how wages have evolved through the COVID-19 crisis as well as how the current inflationary context is biting into real wage growth in most regions of the world. The report shows that for the first time in the 21st century real wage growth has fallen to negative values while, at the same time, the gap between real productivity growth and real wage growth continues to widen.

The report analysis the evolution of the real total wage bill from 2019 to 2022 to show how its different components—employment, nominal wages and inflation—have changed during the COVID-19 crisis and, more recently, during the cost-of-living crisis. The decomposition of the total wage bill, and its evolution, is shown for all wage employees and distinguishes between women and men. The report also looks at changes in wage inequality and the gender pay gap to reveal how COVID-19 may have contributed to increasing income inequality in different regions of the world. Together, the empirical evidence in the report becomes the backbone of a policy discussion that could play a key role in a human-centred recovery from the different ongoing crises.


DOWNLOAD HERE

ETUI advertisement

The EU recovery strategy: a blueprint for a more Social Europe or a house of cards?

This new ETUI paper explores the European Union recovery strategy, with a focus on its potentially transformative aspects vis-à-vis European integration and its implications for the social dimension of the EU’s socio-economic governance. In particular, it reflects on whether the agreed measures provide sufficient safeguards against the spectre of austerity and whether these constitute steps away from treating social and labour policies as mere ‘variables’ of economic growth.


DOWNLOAD HERE

Eurofound advertisement

Eurofound webinar: Making telework work for everyone

Since 2020 more European workers and managers have enjoyed greater flexibility and autonomy in work and are reporting their preference for hybrid working. Also driven by technological developments and structural changes in employment, organisations are now integrating telework more permanently into their workplace.

To reflect on these shifts, on 6 December Eurofound researchers Oscar Vargas and John Hurley explored the challenges and opportunities of the surge in telework, as well as the overall growth of telework and teleworkable jobs in the EU and what this means for workers, managers, companies and policymakers.


WATCH THE WEBINAR HERE

About Social Europe

Our Mission

Article Submission

Membership

Advertisements

Legal Disclosure

Privacy Policy

Copyright

Social Europe ISSN 2628-7641

Social Europe Archives

Search Social Europe

Themes Archive

Politics Archive

Economy Archive

Society Archive

Ecology Archive

Follow us

RSS Feed

Follow us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on LinkedIn

Follow us on YouTube