Search

Advancements in technology enable new opportunities for creating digital social security accounts, but the effectiveness of these to solve the accessibility and eligibility issues facing platform workers has not been assessed fully in the literature. The potential of digital social security accounts lies in their ability to consider the possible different streams of income of atypical workers and to improve the effective access of these workers to social security. Tax and social security offices can now exchange information on the income of platform workers in real time, which offers the promise of formalizing the previously informal casual work relationships of the self‐employed. This article explores the case of the Estonian entrepreneur account as a digital hybrid solution for improving the effective access to social security of platform workers. Digital portable accounts create the conditions for the structural improvement required to respond adequately to meet the changing social security needs of atypical workers. However, this also requires that the policy design be thought through carefully, to avoid digital portable accounts being simply a digital facilitator of outdated solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on original evidence from the European Social Policy Network (ESPN), the article investigates the extent to which self‐employed and non‐standard workers, who are less protected by "ordinary" social protection, were included in "extraordinary" income protection and job retention schemes during the COVID‐19 pandemic in the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom. When the crisis hit, countries quickly introduced unprecedented emergency income replacement measures for the self‐employed. Nevertheless, most of these schemes provided only basic support through lump sums and were, in some cases, subject to a variety of eligibility conditions. Non‐standard workers were in general included in job retention schemes, but substantial gaps remained in some countries. The article discusses how such gaps were addressed in five EU Member States. The article concludes by highlighting some policy pointers for better and more adequate "extraordinary" income protection for the self‐employed and non‐standard workers in times of crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The right to social security is enshrined in article 23 of the Belgian Constitution. It is the role of the legislator to implement it, to guarantee the right of all to lead a life in accordance with human dignity. Studies show that platform workers face major difficulties in terms of social protection. The aim of this article is to highlight the limits of existing legislative provisions regarding their ability to implement the fundamental right to social security for platform workers. With regard to these legislative provisions, we are interested in both the general regulations that shape the Belgian social security system and the recent measures adopted by the Belgian legislator with regard to the so‐called sharing economy. An analysis of these provisions reveals that a number of platform workers are excluded from social security, both de facto and de jure. At the very least, this raises the question of whether the Belgian legislator is complying with the positive obligation to fulfil the constitutional right to social security for platform workers, and the negative obligation, at least, not to undermine it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article compares social security coverage for the self‐employed and for employees on digital platforms in Switzerland. It sheds light on the particularities that have acted to slow down the evolution of Swiss social legislation to the new emerging forms of work, and summarizes the solutions provided by case law. These solutions are still being fine‐tuned, but lean towards the reclassification of contracts as salaried work. Finally, despite the hesitance of the Swiss authorities to take political steps to encourage these new forms of work, which offer significant economic potential, and while also seeking to prevent the risk of precarity in work, we discuss the options available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies on the social protection of platform workers in Spain have focused on the bike couriers (or "riders") who deliver meals to customers' homes and whose services are used by some of the best‐known platforms on the country's social and economic scene. Most of these workers are covered by the social security scheme for self‐employed workers. However, a Supreme Court ruling issued on 25 September 2020 reclassified the relationship between Glovo and its couriers as a contract of employment. This decision has changed the outlook for platforms and prompted the Spanish Government to regulate platform work in Spain. Nonetheless, the government ruling is limited to couriers, whereas, in reality, the issue is much broader. In this article, we look at the current reality of Spain's platform workers vis‐à‐vis the social security system and the latest court rulings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a changing world of work, platform workers struggle to gain adequate protection, and effective access to the benefits provided by the social security system form a part of this. Social security benefits in Romania are particular in that access is based on a person having a professional income, regardless of the legal status of the worker (subordinate or self‐employed). As a rule, all workers are covered in the event of illness and changing family circumstances as well as for pensions. In contrast, coverage for self‐employed workers for unemployment benefits, work injury and occupational disease benefits, paid leave in the event of illness, protection against the risks related to pregnancy or to care for a sick child is voluntary. Given the diffusion of platform work, the article addresses the specific situation of platform workers in Romania, formally covered by the social security system, but who face obstacles related to eligibility criteria, administrative formalities, the risk of the automatic termination of work and intermittent work patterns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article highlights the debate on social security regimes applicable to platform workers in Italy. As social security regimes differ according to the type of employment or self‐employment relationship, Italian case law dealing with platform workers' employment status will be illustrated. Italian legislation, case law and collective bargaining on health and safety at work will then be presented, clarifying the coverage to which platform workers are entitled in the event of accidents at work and occupational diseases, with a focus on the COVID‐19 pandemic impact. In turn, the two main Italian minimum income schemes and the related scholarly debate will be outlined, as well as their impact on the ability of digital labour platforms to avoid their responsibilities as regards workers' rights, including access to adequate social protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Platform work confronts traditional social security law in two dimensions. First, it makes the distinction between dependent and independent work uncertain and unclear, as the borderline between these blur. This is a profound challenge for social security law, because the criteria of dependent and independent work have to be precise. In the determination of work as dependent or independent, German law illustrates that a shift has taken place in determining employment status, moving from external and objective criteria to the contracting parties' decision, which is to be executed under private law, but also respected under social security law. Second, platform work is heavily intertwined with digital communication, which has established a global environment for communication. Thereby, platform work can also facilitate international trade by making transnational work more accessible and efficient. Therefore, it seems necessary to examine the implications of platform work in international law. International law makes possible the choice of law, executed by the contracting parties. As a consequence, the protection of employees by social security law is related to the private law arrangements between the service provider and the service recipient. Gaps in social security protection of service providers are widespread. In many countries, awareness of the social protection deficits of platform workers has grown and responses to improve the social status of platform workers have come under scrutiny. Analysis reveals that there is a joint responsibility of the service provider and the service recipient to be bound to social security coverage under the same national legislation. Nevertheless, from an international law perspective, it is shown that reforms are confronted with restrictions under international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Addressing the social protection of platform workers, the French legislator in 2016 and then in 2019 made moves to incorporate these workers into the general social security regime with regard to certain covered risks (work injury and occupational diseases), and to improve adequacy (enabling possible access to complementary coverage). However, these moves rest on radically opposed perspectives. Rather than reasserting the legal responsibility of the employer vis‐à‐vis workers' health and safety, we see responsibility placed with the platform, but only on a voluntary basis under the aegis of corporate social responsibility. This risks fragmenting social benefits, to be determined by each platform, thus weakening the practices of mutual protection and risk pooling among enterprises and workers that lie at the heart of social security. In doing so, the legislator has broken the link that had as its historic objective the goal of social inclusion and has encouraged in different ways the privatization, or a re‐commodification, of social security in the commercial interest of private insurance companies. Moreover, this has been done using the Trojan Horse of the French labour code. This approach is in contrast to the converging position of international organizations, such as the European Union, International Labour Organization or the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development, recommending that States establish a right to social protection for all atypical workers and non‐salaried workers. Instead of identifying the common challenges that face workers who work for platforms, and offering responses specific to their situation, rather, it considers platform work as one of the new forms of atypical work undertaken by those who may have the status of employee or self‐employed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the Netherlands, the social security rights of platform workers have still not been formally defined. At present, the level of social security protection accorded to all workers is derived directly from the labour law qualification. In the continuing absence in the Netherlands of specific legislation for platform workers, specifically as regards labour law and social security law, the existing legislation is steering. This means that the platform worker is either included using the status of employee with the corresponding extensive protection package, or the status of self‐employed with limited social protection. For the majority of platform workers, this second option is applied to date. Nevertheless, recent developments point to possible improvements in the social security position of platform workers in the Netherlands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Are online platform "workers" in Denmark effectively and adequately protected against social and labour market risks? This article discusses this fundamental issue in the context of the Danish labour market, which is known for having high levels of job insecurity but a rather generous social security system. The article finds that the Danish statutory social security system provides a necessary cushion against risk, but also identifies gaps in protection, which brings into question the system's effective coverage and the adequacy of benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This special issue of the International Social Security Review addresses the important topic of social protection for digital platform workers in Europe. The special issue highlights the risk that social protection systems may be largely undermined by a decline in social solidarity in favour of individualism, the partial or full privatization of social security, and a reduction in protection levels, all as a result of the emergence of digital platforms and the support they receive from legislators in most countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]