Protecting platform workers in the European Union

Introduction The rise of the platform economy has created new forms of work, including platform work. However, platform workers are more vulnerable to occupational safety and health (OSH) risks compared to traditional workers. Platform algorithms, designed for efficiency, can endanger workers' health and safety. For example, delivery riders face increased traffic accident risks due to short delivery times imposed by algorithms. Additionally, platform workers often experience psychological stress due to unstable work environments, opaque evaluation systems, and unfair attribution of responsibility. Research Objectives This study aims to contribute to the social discourse on platform workers' health issues by thoroughly analysing them through qualitative and quantitative research methods and proposing solutions. The research comprises three main components: 1. In-depth Interviews with Platform Workers We conducted in-depth interviews with platform workers from seven different types of jobs: delivery, ride-hailing, caregiving, quick service, food delivery, housework, and cultural arts. By analyzing the characteristics and OSH issues of each type, we shed light on the diversity of the platform economy, the seriousness of the health problems it generates, and seek to identify homogenous occupational health challenges faced by workers across various sectors. 2. 10-Year Research on Platform Drivers and Participatory Research We present the results of a 10-year study on platform drivers and a participatory research project on how they protect their occupational health. This study analyzes the types of health problems, causes, and preventive measures for platform drivers, specifically identifying the health risk factors in the platform economy. Additionally, the participatory research conducted with platform drivers highlights their strategies and challenges in protecting their occupational health. 3. Algorithm Tax as a Policy Solution We analyze the negative impact of platform algorithms on platform workers' health and propose an algorithm tax as a policy solution. The algorithm tax would be a levy on platform companies' algorithm usage, generating the necessary resources to improve OSH for platform workers. This would enhance platform companies' social responsibility and establish a social safety net for platform workers' health protection. Conclusion and Policy Implications This study emphasizes that platform workers' health issues should not be regarded as individual problems but as social issues that require collective solutions. As the platform economy grows, platform workers' health problems are becoming more severe, potentially affecting the health and safety of society as a whole. Therefore, collaborative efforts from various stakeholders, including governments, businesses, workers, and academia, are crucial to addressing platform workers' health issues.

ABSTRACTFlexibility is an important ability of platform workers to adapt to the ever‐changing job requirements and the environment in which they work. It is beneficial for enhancing platform workers' work efficiency and promoting the development of platform enterprises. Grounded in sensemaking theory, a theoretical model based on the Chinese industrial relationship context was constructed to reveal the influence of the enterprise‐union coupling relationship (EUCR) on platform workers' flexibility. Data from 322 platform workers were analyzed to test the theoretical model. The results indicate the following: (1) Relative to the management practices of platform enterprises (i.e., human resource management practices), EUCR can generate incremental effects on platform workers' flexibility; (2) EUCR promotes career calling, which in turn, improves platform workers' flexibility; and (3) Customer gratitude expression strengthens the relationship between EUCR and career calling, leading to a higher level of flexibility. This study identified new factors affecting platform workers' flexibility from the perspective of interactions between platform enterprises and trade unions. It offers practical guidance for platform enterprises and trade unions in China to provide spiritual support and value transmission to platform workers to boost their flexibility.

The recent literature on platform work and the welfare state has stressed that, despite being affected by high‐income insecurity, platform workers cannot easily access social protection. However, it is unclear why platform workers encounter such barriers. This article offers an inductive and empirically based theoretical framework to investigate the obstacles faced by platform workers. It shows that the barriers experienced by platform workers depend on the eligibility criteria, the assessment criteria and the trade‐off between taxation and social protection. The article substantiates these claims by offering both a policy analysis of formal arrangements and a qualitative analysis of the lived experiences of welfare of 101 platform workers in Italy, Sweden and the UK during COVID‐19. The research found that, while many platform workers attempted to access social protection during COVID‐19, platform workers' access to social protection was affected by their positionality as outsiders, which clashes with the eligibility criteria (in Sweden and Italy); by the irregular nature of platform work, which contrasts with the rigidity of the assessment criteria (in the UK, Italy and Sweden); and by the implicit trade‐off experienced by platform workers between minimising taxation and accessing to social protection (in the UK and Italy).

The aim of this paper is to examine if and how the reclassification of platform workers from self-employment status to employment status can provide them with adequate social security protection. Little is known about how this transition would guarantee platform workers adequate social protection within the social protection scheme for employees. National social security schemes, in particular income replacement benefit schemes, often (still) depart from the standard employment relationship, leading to lower protection for atypical work forms. Platform workers combine several of the characteristics of atypical forms of work, such as low earnings, irregular working patterns and working. Integrating platform workers into employee social security schemes faces additional challenges due to the online nature of their work, algorithmic management, high levels of unpaid labor, and employer identification difficulties. This paper focuses on unemployment protection, as EU Member States struggle to provide adequate protection for workers with irregular work patterns and income fluctuations, in the case of (short term) income replacement benefits. By constructing nine ideal work patterns reflective of diverse nature of platform work and current practices among platform work, we analyse how different types of ‘employed’ platform workers may fare within the legislation of three EU countries (Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands). This approach allows us to assess the applicability of unemployment protection to different working patterns among 'employed' platform workers, considering formal, effective, and adequate access to unemployment schemes as outlined in the Council Recommendation on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed (2019).

During and after the months of pandemic control measures, newly formed unions of platform and gig workers in India started leveraging electoral contests, campaigns and politics to advocate for and with laws that would regulate platform work and provide workers with social security. This signalled the adoption of direct political interventionism as a bargaining strategy for gig and platform workers’ rights. This strategy was built upon the strengths and abilities of workers to coordinate tactically and organise independently, without conforming entirely to existing political formations and ideologies – reminiscent of the historical ‘third-wave’ movements for informal workers’ legal empowerment in India. Drawing on examples of practices of ‘political and civil society’ amongst gig and platform labour organising in India, this paper demonstrates the unique ways in which new unions of gig and platform workers are both following and deviating from earlier trajectories of third-wave labour movements, as well as from gig and platform workers’ movements in the global context. We show in the paper how this is allowing unions to make greater claims for gig workers’ social protection and expand the remit of welfare politics in India. We then deliberate whether this signifies a potential movement towards a new ‘fourth wave’ of labour’s legal empowerment for workers in India under digital capitalism.

PurposeAgainst the background of the digital economy, odd-job platforms rely on artificial intelligence algorithms to efficiently allocate tasks and monitor platform workers’ performance, putting these workers under enormous pressure. This paper explores the relationship between work overload and turnover intention of platform workers on odd-job platforms and the factors that lead to platform workers’ turnover.Design/methodology/approachBased on the job demands–resources model (JD-R), we construct a theoretical model to explain the relationship between work overload and turnover intention of platform workers. We test job burnout as a mediator variable and perceived algorithmic fairness and job autonomy as moderating variables. We conducted a study at food delivery platforms and ride-hailing platforms in China.FindingsThe empirical results show that: (1) work overload increases the turnover intention of platform workers by increasing job burnout and (2) perceived algorithmic fairness and job autonomy moderate the positive relationship between work overload and job burnout.Originality/valueWe provide a theoretical basis to explain the influence of work overload on turnover intention of odd-job platform workers and provide practical recommendations for management of platform workers.

Digital platforms have transformed traditional business models, fostering communication, innovation, and flexibility across industries. The growth of digital labour platforms expands job options through greater internet access and remote work. The active participation of platform workers has further driven this expansion due to the flexibility and variety of job opportunities available. However, platform workers are facing various labour issues, including inconsistent payment, unfair account suspensions, and inadequate compensation while working on the digital labour platform. The current regulatory framework prohibits platform workers from forming and joining trade unions, hindering platform workers’s rights to unionise and directly affecting their chance to improve their employment contract. This study examines the issues faced by platform workers and recommends improvements that can be made to the current regulatory framework to improve the association rights of platform workers in Malaysia. A qualitative research method in the form of a semi-structured interview with platform workers and the committee member of the E-Hailing Coalition Malaysia is conducted. Content analysis is used to examine parliamentary statutes, academic articles and interview feedback to identify key themes and patterns in the study. The findings reveal gaps in current legal protections and suggest recommendations for reclassifying platform workers as employees to ensure they can engage in collective bargaining and protect their labour rights. This study contributes to the growing discourse on digital labour platforms by advocating for policy reforms that foster a more equitable, sustainable, and just working environment for platform workers in Malaysia.

The social protection of platform workers is considered one of the most precarious features and political challenges of this new form of employment. Still, there have only been a few empirical investigations on this issue to date. This article presents an explorative empirical analysis of the social protection of platform workers in Germany – a conservative welfare regime with a strong link between standard employment and institutionalised social protection. On the basis of an online survey amongst 719 self-employed platform workers, we examine how different employment patterns correspond to institutionalised protection against sickness and old age. We empirically explore different protection types and analyse how they differ regarding working conditions in platform work and individual social policy preferences. Findings reveal that conditions of platform work and social protection as well as demands and regulatory preferences vary notably across different clusters of platform workers. Still, the vast majority votes against obligatory social insurances for platform workers and favours self-employment over dependent employment. Against this background, we discuss challenges for future attempts aiming at improving social protection for platform workers. This study adds to the literature by empirically exploring platform workers’ social protection and social policy preferences, which have been overlooked to date.

Platform work has emerged and spread due to fundamental changes in the economy and labor environment and the avoidance of direct employment. Platform work refers to “paid labor provided through a digital platform that brokers work to an unspecified number of people and coordinates the labor provision process through algorithms,” and its types include local-based and web-based. The right to work, a fundamental right under the Constitution, is embodied in individual labor relations laws, including the Labor Standards Act, and the recognition of worker status under the Labor Standards Act is the gateway to exercising the right to work in practice. However, platform workers were not envisioned when the Constitution stipulated the right to work and the Labor Standards Act was enacted, and it is not easy for them to be recognized as employees under the Labor Standards Act based on the current Labor Standards Act and case law. Platform workers are essentially the same as traditional employees in that they earn their livelihood through paid labor, and therefore need constitutional protection. However, there are a number of other aspects that distinguish platform workers from traditional employees that need to be considered. The spectrum of platform workers is very diverse, and it may be appropriate to vary the approach according to the degree of dependency. Platform workers with strong dependency, which is a marker of traditional workers, should be recognized as employees under the Labor Standards Act, while platform workers with weaker dependency should be categorized as a third type. However, it is not appropriate to include them in the category of ‘persons in special types of employment’, which require full-time and permanent status and are gradually being replaced by the concept of labor providers. Regardless of their legal status, platform workers should be guaranteed minimum universal rights as workers.

PurposeDrawing upon the needs–supplies fit theory, this study aims to examine how the expected and perceived algorithmic autonomy support (AAS) influences platform workers’ work stress and incivility, with a focus on the moderating role of self-direction.Design/methodology/approachUsing data collected from 422 platform workers in China through multiple waves, the model is tested through polynomial regression and response surface analysis.FindingsThe results indicate that a mismatch between expected and perceived AAS is associated with higher levels of incivility among platform workers, and this relationship is mediated by work stress. These findings are particularly salient when self-direction is emphasized.Practical implicationsThis study suggests that a universally high level of AAS may not necessarily reduce workers’ stress and incivility. Instead, it is important for platforms to ensure that their workers’ expectations of autonomy support are met and for workers to be given the space to exercise self-direction.Originality/valuePrevious studies have highlighted the need to pay attention to workers in mobile and ambiguous environments, and this study adds to this literature by focusing specifically on platform organizations and workplaces. This study provides valuable insights into the relationship between AAS, work stress and platform workers’ incivility.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has facilitated the growth of digital platforms. Platform labors causes vulnerability without offering control while transferring responsibility to workers. However, few studies have assessed the health status of platform workers. The present study analyzed several aspects of the working conditions and health status of platform workers in Korea. Methods A total of 1,000 platform workers participated in this survey from August 7 to August 17, 2022. The participants included 400 proxy drivers, 400 food delivery drivers, and 200 housekeeping managers. Data on the work environment such as occupational hazard exposure, including workplace violence and physical, chemical, and ergonomic hazards, were obtained. In addition, we surveyed health statuses experienced in the previous year. We compared data on the responders’ health symptom data with those of the general population in Korea. Results Platform workers were in the blind spot of social insurance and are frequently exposed to physical and chemical hazards, ergonomic risk factors, and direct or indirect violence. The prevalence of health problems, including musculoskeletal symptoms, general fatigue, and depression, in each occupational group was statistically higher than that in the general population after standardization for age and gender. Discussion This study focused on proxy drivers, food delivery drivers, and housekeeping managers among platform workers. Platform workers are often vulnerable to musculoskeletal disorders; accidents; and psychological distress. This indicates the need for more attention to improving poor working conditions. Conclusion The results revealed platform workers’ unfavorable working environment and poorer occupational health compared with the general population.

This article examines platform workers’ subjective constructions of fairness on differently controlled online labour platforms (OLPs). Research on platform work has recognized the versatility of OLP control operations, and the heterogeneity of platform workers. Despite this, studies on platform work fairness often overlook how diverse OLP operations and social dynamics shape workers’ fairness perceptions and the norms through which they evaluate the fairness of OLP operations. This has led to extensive knowledge about issues related to platform work but mixed findings and insufficient understanding of how platform workers’ subjective fairness perceptions are constructed. This qualitative study applies fairness theory and fairness references to examine platform workers’ subjective fairness constructions in differently controlled OLPs. The findings suggest that in market logic-orientated OLPs, workers systematically construct fairness by referring to entrepreneurship norms. In more corporation-logic-orientated and extensively controlled OLPs, workers’ fairness references were internally diverse. While emphasizing employment references, they also used entrepreneurship, self-determination, and platform work references. These diverse perceptions may arise from different forms of OLP control or the heterogeneity of workers’ backgrounds and needs. While some platform workers have undertaken the capitalist pursuit of individual entrepreneurship, others expect OLPs to take wider-ranging responsibilities for workers. Previous platform work research could be enriched through broader theoretical foundations and better understanding of workers’ fairness constructions across the wide field of OLPs.

ObjectiveThis article examines whether performing location‐based platform work is associated with greater work–family conflict—and if this association is stronger for those relying on labor platforms for their primary employment.BackgroundDigital labor platforms project a vision of flexibility and improved work‐family balance for workers; however, empirical evidence supporting these promises remains elusive. While platform workers are normally offered the freedom to choose their work hours, the efforts of labor platforms to algorithmically manage workers' schedules may encourage an ‘always‐on’ approach to work that pressures workers to prioritize work availability that exacerbates work–family conflicts.MethodWe conducted three national surveys of Canadian workers in 2020, 2021, and 2022. Based on pooled survey data (N = 10,483), structural equational modeling was used to investigate (1) the relationship between location‐based platform work and work–family conflict and (2) the mediating role of work‐family role blurring—captured by work contact outside of normal working hours.ResultsWe discovered that platform workers, compared to employees and the traditional self‐employed, reported greater work–family conflict—conflicts that were especially pronounced for those relying on labor platforms as their primary source of income. These patterns were partially explained by platform workers' increased exposure to work contact outside of work hours.ConclusionOur findings question the assertion that digital labor platforms provide enhanced flexibility for managing work and family demands. Instead, we contend that the instability inherent in platform work blurs and disrupts work‐family role boundaries, disproportionately favoring labor platforms and their clientele at the expense of workers' familial responsibilities.

The question of the legal status of platform workers has occupied the attention of the professional public for quite a time, but still remains without an unified answer. Thus, in judicial practice there are situations where different courts make different decisions under the same or similar factual circumstances. On the other hand, there are different views in the labour law theory regarding the aformentioned question. They start from equating platform workers with the employees. This approach is undoubtedly the most favorable for platform workers because it implies that they enjoy all the employment relationship rights. Opposite to this position is the idea of introducing a certain scope of rights that would be enjoyed by platform workers. In this connection, the question arises as to what rights would that entail and to what is their scope? The answer contains several alternatives. The first is based on establishing a special legal category for platform workers, for whom the enjoyment of a limited set of rights from the employment relationship is foreseen. Second alternative comes from the ILO. In this organization's study on digital platforms, the ILO lists three groups of rights that can and have to be applied to platform workers, citing specific sources of ILO in this regard. Although certain instruments that ensure the protection of the social and economic position of platform workers are aimed at particular occupations, the study concludes that it is about the rights that are necessary to protect the specific position of platform workers. But still the main question remains unanswerd - how to ensure the application of all those instruments and the rights contained in them to platform workers?

PurposeResearch indicates that negative online reviews can detrimentally impact platform workers by decreasing their appeal. However, there is an existing gap in our understanding of how platform workers prevent such reviews from averting algorithmic challenges. Based on impression management theory, the purpose of this paper is to investigate how platform workers use impression management strategies to prevent negative online reviews during the delivery process.Design/methodology/approachThis study adopted a multi-method approach and employed two data sources: online communities and interviews. Our analysis is grounded in a comprehensive content review of 68,727 comments sourced from an online worker community and enriched by detailed interviews with 20 workers.FindingsOur findings revealed that platform workers employ three main impression management strategies to prevent negative online reviews: cultivating relationships with restaurants, enhancing customer experience and strategically using the platform’s algorithmic rules.Practical implicationsGiven the critical importance of impression management in the app-based work environment, platforms should actively support workers in managing impressions with various stakeholders. This involves adjusting evaluation systems to account for uncontrollable factors and enhancing customer perceptions through real-time updates. Additionally, improving algorithm accuracy and flexibility is crucial for reducing tensions between workers and platforms. Furthermore, stronger government oversight is necessary to ensure fair working conditions and protect workers’ rights in this evolving landscape.Originality/valueThis study sheds light on how platform workers prevent negative online reviews, making significant contributions to the existing literature on platform workers’ responses to algorithmic reputation. Our insights not only enhance existing impression management theory but also reveal how platform workers manage their interactions with restaurants, extending the focus beyond customer-platform dynamics. By highlighting worker autonomy and strategic behavior, the study deepens insights into their adaptive resilience within digital labor ecosystems.