52020AE1859

EUR-Lex

Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

EUROPA
EUR-Lex home
EUR-Lex - 52020AE1859 - EN

Help

Search tips

Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 52020AE1859

Help

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Fair work in the platform economy’ (Exploratory opinion at the request of the German Presidency)

EESC 2020/01859

OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 173–186 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

HTML

PDF

Official Journal

11.12.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/173

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Fair work in the platform economy’

(Exploratory opinion at the request of the German Presidency)

(2020/C 429/23)

Rapporteur:

Carlos Manuel TRINDADE

Request by the German Presidency of the Council	Letter of 18.2.2020
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible	Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship
Adoption in section	9.7.2020
Adoption in plenary	18.9.2020
Plenary session No	554
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	182/23/8

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) states that the purpose of this opinion, requested by the German Presidency, is to provide a reference to the overall framework on this subject, adopting a holistic approach, with a view to ensuring decent work in the platform economy.

1.2

It recommends that questions concerning platform work be addressed and resolved bearing in mind, in particular, the Sustainable Development Goals, the Digital Agenda and the European Pillar of Social Rights.

1.3

The EESC notes that the platform economy still carries little weight, although it offers potential for growth.

1.4

It notes that platforms have ‘a generally positive impact on [the] economy’ (1), contributing as much to job creation and innovation, flexibility and autonomy for workers, as to ensuring income for workers (often supplementary) and allowing vulnerable people to access employment.

1.5

The EESC notes that there are risks that must not be underestimated: (i) for workers, the denial of basic rights, including the rights to organisation and collective bargaining; precariousness; low pay; the increasing intensity of work; the extreme fragmentation of work on a global scale; the non-affiliation of workers to social security schemes; and (ii) for society, the increased risk of competition based on undercutting social standards, which also has harmful consequences both for employers, who are subject to unsustainable competitive pressure, and for Member States, who forego tax revenue and social security contributions.

1.6

The Committee is aware of the argument over platform-related concepts, in particular regarding platforms as ‘employers’ rather than ‘supply and demand intermediaries’ and ‘employees’ and ‘self-employed workers’, since it has consequences for their rights.

1.7

The EESC urges the Commission and the Member States to work to clarify these concepts, given the consequences in terms of the applicability of labour legislation and a raft of labour protection rights.

1.8

It recommends that the EU and the Member States move towards uniformity of concepts in order to achieve decent work in the platform economy. To this end, the Commission and the Member States should adopt the following points as their yardstick: (i) economic dependency and a subordinate employment relationship, since workers whose livelihoods depend mainly on the pay they obtain from this work are employed, not self-employed; (ii) application of the principle according to which a worker is considered to be an employee in the absence of proof to the contrary must be properly studied in all its dimensions; (iii) the algorithms used by platforms should also be considered in the same way as spoken or written instructions in conventional work.

1.9

It recommends that, in view of Member States' sovereignty in social issues, guidelines be drawn up to help clarify employment status on platforms. The EESC considers that in the platform economy steps should be taken to ensure that all workers have access to a set of rights and to protection, regardless of their employment status or type of contract, guaranteeing that some operators cannot gain a competitive edge by not meeting obligations and responsibilities.

1.10

The EESC recommends clarifying the responsibilities of all parties involved in matters such as health and safety, data protection, insurance and legal liability, with a view to evaluating, adjusting and harmonising existing regulations.

1.11

The EESC emphasises that social dialogue and collective bargaining must play a key role at all relevant levels, fully respecting the autonomy of the social partners, in order to ensure high-quality work in the platform economy.

1.12

It suggests that codes of conduct be drawn up with the involvement of platforms, workers and consumers, bringing together the best principles and guidelines on pay, working conditions and quality of service.

1.13

The EESC calls on the Commission to take into account the recommendations made by the European Platform tackling Undeclared Work on taxation in the platform economy.

1.14

It would refer to its earlier recommendation that the European Commission, the OECD and the ILO work together with the social partners at all appropriate levels and wider civil society organisations, to develop appropriate provisions on decent working conditions and the protection required (2). In this context, the EESC hopes that this joint work might lead to an ILO Convention on platforms.

1.15

The EESC believes that steps should be taken to ensure that platforms provide information which would allow there to be transparency and predictability for all parties concerned. To this end, the platforms in each Member State should be registered and a database established in the EU to monitor the development of the platform economy.

1.16

The EESC supports the work the Commission has accomplished in its study of the platform economy. There is however a serious gap in consistent and systematic information in individual countries and the EU. The EESC urges the Commission and the Member States to join up their efforts to improve statistics-based information.

2. Background

2.1

The purpose of this opinion is to reply to the questions raised by the German Ministry for Labour on platform working, identifying the main challenges and opportunities and debating the status of platform workers, policy tools to improve workers' working conditions and best regulatory practice.

2.2

The current developments from which digital platforms spring involve recent innovations: internet, a crucial innovation; large-scale data bases (Big Data) enabling colossal masses of data to be processed; and mobile devices that allow consumers, workers and service providers access to mobile internet at all times and in all places (3).

2.3

Questions concerning platform working should be addressed and resolved in particular in the light of the Sustainable Development Goals, the Digital Agenda and the European Pillar of Social Rights.

2.4

The EESC would point to a number of earlier opinions (4) on the digital transformation of the economy and the rise of new forms of work.

2.5

The complexity of platforms, the lack of standardised terminology and the absence of statistical data make it difficult to estimate their scale and growth. According to the OECD (5), most studies show that platform work accounts for between 0,5 % and 3 % of the total labour force. In a group of 16 European countries, only 1,4 % of the population aged between 16 and 74 are platform workers as their main job (ranging from 0,6 % in Finland to 2,7 % in the Netherlands) (6). Some 11 % of adults have performed platform work at some time (7).

2.6

There is uncertainty about the future growth of platform work (8), since its growth depends on technological progress, new business models, data protection and consumer policy. Some authors have estimated that between 2013 and 2015, the value of platform transactions and revenue practically trebled (9). The EESC believes that there should be a register of platforms, mainly as regards economic, labour and social aspects, which will enable a better understanding of the situation.

2.7

The distinguishing feature of platform work is that it involves a relationship between the platform, the worker and the user. The intermediation largely uses technology and algorithms, is often non-transparent, and affects working conditions by its impact on the allocation and organisation of work, and the evaluation of workers. This ‘black box of intermediation’ is a distinguishing feature of platform work (10).

2.8

According to Eurofound (11), platform work is a form of employment that uses an online platform to enable organisations or individuals to access other organisations or individuals to solve problems or to provide services in exchange for payment. The main features of platform work are as follows:

—	paid work is organised through an online platform;

—	three parties are involved: the online platform, the client and the worker;

—	the aim is to carry out specific tasks or solve specific problems;

—	the work is outsourced or contracted out;

—	jobs are broken down into tasks;

—	services are provided on demand.

2.9

Worker status is one of the key aspects of platform working. Platforms generally present themselves as intermediaries between supply and demand and consequently not as employers, as there is no subordinate work relationship. In this situation, workers are considered to be ‘self-employed’ rather than ‘employed’, thus avoiding the application of legislation governing employment (including health and safety), social protection and taxation. The EESC, although it believes that genuinely self-employed workers do exist, considers that application of the principle that a platform worker is presumed to be an employee in the absence of proof to the contrary should be properly studied, in all its dimensions, by the EU and the Member States. This would ensure that the interests of those employees whose main income comes from platforms would be safeguarded. The EESC does, however, consider that genuinely self-employed workers should be allowed to continue to have that status, should they manifestly so wish.

2.10

The EESC notes the wide range and variety of platforms. The criteria for grouping various types of platform together are the type of task (higher or lower skill requirements), the space or physical location where the service is provided (on- or off-line) and who decides on the selection process (the platform, the worker or the client). Some consider further criteria, such as differences in the allocation of work and worker autonomy (12).

2.11

The ILO (13) considers that platforms raise specific regulatory problems, and mentions a number of areas of concern, including low pay (a high proportion of which is below the minimum wage), lack of social security cover (affecting 91 % of workers at the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform), rejection of work (nine out of ten workers have had work rejected), payment of a commission to work, counter to several ILO Conventions on the protection of wages, lack of unionisation and the absence of collective bargaining.

2.12

There are gender and age dimensions to platform work. Men generally dominate services relating to software development and provision of transport services; women dominate in tasks relating to translation and on-location services; young people are relatively over-represented on platforms, especially in cases where more than 50 % of their income comes from platforms or they work on them for more than 20 hours per week; in some circumstances, older people are beginning to take part in platforms. The EESC believes that further research is needed in order to better understand the situation and define suitable public policies.

3. Challenges, opportunities and risks in platform economies

3.1

Platforms have ‘a generally positive impact on [the] economy’ (14), contributing as much to job creation and innovation, flexibility and autonomy for workers, as to ensuring income for workers (often supplementary), lowering entry barriers to the labour market and allowing vulnerable people to access employment (15). The Commission notes that the ‘collaborative economy generates new employment opportunities, generating revenues beyond traditional linear employment relationships, and it enables people to work according to flexible arrangements. This makes it possible for them to become economically active where more traditional forms of employment are not suitable or available to them’ (16). However, despite these new opportunities, the EESC feels that further studies on the macroeconomic impact of the platform economy are still needed.

3.2

However, there are risks for workers — except for those that are highly qualified — that must not be underestimated, such as the denial of basic rights, including rights to organisation and collective bargaining; precariousness; low pay aggravated by over-qualification; the increasing intensity of work; the extreme fragmentation of work on a global scale; and the non-affiliation of workers to social security schemes.

3.3

A study by EU-OSHA (17) indicates that platform work presents increased risks, both physical and social, particularly job insecurity and exposure to various risks (traffic accidents, chemical hazards, etc.) and to risks specific to online activity (cyber-bullying, postural disorders, visual fatigue and stress caused by a variety of factors). The EESC recommends clarifying the responsibilities of all parties involved in matters such as health and safety, data protection, insurance and legal liability, with a view to evaluating, adjusting and harmonising existing regulations.

3.4

Society too is at risk. As the EESC has previously indicated, the Commission points to the increased ‘risk of competition based on undercutting social standards, which also has harmful consequences both for employers, who are subject to unsustainable competitive pressure, and for Member States, who forego tax revenue and social security contributions’ (18).

3.5

Consumers are also at risk as regards the quality of the services provided to them because, in the event of accidents or problems with service, they find it difficult to find out who is responsible. The EESC believes that better legal protection for workers represents an increase in quality for consumers.

3.6

The EESC sees the recent debate on the challenges for platform workers as important and innovative (19), in particular through its development of a model for analysis covering three main dimensions: work, employment and social relations. The main challenges for platforms are:

3.6.1

In the ‘work’ dimension: direction, surveillance, appraisal (via algorithm), autonomy in allocation of work and physical environment, especially for platforms involving ‘low-skilled, on-location or client-determined work’.

3.6.2

In the ‘employment’ dimension: status — possibly the greatest challenge — the determination of the employer and the contract, in particular for platforms with low-skilled work and little autonomy. Other challenges, although common to all non-standard types of work, are social protection, health and safety at work conditions, income and working hours.

3.6.3

In the ‘social relations’ dimension: representation, although this is common to other types of non-standard work. Flexibility and fragmentation make it very difficult to identify, organise and represent those working in non-standard ways. What is more, platform work is by nature solitary, geographically scattered, largely anonymous and has a high turnover of workers, who compete with each other and are active on other platforms. As a rule, platforms do not assume the function of employers and do not belong to employers' associations, leaving their workers, the trade unions and political office-holders without a negotiating partner.

3.6.4

Adverse social behaviour and discriminatory treatment are also serious challenges on low-skill work platforms, as workers are generally young and from disadvantaged minorities. The use of algorithms and situations where clients influence the allocation and performance of work reinforce adverse behaviour and discrimination.

3.6.5

The increasingly important issue of data protection, in relation to the ownership and use of data, is a major and specific challenge for platform workers and consumers.

4. Worker status in the platform economy

4.1

In order to facilitate the proper and smooth operation of the platform economy system, the EESC considers that efforts must be made at EU and Member State level to clarify and move towards regulating the status of platform workers and to ensure that platforms provide information that ensures transparency, predictability and fair treatment for all stakeholders.

4.2

Bearing in mind the sovereignty of the Member States in social matters, but also the need to uphold the principle of harmonisation in progress, the EESC recommends that guidelines be drawn up defining employment status on platforms in order to provide workers with access to rights and protection.

4.3

A European survey (20) reveals that when workers are asked about their employment relationship, 68,1 % reply that they are employees and 7,6 % that they are self-employed. The majority of those questioned therefore see themselves as employees, regardless of how these platforms classify them.

4.4

The Commission addresses the issue of status (21), considering that a distinction between the employed and self-employed can be made according to three criteria: the existence of a subordination link; the nature of work; and the presence of remuneration. These criteria are defined in order to apply the concept of worker in the EU, but the communication adds that the Member State courts, within their sphere of national competence, tend to apply the same set of criteria.

4.5

The EESC drew up an opinion, arguing that ‘with due regard for national competences, a legal framework should be established for workers that precisely specifies the relevant employment statuses: a decent wage and the right to take part in collective negotiations, protection against arbitrariness, the right to log out in order to keep digital working time within the bounds of decency, etc.’ (22).

4.6

Regarding the definition of the worker concept, European case law has focused on the existence of subordination, the economic and genuine character of the service and the existence of remuneration (23).

4.7

The EESC highlights the importance of two CJEU judgments. One makes an important exception in the application of European competition law (C-67/96, Albany), establishing that when the principle of competition comes into contradiction with social policy, collective agreements for employees fall outside the scope of competition law. In another judgment (C-413/13, FNV Kunsten Informatie), it upheld the compatibility of European competition law with collective agreements, ruling that the self-employed were ‘false self-employed’. This has particular relevance for platform work, allowing bogus self-employed platform workers to be treated as if they were workers (24).

4.8

Also in some Member States such as Italy and France, case law already exists which follows this CJEU guideline (25).

4.9

Many platform workers do not belong to social security schemes or have proper health and safety at work conditions, although these rights are considered to be fundamental and enshrined in national legislation, in the Treaties, in European legislation and in the ILO's international standards (26). The current pandemic crisis makes clear the importance of social security systems in democratic societies, since these systems have supported the income of a large part of the population and, in parallel, those not covered by such systems have seen their vulnerability increase in terms of social and health protection.

5. Policy tools to improve working conditions on digital platforms

5.1

The EESC takes note of the recent debate on the diversity of national instruments to face the challenges raised by such platforms (27). One group of tools is of a more administrative and ‘harder’ nature (legislation, tribunals and works inspectorates); the other is ‘softer’ (collective agreements (28), action by platforms and action by workers).

5.1.1

Legislation is described as being unusual and less geared to improving working conditions or social protection than to resolving competition issues, although social protection has been extended to self-employed workers in many countries; with regard to tribunals, there is uncertainty on how to resolve conflicts over status; and while countries have sought to strengthen the work of inspectorates, difficulties have arisen with many (on-line) platforms regarding notification. The EESC believes that legislation on platforms should focus on the most relevant problems of economic, labour and social regulation.

5.1.2

Collective bargaining is very restricted (competition legislation makes collective bargaining between ‘self-employed workers’ and platforms difficult), with collective bargaining existing in some countries (transport and distribution sectors); platform actions focus on managing criticism of their practices, joining employers' unions, self-regulation and signing up to codes of conduct, cessation of operations; workers' actions are diverse, including protests and strikes, and they have occurred not only in on-location skilled platforms, but also on other types of platforms, as occurred with a project started by IG Metall in 2016 which, together with Swedish and Austrian trade unions, gave rise to the Frankfurt Declaration (Fair Crowd Work, 2016).

5.1.3

The EESC considers it important, in the platform economy, to promote codes of conduct, drawn up in conjunction with platforms, workers and consumers.

5.2

The EESC notes that this wide range of means employed to enshrine and uphold decent working conditions on platforms has not yet succeeded in securing a proper solution. Most initiatives have taken place at national level: attention is drawn to changes, either in the adoption of specific legislation, or within the framework of labour legislation, in some cases by introducing the concept of an intermediate category between subordinate work (employed worker) and self-employment (self-employed worker) (29). The EESC considers this solution to be unsatisfactory.

5.3

The frequency of recourse to work inspectorates and tribunals varies from one Member State to another. Recourse to tribunals has produced uneven judgments, in some cases deciding that the work relationship is of a subordinate nature while in others that platform workers are self-employed.

5.4

The EU and the Member States must adopt the concept of economic dependence and subordination as their yardstick. Platform workers whose livelihoods depend mainly on the pay they obtain from this work and work in a relation of subordination are employed, not self-employed. Similarly, algorithms used by platforms should also be considered in the same way as spoken or written instructions in conventional work. The EESC has already issued an opinion supporting these concepts (30).

5.5

Work inspectorates should be reinforced to give special attention to platform workers so that they no longer lack protection and to stop platforms engaging in unfair competitive practices with regard to other businesses (31).

5.6

The EESC considers that workers must be covered by social security and proper health and safety at work conditions. The European institutions argue that all workers must have access to social security, regardless of the nature of their contracts. In several countries, specific schemes have been set up for self-employed workers reflecting the specific conditions under which they work.

5.7

The report of the Global Commission on the Future of Work (32) proposes establishing an international governance system for platforms (33). In this regard, the EESC has previously recommended that the European Commission, the OECD and the ILO work together with the social partners at all appropriate levels and wider civil society organisations to develop appropriate provisions on decent working conditions and the protection required (34).

5.8

With regard to taxation, the EESC considers that all actors in the digital economy should pay tax. Here, the EESC endorses the recommendations of the European Platform tackling Undeclared Work (35) for the EU to introduce a binding legal instrument to: oblige platforms to report all transactions to the tax authorities of the countries in which they operate; provide the relevant tax authorities with the information necessary to ensure compliance with tax legislation; inform employees about their tax benefits and obligations and protect workers from being falsely classified as self-employed.

6. Best practices for regulating platform work

6.1

In line with international studies (36), the EESC considers that the Commission and the Member States must ensure adequate policies on labour market regulation, social dialogue and collective bargaining, and skills.

6.1.1

In terms of labour market regulation, steps must be taken to ensure that all workers according to national systems and practices have access to a set of rights and to protection, regardless of their employment status or type of contract, guaranteeing that some operators cannot gain a competitive edge by not meeting obligations and responsibilities.

6.1.1.1

The grey area between self-employment and employment must be kept to a minimum, standardising and clarifying these definitions as much as possible and reducing uncertainty for workers and employers;

6.1.1.2

Bogus self-employment must be tackled by strengthening inspection capacity, reducing incentives for businesses to make ‘bogus’ work relationship classifications and imposing significant penalties for these improper classifications;

6.1.1.3

At international level, a joint work process should be launched by the Commission, the OECD and the ILO, possibly leading to an ILO convention on platforms.

6.1.2

The imbalance of power between platforms and workers must be addressed through social dialogue and collective bargaining. Unfair market practices must be tackled, with pay, information, rights, duties and responsibilities becoming more transparent.

6.1.2.1

Social dialogue must be stepped up at EU and Member State level, as must collective bargaining within the Member States, contributing — together with legislation, where appropriate — to better working conditions.

6.1.2.2

The role of workers' and employers' organisations is essential to put representation of interests into practice within the framework of the European social model.

6.1.3

Codes of conduct must be drawn up with the involvement of platforms, workers and consumers, bringing together the best principles and guidelines on pay, working conditions and quality of service.

6.1.4

The Member States must provide training and career opportunities for workers, since they generally belong to disadvantaged groups, whether migrant or otherwise, with problems as regards training.

Brussels, 18 September 2020.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

(1) OJ C 303, 19.8.2016, p. 54.

(2) OJ C 125, 21.4.2017, p. 10, point 3.9.

(3) C. Degryse, Digitalisation of the economy and its impact on labour markets, Working Paper 2016.02, p. 7.

(4) OJ C 303, 19.8.2016, p. 54; OJ C 283, 10.8.2018, p. 39; OJ C 81, 2.3.2018, p. 145; OJ C 125, 21.4.2017, p. 10; OJ C 237, 6.7.2018, p. 1; OJ C 75, 10.3.2017, p. 33.

(5) OECD, Employment Outlook 2019, p. 55.

(6) Z. Kilhoffer et. al., Study to gather evidence on the working conditions of platform workers, December 2019, p. 45.

(7) Idem, p. 47.

(8) Z. Kilhoffer, op.cit., p. 48.

(9) 2015 values of EUR 28,1 billion and EUR 3,6 billion, as quoted by Z. Kilhoffer, op.cit., p. 48.

(10) Z. Kilhoffer, op.cit., p. 15.

(11) Eurofound 2018, Employment and working conditions of selected types of platform work , p. 9.

(12) Ibid, p. 15.

(13) ILO, Policy responses to new forms of work. International governance of digital labour platforms, April 2019.

(14) See footnote 1.

(15) See footnote 1.

(16) Commission’s Communication on A European agenda for the collaborative economy, COM(2016) 356 final.

(17) EU-OSHA 2017, Protecting Workers in the Online Platform Economy. An overview of regulatory and policy developments in the EU.

(18) OJ C 283, 10.8.2018, p. 39, point 3.4.

(19) Z. Kilhoffer, op.cit., pp. 48-98.

(20) COLLEEM (COLLaborative Economy and Employment). See: European Commission, Platform Workers in Europe, 2018, p. 4.

(21) European Commission, A European agenda for the collaborative economy, 2016, pp. 11-13.

(22) OJ C 75, 10.3.2017, p. 33, point 4.4.2.

(23) Z. Kilhoffer, op.cit., p. 227.

(24) Z. Kilhoffer, op.cit., p. 85.

(25) Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice No 1663/2020 (Italy) and 17-20.079 of 28 November 2018 (France).

(26) Including Convention No. 102 of 1952, with its subsequent amendments.

(27) Z. Kilhoffer, op.cit., pp. 125-176.

(28) Although authors classify collective bargaining ‘soft’, it is a fact that in many Member States collective bargaining has the force of law and is a ‘hard’ instrument.

(29) Z. Kilhoffer, op.cit., p. 107.

(30) OJ C 75, 10.3.2017, p. 34, point 1.4, and OJ C 283, 10.8.2018, p. 39, point 5.1.2.

(31) Z. Kilhoffer, op.cit., p. 227.

(32) ILO, op.cit.

(33) ILO, Global Commission on the Future of Work, Work for a Brighter Future, Geneva, 2019.

(34) OJ C 125, 21.4.2017, p. 10, point 3.9.

(35) OJ C 458, 19.12.2014, p. 43.

(36) OECD, Employment Outlook 2019, pp. 32-36.

ANNEX I

DIGITAL PLATFORMS: PRACTICE

This small survey is intended to help identify good practice on digital platforms, the main source used being the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) publication: Isabelle Daugareilh et al., The platform economy and social law: Key issues in comparative perspective , ETUI, 2019 (1).

	COUNTRY	PRACTICE
1	Germany	An Ombuds Office was set up in 2017 to implement the Code of Conduct on crowdsourcing work by IG Metall, the German Crowdsourcing Association and eight digital platforms (2).
2	Austria	A collective agreement was endorsed (2019) covering a meal distribution company and employees (messengers), applying from January 2020. Employment status is not clear (3).
3	Belgium	There is a committee (Commission administrative de règlement de la relation de travail) which takes decisions on how to classify employment relationships (4).
4	Denmark	Collective agreement concluded in July 2018 between Hilfr (a cleaning DP) and a trade union. Workers start out as self-employed but have an employment contract after 100 hours worked (5).
5	Spain	Employees of the Deliveroo DP established (2017) a platform on the Ridersxderechos website to defend their interests. In 2017 the UGT launched the Turespuestasindical portal (6).
6	Spain	In 2018 the Inter-professional Agreement for Catalonia was signed for 2018-2020 between employers’ confederations (Fomento del Trabajo, PIMEC y Fepime) and trade unions (CC OO and UGT). The agreement contains a section on work on platforms (7).
7	France	Food distribution platform employees have set up trade unions (e.g. Bordeaux) (8).
8	Italy	A specific law on work on digital platforms in the Lazio region was adopted in 2019. The law defines digital workers and establishes applicable rights (9).
9	Italy	National collective agreement on the logistics sector in 2018: Introduces the category of ‘rider’ that it describes as subordinate employment. Idem as regards the collective agreement with Laconsegna (digital platform for meal delivery). These contracts are endorsed by the trade unions (10).
10	Italy	Charter of Fundamental Rights of Digital Workers (Bologna Charter) signed in 2018 between Bologna Municipal Council (?) and two platforms (Sgnam and MyMenu); it does not regulate the employment status of workers (11).
11	Portugal	The Employment Code lays down criteria for presumption of the existence of a contract of employment. The legislation on digital transport platforms (the so-called ‘Uber law’) explicitly refers to the Employment Code as regards the legal link established between drivers and the platform (12).
12	Switzerland	Collective agreement covering bike couriers, signed in February 2019 between a trade union and an employers’ association (13).
13	European social partners	European social partners’ Autonomous Framework Agreement on Digitalisation — June 2020 (14).
DP = digital platform

(1) ETUI, 2019, Working paper 2019.10, edited by Isabelle Daugareilh, Christophe Degryse and Philippe Porchet The platform economy and Social law: Key issues in comparative perspective, p. 57.

(2) ILO, Policy responses to new forms of work. International governance of digital labour platforms, April 2019, pp. 6 -7.

(3) Eurofound, see: Platform economy initiatives: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/data/platform-economy/initiatives

(4) ETUI, 2019, Working paper 2019.10, The platform economy and Social law: Key issues in comparative perspective, p. 46; see the Portal: https://commissionrelationstravail.belgium.be/fr/

(5) ETUI, 2019, Working paper 2019.10, The platform economy and Social law: Key issues in comparative perspective, pp. 42; see also: https://www.equaltimes.org/in-denmark-a-historic-collective?lang=en#.XsjN8DpKhPa

(6) ETUI, 2019, Working paper 2019.10, The platform economy and Social law: Key issues in comparative perspective, pp. 102 and 103; see: https://twitter.com/ridersxderechos e https://www.ugt.es/turespuestasindicales

(7) ETUI, 2019, Working paper 2019.10, The platform economy and Social law: Key issues in comparative perspective, pp. 104 -105.

(8) ETUI, 2019, Working paper 2019.10, The platform economy and Social law: Key issues in comparative perspective, p. 57.

(9) ETUI, 2019, Working paper 2019.10, The platform economy and Social law: Key issues in comparative perspective, p. 68. It does not seem to regulate worker status (employed/self-employed).

(10) ETUI, 2019, Working paper 2019.10, The platform economy and Social law: Key issues in comparative perspective, pp. 71 -72.

(11) ETUI, 2019, Working paper 2019.10, The platform economy and Social law: Key issues in comparative perspective, p. 72.

(12) Portugal: Law 45/2018, 10 August 2018.

(13) ETUI, 2019, Working paper 2019.10, The platform economy and Social law: Key issues in comparative perspective, pp. 111 -112.

(14) European social partners’ Autonomous Framework Agreement on Digitalisation.

ANNEX II

The following amendments, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected during the discussion:

Point 2.9

Amend as follows:

2.9

Worker status is one of the key aspects of platform working. Platforms generally present themselves as intermediaries between supply and demand and consequently not as employers, as there is no subordinate work relationship. In this situation, workers are considered to be ‘self-employed’ rather than ‘employed’, thus avoiding the application of legislation governing employment (including health and safety), social protection and taxation. The EESC, although it believes that genuinely self-employed workers do exist, considers that application of the principle that a platform worker is presumed to be an employee in the absence of proof to the contrary should be properly studied, in all its dimensions with respect to the fundamental differences distinguishing employees from the self-employed (nature of work, existence of a subordination link and remuneration), by the EU and the Member States. This would ensure that the interests of those employees whose main income comes from platforms would be safeguarded. The EESC does, however, consider that genuinely self-employed workers should be allowed to continue to have that status, should they manifestly so wish.

Reason

According to the European Commission, worker status is a controversial issue and one of the most relevant ones from a policy perspective when the main good traded through the platform is labour. The Commission addresses the issue of status, considering that a distinction between the employed and self-employed can be made according to three criteria: the existence of a subordination link; the nature of work; and the presence of remuneration. These criteria are defined in order to apply the concept of worker in the EU, but the Commission communication on A European agenda for the collaborative economy adds that the Member State courts, within their sphere of national competence, tend to apply the same set of criteria. With these criteria there is no need for additional regulation concerning worker status at European level. At national level various different initiatives have been taken, in some cases by introducing the concept of an intermediate category between subordinate work and self-employment.

With regard to worker status, it is also important to note that the recent autonomous framework agreement on digitalisation between the European Social Partners states that it covers all workers and employers in the public and private sectors, including activities using online platforms where an employment relationship exists, as defined nationally.

Outcome of the vote

In favour	65
Against	99
Abstentions	13

Point 5.4

Amend as follows:

5.4

When applying the general criteria for worker status (subordination, nature of work and remuneration), t The EU and the Member States should must adopt the concept of economic dependence and subordination as one of the key their yardsticks to ensure fair working conditions for p . Platform workers whose livelihoods depend mainly on the pay they obtain from this work and work in a relation of subordination are employed, not self-employed. Similarly, algorithms used by platforms can should also be considered binding in the same way as spoken or written instructions in conventional work. The EESC has already issued an opinion supporting these concepts.

Reason

Outcome of the vote

In favour	64
Against	98
Abstentions	14

Point 5.8

Amend as follows:

5.8

The EESC asks that national tax systems take account of the collaborative economy and digital platforms, upholding the principles of a fair tax system (i.e. consistency, predictability and neutrality) in this sector, while at the same time guaranteeing the public interest of all relevant parties’ discharging their tax obligations (1) . With regard to taxation, the EESC considers that all actors in the digital economy should pay tax. Here, the EESC endorses the recommendations of the European Platform tackling Undeclared Work (2) for the EU to introduce a binding legal instrument to: oblige platforms to report all transactions to the tax authorities of the countries in which they operate; provide the relevant tax authorities with the information necessary to ensure compliance with tax legislation; inform employees about their tax benefits and obligations and protect workers from being falsely classified as self-employed.

Reason

The EESC has recently adopted an opinion on taxation of the collaborative economy (ECO/500 opinion on ‘Taxation of the collaborative economy — reporting requirements’), and it would be more appropriate to refer to that agreed text.

Outcome of the vote

In favour	64
Against	97
Abstentions	14

Point 1.8

Amend as follows:

1.8

It recommends that the EU and the Member States move towards uniformity of concepts in order to achieve decent work in the platform economy. To this end, and to ensure fair working conditions especially for workers whose livelihoods depend mainly on the pay they obtain from this work, the Commission and the Member States should, when applying the general criteria for worker status (subordination, nature of work and remuneration), adopt the following points as their yardsticks: (i) economic dependency and a subordinate employment relationship, since workers whose livelihoods depend mainly on the pay they obtain from this work are employed, not self-employed; (ii) application of the principle according to which a worker is considered to be an employee in the absence of proof to the contrary should must be properly studied in all its dimensions with respect to the fundamental differences distinguishing employees from the self-employed (nature of work, existence of a subordination link and remuneration); (iii) the algorithms used by platforms can should also be considered binding in the same way as spoken or written instructions in conventional work.

Reason

Outcome of the vote

In favour	63
Against	99
Abstentions	15

Point 1.13

Amend as follows:

1.13

Reason

Outcome of the vote

In favour	62
Against	99
Abstentions	15

(1) See the ECO/500 opinion on ‘Taxation of the collaborative economy — reporting requirements’, adopted in July 2020 (OJ C 364, 28.10.2020, p. 62).

(2) OJ C 458, 19.12.2014, p. 43.

(3) See footnote 1.

Top

Choose the experimental features you want to try