Thread by @RuwanSubasinghe

BREAKING: After yrs of worker/union advocacy, litigation & organising, @EU_Commission publishes #gigeconomy work Directive with a presumption of employment status for app-workers & provisions on algo mgmt. Amendments needed, but a MASSIVE step forward.🧵1/
ec.europa.eu/social/BlobSer…

The purpose of the Directive is to ‘ensure correct determination of platform workers’ employment status, by promoting transparency, fairness and accountability in algorithmic management in platform work and by improving transparency in platform work’.
✅

2/

'Platform’ & ‘platform work' refer to work organised through a platform (‘necessary/essential element’) & performed by an individual on the basis of a contractual rel'ship btw platform & individual irrespective of rel'ship with end user.

OK but 'organisation' needs clarity. 3/

Existence of employment rel'ship guided 'primarily by the facts' relating to performance taking into account use of algorithms in the organisation of work, irrespective of how rel'ship classified.

HUGELY SIGNIFICANT & a nod to @ilo R198. Again query algos 'organising' work. 4/

Presumption of employment applies if 2 of 5 ‘control’ criteria met. Ride-hail & food delivery workers surely covered. Scope possibly too narrow for all sectors? Criteria could be dropped for broad presumption (any 1 providing labour for remuneration via app). 5/

Requirements for States to ensure the effective implementation of the legal presumption VERY GOOD – esp enabling labour/social security inspectorates (non-judicial enforcement key) but even more powers needed. Why a carve-out for ‘start-ups’ (also in the recitals)? 6/

Reversal of burden of proof good, but onus on platform to prove no employment rel'ship per NATIONAL definitions (in line with ECJ case law). Criteria for rebuttal (simple ABC legal test?) needed. Possible scope for diff natn’l implementation & arbitrage. No loopholes, please! 7/

Legal presumption/reversal of burden of proof represent MAJOR steps forward. Platforms as ‘employers’ with obligations needs to be articulated better to avoid sub-contracting trap (already happening in practice). 8/

Algorithmic mgmt provisions tackle automated monitoring & decision-making, need for human monitoring of such systems, human in command approach to significant decisions, info/consultation of workers and unions Self-employed also covered. V GOOD, but…9/

…the threshold should not be set at ‘fully’ automated systems. Democratic control & ownership of data merit further attention. There needs to be explicit protection against discriminatory/biased algos. Collective bargaining must supplement info/consultation on these issues! 10/

Ref transparency, Directive would require platform employers to declare platform work and to share certain information with labour/social security authorities and unions. GOOD, but do we need a public register to ensure full transparency? 11/

Directive enables unions representing platform workers to engage in any judicial/admin procedures to enforce rights under the Directive. Platform workers can communicate with each other and be contacted by their unions through the platforms’ digital infrastructure…! 12/

…Taken together, these provisions ensure that platform workers can better defend their interests with the aid of their peers and representatives. On social security, there should be no scope for carve-outs. 13/

Recognising the imbalance of power between platforms and workers in litigation concerning employment status, the Directive enables natn'l courts to order platforms to disclose evidence in legal proceedings, including confidential info, such as relevant data on algorithms. 14/

Overall, the Directive has the potential to upend the platform biz model based on misclassification & tax avoidance. Changes needed through @Europarl_EN process, but today is a brighter day for millions of platform workers denied basic rights & decent work for so long. 15/15

@threadreaderapp unroll please