Bridging the Gap between Malaysian Employment Law and ILO Standards on Gig Workers' Rights

In labour law as in other legal domains, changes and progress are a continuing development, and law reflects cultural and social changes as well as scientific and technological developments. Both the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the European Union (EU) have defined rules of fair conditions of work, social justice and equality, the ILO being the pioneer and standard-setter in this field: ILO standards have a global scope, while the EU legislates within the realm of EU Member States. This chapter summarizes a few important developments and achievements of EU legislation and their connection with ILO standards. Both the ILO and the EU subscribe to the ILO-initiated Decent Work Agenda (2000-2005) in which gender equality occupies pride of place. The ILO, the locomotive, and the EU, the trailer, have the same road map to advance equality.Keywords: European Union (EU) legislation; gender equality; international labour organization (ILO) standards

Conditions of work in manufacturing industry in Nigeria have generated concerns and the need for improvement. This study examined the level of compliance with International Labour Organization (ILO) standards among private manufacturing industries in Nigeria. Also, it determined the factors that are responsible for exploitation of workers in manufacturing industry in Nigeria. Primary and secondary data were sourced for this study. Primary data were obtained through conducting in-depth interviews with workers and entrepreneurs/managers in purposively selected firms in major cities across Nigeria. Secondary data were sourced from textbooks, academic journals, official publications of the ILO and the Internet. Data obtained were analysed using descriptive and triangulation methods of data analysis. The study findings revealed low level of compliance with ILO standards among manufacturing firms in Nigeria. This was due to the fact that the motive and processes of production of private industrial corporations in Nigeria were founded on the ideology and philosophy of the bourgeois mode of production. In addition, the dualist legal system of Nigeria, which emphasises municipal legislation of international treaties, has undermined the domestication and enforcement of the ILO’s Conventions. The ILO’s lack of legislative power to make its decisions automatically operative within State members is an inhibition to the authority behind its adopted conventions. The study concluded that expeditious domestication and enforcement of ILO Conventions ratified by Nigeria should be promoted, so as to facilitate effective execution of ILO’s Decent Work Agenda in Nigeria. This will compel the improvement of conditions of work in both the public and private sectors.

Developing countries constitute more than two-thirds of the members of the International Labour Organization (ILO). The main task of the ILO is to set international labour standards. With regard to developing countries, it is important for compliance with international labour standards to be integrated into free trade systems in order to form the basis for fair competition (Valticos 1982) However, ILO standards do not always correspond to the circumstances of developing countries. One of the reasons for this is attributed to the ILO’s history. It was founded in 1919 as part of the Versailles Treaty by the 43 participating countries, most of which were developed countries. By 1987, the ILO had adopted 162 Conventions and 172 Recommendations. Most developing countries joined the ILO after gaining independence. Thus, developing countries did not participate fully from the beginning in the standard-setting activities of the ILO. Occasionally, the representatives of developing countries insisted that they could not participate in the standard-setting process because of their financial problems, their particular circumstances regarding human resources and labour administration, and the logistics of dealing with ILO matters (ILO 1977).

The gig economy is mainly comprised of platform and gig workers and has been characterised by short-term, freelance and flexible nature of employment. It has transformed the traditional standard of employment by offering new opportunities along with challenges in the existing labour market. The gig economy has seen an exponential growth in India mainly due to advancements in technology, a rise in preference for non-traditional work arrangement, the digitalisation of the economy, need for a second and quick source of income due to economic pressure. Gig economy in India encloses a broad range of industries from ride-hailing services and food delivery agents to freelance IT and creative work. The key challenges for the regulation of gig economy in India includes ambiguity in legal status, the lack of collective bargaining power and the absences of a comprehensive social security for platform/ gig workers. The regulation of gig and platform workers is a global issue where the International Labour Organisation (ILO) has recognised the need to protect the gig workers. The ILO’s 2025 agenda focuses on advancing social justice and promoting decent work in the evolving labour market. It aims to address critical areas such as the future of work, social protection, equality and the regulation of emerging work forms like the gig economy. India has taken certain measures to regulate the gig economy by focusing on providing legal recognition and social security to platform and gig workers, the social security code, 2020 and other initiatives at the central level and State level initiatives includes certain steps taken by the State government such as the state of Rajasthan and Kerala. This paper aims to study the pros and cons of the gig economy, whether it is a panacea or pandora’s box for developing nations along with that the paper aims to address the following three questions: 1. Why the Gig Economy is on the rise? 2. Why is there a need to regulate it? 3. What are the recent measures taken to regulate it?

TOWARDS UNIVERSAL RATIFICATION OF C87 AND 98 23 26/3 | International Union Rights | Nick Henry has been a Policy Analyst at the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions for two years. Previously he worked as a lecturer in International Relations in New Zealand and Australia and holds a PhD from Victoria University of Wellington. His book on the regional governance of migration, Asylum, Work and Precarity: Bordering the AsiaPacific was published by Palgrave in 2017 Despite a proud record of support for the International Labour Organisation (ILO), New Zealand is yet to sign one of the most important of the core labour rights conventions, Convention 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise (C87). Unions in New Zealand are calling on our government to put this right. The New Zealand Government, along with our unions and business associations, are rightly proud of our hundred-year record of tripartite support for the ILO, since joining as founding members in 1919. The Constitution of the ILO recognises freedom of association as a ‘fundamental principle’ and as a requirement of social justice. Supported by the 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, the ILO Governing Body has designated two conventions related to freedom of association as fundamental, meaning that all ILO members are required to respect, uphold and promote their principles. These are Convention 98 on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining (1949), which New Zealand ratified in 2003, and C87 (1948), which New Zealand has yet to ratify. New Zealand’s delegates to the centenary International Labour Conference (ILC) in June 2019 voted to adopt the ILO Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work, which states: ‘All Members should work towards the ratification and implementation of the ILO fundamental Conventions and periodically consider, in consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations, the ratification of other ILO standards’. New Zealand also supported the Bali Declaration of the 2016 Asia-Pacific regional meeting of the ILO, which declared ratification and implementation of C87 to be ‘policy priorities for member States in the region, to be implemented in consultation with the social partners’. New Zealand’s failure to ratify C87 is out of step with our international commitments and our longstanding support for the ILO and fundamental labour rights. In a quirk of history, New Zealanders played a key role in drafting C87. Back in 1948, the New Zealand government delegate to the 31st session of the ILC was elected as chair of the convention drafting committee, where he was joined by the delegates representing New Zealand unions and employers. The New Zealanders voted unanimously in favour of the convention they had helped to draft. The government delegates considered whether aspects of New Zealand law at the time were out of step with the requirements of C87, but reported back to Wellington their view that: ‘[T]he Convention was not intended to be a “code of regulations” for the right to organize, but rather a concise statement of certain fundamental principles, and that States would remain free to provide such formalities in their legislation as appeared appropriate to ensure the normal functioning of industrial organizations […] provided that such legislation did not impair the guarantees granted by the Convention’. This was good advice, which remains relevant today. The goal of ILO Conventions is clearly to influence national laws, by promoting convergence with international labour standards. But ILO Conventions do not over-ride national law and it is up to sovereign governments to decide how they implement their obligations and at what pace they achieve convergence with international norms. But the New Zealand government of 1948 chose to ignore the advice of their own delegation and failed to progress ratification of C87. If the concern was that New Zealand’s Industrial Relations law at the time included regulations on formation of unions and elements of compulsory unionism, these approaches were in common with other countries that ratified the Convention, including Australia and the UK. Over time, the reasons given by New Zealand governments and officials for non-ratification of C87 have changed. In 2019, the New Zealand Government will report to the ILO that it is unable to ratify C87 due...

Globalized production and commodity chains, fueled by transnational corporations (TNCs) as the principal global economic actors, ‘dis-embed’ national economies and labour markets from the home-country social and labour regulations. The resulting ‘transnational regulatory void’ threatens the effectiveness of the global social contract defined by international labour standards adopted by the International Labour Organization (ILO). This chapter reviews the experience of the ILO in advancing social justice in situations where work and economic relationships are loosened from their national moorings. This task requires a re-embedding of social policy and labour regulation at national level in ways that can address the in-country impact of cross-border industrial relations. ILO standards play a critical role in guiding national action as well as transnational agreements, including between public and private actors, to respond to cross-border phenomena. Two types of such action are discussed: first, action based on ILO standards across sectoral supply chains, such as the ILO-IFC Better Work Program, the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety, and the Rana Plaza Arrangement for payments to victims and their families; second, the interaction of ILO standards with transnational industry-driven standard-setting. Such pluralistic and privatized transnational labour initiatives show promising potential, but questions remain about their capacity and impact: Can the gains realized by domestic labour law systems be sustained and grow to more comprehensively address in-country impacts of transnational economic activity? Are the remarkably effective public-private cooperation models in textiles and apparel replicable in other cross-border sectoral contexts? Further experience is needed to draw comprehensive conclusions about the impact of the emerging forms of ILO’s action on national legal and institutional capacity to govern pluralistic and privatized transnational regulatory initiatives.

Risk Shifts in the Gig Economy: The Normative Case for an Insurance Scheme against the Effects of Precarious Work*

Who are the workers for the International Labour Organization (ILO)? Who do the ILO standards apply to? These are old questions, but to this day they still spark divergences in the literature on the personal scope of international labour law. Based on bibliographic and documentary research, this text aims to examine what is the personal scope effectively adopted by the ILO and analyze whether its expansion is necessary, reflecting on why we should consider the rationality of ILO Convention No. 190 as a starting point for such enlargement. The research showed that, despite the exceptions, the ILO standards are predominantly focused on the standard employment relationship. However, in a scenario of vertical disintegration and workplace fissuring, this becomes problematic, as it leaves many workers outside its protective umbrella. To face this old but gold challenge, I advocate expanding their personal scope inspired by the logic underlying Convention No. 190: express adoption of a broad personal scope, regardless of the contractual form; regulation of situations; and concern with current working conditions. Replicating this rationality in future standards can help international labour law deal with the organizational transformations in the world of work.

The protection of employment rights for persons with disabilities is an important part of efforts to realize equality and human dignity. This study aims to examine the legal framework in Indonesia related to employment for persons with disabilities by assessing its conformity to the standards set by the International Labour Organization (ILO). Using normative legal research methods, this study focuses on the analysis of relevant national regulations as well as international conventions that have been ratified by Indonesia, especially those related to the rights of persons with disabilities in the workplace. This study reviews whether existing legal provisions in Indonesia have adopted the principles outlined in the ILO standards, as well as provides a critical review of legal measures in Indonesia. The results of the study show that there is a conformity in several aspects between the Indonesian legal framework and ILO standards, but there are still some things that need to be improved in legislation to improve legal protection for persons with disabilities in Indonesia.

Research for this article was supported by project PGC2018-095917-A-I00, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science.

In 2010, Nigeria enacted the Employees’ Compensation Act (ECA) to provide compensation for employment injuries. This work assesses the Act with a view to evaluate the extent of Nigeria’s compliance with the social security minimum standards of compensation for employment injuries set by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). It finds that whilst the ECA 2010 is in substantial conformity with ILO standards, there are core challenges of applicability, adaptability and administration. The work recommends that progressive realisation of the standards and process consideration is imperative for realistic attainment of the philosophy of a compensation scheme for employment injuries in Nigeria.

Gig Workers are individuals who take on short-term, flexible jobs often mediated through digital platforms. This type of work includes roles like Drivers for ride-share services like Uber or Lyft, or delivery workers for Zomato or Swiggy, and Gig workers are mainly employed by big corporations like Swiggy, Zomato, Uber, Ola, Rapido, fiverr, upwork inc., lyft, TaskRabbit, Airbnb, toptal, 99designs, amazon flex, crowdspring, doordash, Etsy, Instacart, perpleperhour and more. Gig workers face many difficulties and problem in their life. They earn below minimum wage . Gig workers are unaware about schemes that provided by government like Pradhan Mantri Shram Yogi Maan-Dhan (PM-SYM), Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY), Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana (PMJJBY) and etc . ?The gig economy accounts to 1.5% of the total working class or the labour class in the country? . A study says that 7.7 million working people were engaged in the gig economy and is expected to rise to 23.5 million by 2029-2030, generating up to 4% of the country's income. The government of India recently added a separate section in the Code on Social Security (2020) in name called 'gig economy' but the code has still not come into effect . This paper will focus on the existing labour laws and social security frameworks, code on social security 2020 is sufficient for Gig workers, does social security act 2008 support for gig workers and highlighting their inadequacies in protecting gig workers? rights. The Researcher, through this article, tried to identify the problems faced by gig workers in relation to labour welfare in the gig economy. Further the researcher provides appropriate suggestion by recommendation to improve livelihood of Gig workers.

This article examines labor standards, policies, and compliance mechanisms in Pakistan, focusing on the textile industry, a critical economic sector. Utilizing the International Labor Organization (ILO) framework, it assesses the alignment of Pakistan’s labor policies with international standards and investigates enforcement challenges through a qualitative case study of the 2012 Ali Enterprises factory fire in Karachi. The study addresses three questions: (1) What are labor standards under the ILO? (2) Does Pakistan’s labor policy align with ILO standards? (3) How can compliance be improved to protect workers’ rights? By integrating theoretical frameworks, empirical data, and visual aids, the article proposes strategies to enhance compliance and safeguard labor rights, emphasizing systemic reforms in Pakistan’s labor governance. Additionally, it explores theoretical implications for compliance theory, contributing to academic discourse on labor regulation.

20 | International Union Rights | 27/3 FOCUS | IMPACTS OF COVID-19 ON WORK AND THE CHALLENGE FOR UNION RIGHTS ‘Justbecauseyoudon’tseeyourboss, doesn’tmeanyoudon’thaveaboss’:Covid19 and Gig Worker Strikes across Latin America Latin America has been hit hard by Covid-19. On 22 September, the region had reported more than 8.8 million cases, and 325,000 deaths (Horton, 2020). As daily case numbers began to fall in Europe from May onwards, they continued to surge in Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Mexico and across the region. So far, Brazil has recorded the third highest number of cases in the world, 4.5 million as at September, and more than 140,000 people have lost their lives. Looking beyond the headline numbers, it is clear that the region’s high levels of inequality have shaped the course and the outcomes of its pandemic experience. Latin America includes some of the most unequal countries in the world, and these existing inequalities inevitably put the greatest pressure on those on the margins of the labour market. ‘Gig’ (or ‘platform’) workers, who perform piece-rate on-demand tasks through apps, have been particularly hard hit. Many gig workers lost their incomes overnight as a result of lockdowns, while others risk heightened exposure to the virus in order to keep earning. While the images of mass grave sites dominated news emanating from Latin America in May, weeks later another story of global significance was emerging - large, coordinated strikes by gig economy workers across the region. As early as April, workers had begun striking against dangerous working conditions and low pay during the pandemic. Protests intensified in July, with large-scale strikes on July 1 spanning ten Brazilian cities, alongside other countries, including Argentina, Ecuador, Chile and Mexico. Further international strikes occurred in August. The strikers were food delivery couriers, working for Uber Eats, Rappi, iFood, Glovo and other platforms. These strikes are particularly historic, in that they represent the first real example of an international, sector-wide, strike movement in the gig economy. They have been catalysed by the conditions of the pandemic for a number of reasons. Covid-19 has further eroded gig workers’ already tenuous financial and physical security, whilst also demonstrating the essential nature of the work they perform. These conditions highlight the core issue of the misclassification of platform workers as independent contractors without access to employment rights or benefits. As the struggle faced by gig workers in Latin America has only intensified, the pandemic has provided the impetus and platform for thousands to raise their voices against underlying structural injustices. In this article, we trace the courier strikes across Latin America, with evidence from Brazil, Chile and Ecuador from April to August. These case studies have been compiled by researchers in the Fairwork network, a multi-national collaborative research project that tracks labour conditions in the gig economy, and encourages labour platforms to meet defined standards of fair work in the absence of regulation (Graham et. al., 2020). Covid-19 and Worker Strikes Across Latin America Histories of profound social inequality mean precarious working conditions are already normalised in many Latin American countries, however so are legacies of labour resistance. In Brazil, many have worked in insecure jobs, as couriers, cleaners and drivers, for a long time before the advent of digital labour platforms. Nevertheless recent years have witnessed the further erosion of public provision of social security, education, health, and labour rights, paving the way for the gig economy model of algorithmically-managed insecure work to become widespread. As President Jair Bolsonaro pronounced early in his term; ‘workers will have to choose between more rights or more jobs’ (in Araujo & Murakawa, 2020). Covid-19 has further heightened the precarity faced by gig workers (Fairwork, 2020). In the gig economy, workers disproportionately bear both the risks, and the costs associated with the labour process (Fredman et. al., 2020). For delivery drivers, the risk of contracting the virus is now added to the everpresent risk of road accidents. Additionally, restaurant closures have increased the risk of non-payment, and deactivation. At the centre of this issue is the practice of classifying workers as independent contractors. Because gig workers are not classified as...

20 | International Union Rights | 27/3 FOCUS | IMPACTS OF COVID-19 ON WORK AND THE CHALLENGE FOR UNION RIGHTS ‘Justbecauseyoudon’tseeyourboss, doesn’tmeanyoudon’thaveaboss’:Covid19 and Gig Worker Strikes across Latin America Latin America has been hit hard by Covid-19. On 22 September, the region had reported more than 8.8 million cases, and 325,000 deaths (Horton, 2020). As daily case numbers began to fall in Europe from May onwards, they continued to surge in Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Mexico and across the region. So far, Brazil has recorded the third highest number of cases in the world, 4.5 million as at September, and more than 140,000 people have lost their lives. Looking beyond the headline numbers, it is clear that the region’s high levels of inequality have shaped the course and the outcomes of its pandemic experience. Latin America includes some of the most unequal countries in the world, and these existing inequalities inevitably put the greatest pressure on those on the margins of the labour market. ‘Gig’ (or ‘platform’) workers, who perform piece-rate on-demand tasks through apps, have been particularly hard hit. Many gig workers lost their incomes overnight as a result of lockdowns, while others risk heightened exposure to the virus in order to keep earning. While the images of mass grave sites dominated news emanating from Latin America in May, weeks later another story of global significance was emerging - large, coordinated strikes by gig economy workers across the region. As early as April, workers had begun striking against dangerous working conditions and low pay during the pandemic. Protests intensified in July, with large-scale strikes on July 1 spanning ten Brazilian cities, alongside other countries, including Argentina, Ecuador, Chile and Mexico. Further international strikes occurred in August. The strikers were food delivery couriers, working for Uber Eats, Rappi, iFood, Glovo and other platforms. These strikes are particularly historic, in that they represent the first real example of an international, sector-wide, strike movement in the gig economy. They have been catalysed by the conditions of the pandemic for a number of reasons. Covid-19 has further eroded gig workers’ already tenuous financial and physical security, whilst also demonstrating the essential nature of the work they perform. These conditions highlight the core issue of the misclassification of platform workers as independent contractors without access to employment rights or benefits. As the struggle faced by gig workers in Latin America has only intensified, the pandemic has provided the impetus and platform for thousands to raise their voices against underlying structural injustices. In this article, we trace the courier strikes across Latin America, with evidence from Brazil, Chile and Ecuador from April to August. These case studies have been compiled by researchers in the Fairwork network, a multi-national collaborative research project that tracks labour conditions in the gig economy, and encourages labour platforms to meet defined standards of fair work in the absence of regulation (Graham et. al., 2020). Covid-19 and Worker Strikes Across Latin America Histories of profound social inequality mean precarious working conditions are already normalised in many Latin American countries, however so are legacies of labour resistance. In Brazil, many have worked in insecure jobs, as couriers, cleaners and drivers, for a long time before the advent of digital labour platforms. Nevertheless recent years have witnessed the further erosion of public provision of social security, education, health, and labour rights, paving the way for the gig economy model of algorithmically-managed insecure work to become widespread. As President Jair Bolsonaro pronounced early in his term; ‘workers will have to choose between more rights or more jobs’ (in Araujo & Murakawa, 2020). Covid-19 has further heightened the precarity faced by gig workers (Fairwork, 2020). In the gig economy, workers disproportionately bear both the risks, and the costs associated with the labour process (Fredman et. al., 2020). For delivery drivers, the risk of contracting the virus is now added to the everpresent risk of road accidents. Additionally, restaurant closures have increased the risk of non-payment, and deactivation. At the centre of this issue is the practice of classifying workers as independent contractors. Because gig workers are not classified as...