Platform Work Research Articles

Holistic Approach to Tackling Undeclared Work and Developing National Strategies

At the Plenary meeting on 25 October 2019, the Platform decided to set up a working group on 'Holistic approaches to tackling undeclared work and developing national strategies'. The specific focus for this working group – as per activity 5 of the Platform's work programme 2019-2020 – is as follows: ‘Focusing on the importance of collaboration of key stakeholders/authorities, how this can be achieved cross-border and nationally, on developing national strategies and practical cooperation models and exploring how social partners can be more involved.‘ As per the Working Group’s mandate, its focus is on the three following elements: 1. Strategic shift from “reducing undeclared work” to “transforming undeclared work into declared work”. 2. Developing a whole government coordinated approach, including 1) Developing effective coordination across government departments, national enforcement agencies and with social partners 2) Coordination on operations. 3. Implementing the ‘tackling undeclared work approach’ as defined in the Platform decision. ‘Tackling’, in relation to undeclared work, means preventing, deterring and combating undeclared work as well as promoting the declaration of undeclared work This Working Group report documents Platform members’ experiences and challenges faced in developing this holistic approach. To do so, each component of the holistic approach is considered in terms of: (i) the major challenges faced; (ii) tips for overcoming these challenges and (iii) examples of good practice that are potentially transferable to other Member States.

디지털플랫폼에 의한 노무제공자의 근로자성 판단

4차 산업혁명으로 인하여 우리 노동시장에도 디지털플랫폼이라는 가상공간을 매개로 노무를 제공하는 디지털플랫폼노동 종사자들의 숫자가 증가하고 있다. 디지털플랫폼노동은 그 유형에 따라 크게 주문형 노동(Ondemand Work)와 크라우드 노동(Crowd Work)로 구분할 수 있는데, 주문형노동에 종사하는 디지털플랫폼노동 종사자의 경우 보호의 필요성이 인정되는 경우에도 현행 판례법리에 의하면 근로자성을 인정받기 어렵다. 최근 대법원은 자신의 스마트폰에 배달대행프로그램(애플리케이션)을 설치하고 오토바이를 운전하여 음식 배달 업무를 수행하다가 교통사고를 당하여 재해를 입은 배달대행업체 소속 배달원의 근로자성을 인정하지 않았다(대법원 2018.4.26. 선고, 2016두49372 판결; 대법원 2018.4.26. 선고2017두74719 판결).BR 노동법 적용 여부를 가리기 위한 대법원의 근로자성 판단기준은 사실상 정규직 근로자의 핵심적 징표가 되는 사실관계를 요구하고 있는 셈이어서 근로자와 자영업자의 경계선상에 있거나 플랫폼 이코노미 체계에 편입되어 노무를 제공하는 자에게는 현실적정합성이 매우 결여되어 있다. 따라서 근로기준법상 근로자성은 현재의 판례법리와 같이 사용종속성의 다양한 징표에 의하여 근로자성을 판단할 것이 아니라 경제적 종속성과 사회적 보호필요성에 초점을 맞추어 사용종속성의 표지(標識)를 재구성하는 해석론의 재정립이 필요하다. 또한 노조법상 근로자성에 대하여도 기본적으로 노조법의 입법취지가 ‘노무공급자들 사이의 단결권 등을 보장해 줄 필요성’에 있다는 점에 입각하여 판단하고, ‘경제적 · 조직적 종속관계’를 노조법상 사용종속성의 판단기준으로 삼아 디지털 플랫폼노동 종사자의 집단적 노사자치를 가능케 해야 한다.

‘With Great Power Comes Virtual Freedom’. A Review of the First Italian Case Holding That (Food-Delivery) Platform Workers Are Not Employees

This dispatch concentrates on a review of the first Italian ruling on the legal status of six platform workers who demanded to be reclassified as employees of the food-delivery company Foodora. Last April, the Employment Tribunal of Turin rejected their claims on the basis of the freedom they enjoyed in deciding if and when to work and even to disregard previously agreed shifts. The case note is organised as follows. Section I describes the main facts underlying the legal dispute, according to the judge’s description. Section II offers a context analysis of the Italian legal framework by clarifying the differences between the notions of employment and self-employment. Particular attention is paid to the most recent legislative interventions aimed at extending labour protections to independent workers whose personal activity is organised by the client. By arguing that the judge failed to consider the specificities of the digital work model, section III criticises the reasoning relying on a too narrow and formalistic understanding of the notion of subordination as well as the conclusive relevance attributed to the riders’ presumed flexibility. Section IV closes by summarising the main rulings decided in a set of European countries and providing some reflections on the possibility of applying the current legislation to platform worker. In sum, the dispatch advocates that, in order to properly classify the nature of the actual activity performed by platform workers, judges should assess the role of digital tools when it comes to organising, monitoring and disciplining the workforce, rather than merely focusing on discontinuity and flexibility that are key features of these non-standard work arrangements enabled by technology.

Access to social security for digital platform workers in Germany and in Russia: a comparative study

Abstract: A common feature of platform work in Germany and Russia is that in both countries the new forms of employment can usually only be classified as self-employed work in the form of ‘solo self-employment’, despite the fact that platforms use direct and indirect control mechanisms indicating a personal or at least an economic dependency of the digital workers on the platforms. The difference is that, in Germany, as the main rule, self-employed persons are not obligatorily insured in the state pesion insurance scheme, whereas in Russia, unlike Germany, the state pension insurance scheme is mandatory for all self-employed persons.Considering the different legal frameworks in Germany and in Russia, the article analyses various reform proposals aiming at tackling the above-mentioned challenges for the social security systems, and looks for adequate responses to ensure access to social security for digital platform workers. In particular, the following questions are investigated: Is it sufficient to subsume digital work under the existing employment categories? Could it be an appropriate solution for the access of digital workers to social security to introduce a new employment category only in social law?Keywords: digital platform worker, social security, self-employed person

Position Error Compensation Method of the Cantilever's End Based on 2-order Dynamic Model

The cantilever is prone to produce position error under external disturbance, however, the position error has no feedback, this limits the positioning speed and precision of the cantilever. Based on distributed parameter method, the paper first built a cantilever dynamic model that can accurately describe the elastic deformation characteristics of the end of cantilever, and in accordance with the positioning requirements of the end of cantilever, the model is simplified to the first two modes. Then based on the simplified model, and combines with a Stewart platform which has characteristics of quick response and high positioning accuracy, a position error compensation system is built. This position error compensation system can realize high accuracy positioning of the working point of the Stewart platform. The veracity of the model and the validity of the method are verified by the experiment, the result shows that the relative error of positioning accuracy between Stewart platform's working points is 3.1%, and positioning accuracy can achieve to 10 um. So, the correctness of the 2-order dynamic model and the effectiveness of long cantilever position error compensation system are verified.

And Not a Drop to Drink: Admiralty Law and the BP Well Blowout

Although viewed as an admiralty tort by commentators (e.g., Professor David Robertson) and a 2011 BP Blowout MDL opinion (B-1 Bundle) by presiding MDLJudge Carl Barbier) I argued that the blowout is not an admiralty tort for three reasons: 1. The tort does not satisfy the requirement of Executive Jet Aviation Co. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (1972) (Executive Jet) that it be substantially related to a traditional activity. 2. It does not satisfy the Executive Jet requirement for a vessel. More specifically, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig or mobile offhsore drilling unit (MODU) does not qualify as a vessel under Outer Continental Shelf Act(OCSLA) sec.1333(a)(1), which, instead classifies MODUs as temporarily attached devices (TADs). 3. In line with Rodrigue v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 395 U,S,352 (1969), torts occurring on OCSLA situses are governed by the (non-admiralty) OCSLA, not by admiralty law. Rodrigue overruled the leading Fifth Circuit precedent, Snipes v. Pure Oil Co., 293 F.2d 60 (5th Cir. 1961), because, like the B-1 Bundle ruling in the BP MDL, it wrongly ruled that tdortgs on OCSLA situses are not maritime events but rather are ruled by OCSLA. A major theme of the article is that virtually all 5th Circuit OCSLA tort rulings up to the BP MDL addressed the entitlement of injured or deceased workers atop drilling rig platforms (whether fixed or TADS) whereas the unique OCSLA/Oil Pollution act of 1990 tort being litigated in the BP blowout is an action to remedy the economic and property losses incurred by tens of thousands of off-platform plaintiffs in the Gulf coastal state in consequence of the OCS oil discharge of the BP subsea and the 45/10,0000ths of the total discharge from the Deepwater Horizon. The policy argument in favor of deeming the MODU an admiralty vessel in the conventional injured deceased platform worker case (that the latter's recovery is dependent on that labelling) is wholly irrelevant with respect to the dissimilar OCSLA/OPA tort in the BP MDL.

An embedded ("lost") contact lens.

<h3>Report of Case</h3> A 31-year-old brewery platform worker was first seen in the eye clinic * at the Wills Eye Hospital on Feb. 19, 1962. The chief complaints at that time were that the lids of the right eye had been "sticking together," especially in the mornings, and that a purulent discharge had been noted from the right eye for the previous 10 months. The right eye had been red and tender intermittently in the same period of time. The vision had always been normal O.D., except for the times when a mucopurulent material was present. On April 20, 1961, ten months prior to the clinic visit, the patient was fitted for contact lenses by a Philadelphia optometrist. The patient was instructed in the "one-finger control" method of removing contact lenses. About one week later the patient lost the contact lens for the right eye. It was after losing the lens