By Martijn Müller, Founder Bestellenbij.nl
Over the past few years, the public debate on platform work has largely been top-down, with little input from platform workers themselves. As a long-time platform worker, it has been frustrating to see people talking about us, rather than with us. The suggested improvements to platform work have largely reflected the personal values of union representatives and politicians, leading to a disconnect between policy makers and the workers who are most affected by these regulations. This approach has failed to take our wants and needs into account, leaving us feeling overlooked and undervalued.
This disconnect has also shaped a public narrative about platform work that does not accurately reflect the reality nor the reasons why platform workers value this type of work over more traditional forms. One of the key advantages of platform work is the level of autonomy provided to workers over their work-life balance. It allows us to take on jobs that suit our skills and interests, which is something that traditional ways of working often don’t offer. Many of us have deliberately chosen this type of work and it appears that regulatory debates are often based on an outdated understanding of work relations.
As a platform worker, I was initially somewhat apprehensive about the direction of the original proposal by the European Parliament for regulating platform work. It seemed to continue the disconnected direction of the public discourse of the last few years, making blanket changes based on outdated conceptions of work relations that would jeopardize the unique benefits that are important to platform workers. Although I am glad to see that some of the proposed amendments by the European Parliament make some key changes that focus more on addressing the symptoms that need to be treated, unfortunately, some of the other ones appear to still be overly restrictive and overbearing.
It is worth highlighting three specific amendments that exemplify this:
Amendment 31
One example of an amendment that lacks nuance and could have unintended consequences is Amendment 31, which takes an overly restrictive approach by defining any level of control over work performance elements as an employment relationship. This appears to be unfairly targeting on-location platform work, as it is common for platforms to exercise some level of control over contractors in various work arrangements, including freelancers and more traditional entrepreneurs. Instead of outlining specific parameters for what type of control would be deemed unacceptable, this amendment takes an overly broad approach that could effectively neuter platform work altogether.
There are, however, two positive highlights:
Amendments 27 and 14
Importantly, Amendment 27 recognizes the diverse and evolving nature of platform work by explicitly recognizing the right of self-employed individuals to engage in platform work. Also, Amendment 14 could serve as a crucial step towards addressing a longstanding issue faced by freelancers in various fields: access to and portability of social rights and entitlements. I hope this amendment serves as a stepping stone towards dismantling exclusionary social regulations that are based on outdated notions of employment and entrepreneurship, and instead, helps to create a more equitable and inclusive system that benefits all workers.
Worker Cooperatives
It is important to recognize that the platform work landscape is diverse and constantly evolving, and, as such, regulatory frameworks need to be flexible enough to accommodate this diversity. One critical element that has been largely overlooked in public discourse is the potential of worker cooperatives, a type of organisation owned and governed by its workers. Worker cooperatives can be a powerful tool to challenge the exploitation of vulnerable workers by large corporations in the platform economy.
At the same time, they could also challenge such platforms not only through regulations, but also through the market economy towards a more laissez-faire system. By putting workers in control of the platform, platform cooperatives empower them to fully utilize the autonomy they value in platform work and protect them from exploitation. While not suitable for every platform worker, worker cooperatives have the potential to transform the platform economy for the better. As the platform economy continues to evolve, it is critical that any regulatory framework acknowledges the potential of worker cooperatives and supports their growth.
What should policy makers consider?
As a platform worker, I believe that regulations should strike a balance between ensuring fair working and economic conditions for platform workers, and allowing for innovation and growth in the platform economy. It is important to work together as a society to improve platform work, but it is also crucial not to stifle it with regulations based on an outdated understanding of work relations. To create a regulatory framework that benefits platform workers, it is important to acknowledge that their goals and values may differ from those who prefer traditional employment.
It is crucial to ensure that regulations align with the actual values, wants, and needs of platform workers, and while I believe that some of the proposed amendments are an important step in the right direction, there is still some work to be done to make sure we work towards a future where platform work is both innovative and fair for all, as it is indeed possible to create a more adequate regulatory framework.
* The blog is published a part of the Reshaping Work efforts to stimalute timely debate. The opinions and views expressed in this publication are those of the authors. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of Reshaping Work.