Abstract
The rapid ascent of crowdwork has caught regulators and lawyers off guard. Many platform operators assert that they are merely conduits, introducing independent contractors to their customers, far beyond the scope of employment law. In this chapter, a series of options are explored to ensure that crowdwork remains within (or is brought back into) the scope of employment and labor law. The avenues explored range from interpretative approaches rethinking the notions of employer and employee to the introduction or extension of intermediary categories (like workers or employee-like persons) to specific legislation dealing with the peculiarities of crowdwork.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
For example, Employment Tribunals 28.10.2016, 2202551/2015 & Others, Aslam, Farrar & Others v Uber B.V., Uber London Ltd. & Uber Britannia Ltd., https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/mr-y-aslam-mr-j-farrar-and-others-v-uber/ (2.11.2016).
- 4.
For a fact-specific account, cf. also http://www.thenation.com/article/how-crowdworkers-became-ghosts-digital-machine/.
- 5.
Cf. European Court of Justice Case C-413/13 FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media v Staat der Nederlanden [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:2411.
- 6.
Whilst subsequent examples are drawn primarily from Common Law jurisdictions, we suggest that the approach is capable of being similarly developed in Civilian jurisdictions.
- 7.
The ‘equipollency principle’ (Äquivalenzprinzip): Nogler (2009, p. 463).
- 8.
For earlier attempts at such lists see, for example, Freedland (2001, p. 40).
- 9.
The term locus of control is designed to avoid additional complexities arising out of the fact, noted inter al by M. Freedland (2001) pp. 45–47, that even in traditional companies without external influence management control is often exercised by more than one person amongst a group of relatively senior executives.
- 10.
ECJ in N., C-46/12, EU:C:2013:97, para. 40 and the case-law cited, and ECJ in Haralambidis, C-270/13, EU:C:2014:2185, para. 28.
- 11.
ECJ in Allonby, C-256/07, EU:C:2004:18, para. 72.
- 12.
ECJ in Agegate, C-3/87, EU:C:1989:650, para. 36.
- 13.
ECJ in Becu and Others, C-22/98, EU:C:1999:419, para. 26.
- 14.
ECJ in Albany, EU:C:1999:430, para. 60; Brentjens’, EU:C:1999:434, para. 57; Drijvende Bokken, EU:C:1999:437, para. 47; Pavlov and Others, C-180/98 to C-184/98, EU:C:2000:428, para. 67; van der Woude, EU:C:2000:475, para. 22; AG2R Prévoyance, C-437/09, EU:C:2011:112, para. 29; FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media v Staat der Nederlanden, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2411, para. 23.
- 15.
- 16.
Cf. Superior Court of Justice, 14.8.2014, Wyman v. Kadlec, 2014 ONSC 4710 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/g8lnv (26.19.2016); Court of Appeal for Ontario, 23.12.2009, McKee v. Reid’s Heritage Homes Ltd., 2009 ONCA 916 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/27551 (26.1.2016).
- 17.
The Labour and Social Courts Act s 51 (3)2.
- 18.
The Act on Agency Work s 3.
- 19.
The Employees’ Liability Act s 1(2).
- 20.
The Equal Treatment Act ss 1 (3) 2 and 16 (3) 2.
- 21.
United States District Court, Northern District of California, Order of March 11, 2015, Denying Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Case No. 13-cv-04065-VC) 19, Cotter et al. v. Lyft Inc.
- 22.
OJ L 177, 4 July /2008, pp. 6–16.
- 23.
Cf. Employment Tribunals 28.10.2016, 2202551/2015 and Others, Aslam, Farrar and Others v Uber B.V., Uber London Ltd. and Uber Britannia Ltd., https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/mr-y-aslam-mr-j-farrar-and-others-v-uber/ (2.11.2016).
Literature
Adams, A., Freedland, M., & Prassl, J. (2015). The “zero-hours contract”: Regulating casual work, or legitimating precarity? Giornale di Diritto del Lavoro e di Relazioni Industriali, 147, 529–556.
Brodil, W., Risak, M., & Wolf, C. (2016). Arbeitsrecht in Grundzügen (9th ed.). Wien: LexisNexis.
Cohen, F. (1935). Transcendental nonsense and the functional approach. Columbia Law Review, 35, 809–822.
De Stefano, V. (2016). The rise of the “just-in-time workforce”: On-demand work, crowdwork and labour protection in the “gig-economy”. Geneve: ILO.
Deakin, S. (2001). The changing concept of the “employer” in labour law. Industrial Law Journal, 30, 72–79.
Eurofund. (2014). New forms of employment. Dublin: Eurofund.
Felstiner, A. (2011). Working the crowd: Employment and labor law in the crowdsourcing industry. Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law, 32, 143–204.
Freedland, M. (2001). The personal employment contract. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freedland, M., & Davies, P. (1983). Kahn-Freund’s labour and the law. London: Stevens & Sons.
Fudge, J. (2006a). Fragmenting work and fragmenting organizations: The contract of employment and the scope of labour regulation. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 44, 609–636.
Fudge, J. (2006b). The legal boundaries of the employer, precarious workers, and labour protection. In G. Davidov & B. Langile (Eds.), Boundaries and frontiers of labour law (pp. 310–313). Portland: Hart.
Harris, D. & Krueger, A. (2015). A proposal for modernizing labor laws for twenty-first century work: The “independent worker” (Hamilton Project, Discussion Paper 2015-10). Available at http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2015/12/09-modernizing-labor-laws-for-the-independent-worker-krueger-harris. Accessed 3 Oct 2016.
Leimeister, J., Zogaj, S., & Blohm, I. (2014). Crowdwork – digitale Wertschöpfung in der Wolke. In C. Benner (Ed.), Crowdwork – Zurück in die Zukunft. Frankfurt am Main: Bund Verlag.
Lobel, O. (2016). The gig economy & the future of employment and labor law (USD Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Research Paper No. 16-223). San Diego. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=514132. Accessed 3 Nov 2016.
Martin, D., et al. (2014) Being a Turker (Performing crowd work, CSCW’14, 15–19 Feb 2014). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2531602. Accessed 3 Nov 2016.
Nogler, L. (2009). Die Typologisch-Funktionale Methode am Beispiel des Arbeitnehmerbegriffs. ZESAR, 11, 459.
Prassl, J. (2015). The concept of the employer. Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press.
Prassl, J., & Risak, M. (2016). Uber, Taskrabbit, and Co.: Platforms as employers? Rethinking the legal analysis of crowdwork. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 37, 619–651.
Risak, M. (2010). Austria, International Encyclopaedia for Labour Law and Industrial Relations). Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.
Rosenblum, M. (2013, June 5). The digital slave – That would be you. The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rosenblum/the-digital-slave-that-wo_b_3222785.html. Accessed 3 Nov 2016.
Schmidt, F. (2014). The good the bad and the ugly: Why crowdsourcing needs ethics. In C. Benner (Ed.), Crowdwork – Zurück in die Zukunft. Frankfurt am Main: Bund Verlag.
Strube, S. (2014). Vom Outsourcing zum Crowdsourcing. In C. Benner (Ed.), Crowdwork – Zurück in die Zukunft. Frankfurt am Main: Bund Verlag.
Weiss, M. & Schmidt, M. (2008). Germany (Fed. Rep.), International Encyclopaedia for Labour Law and Industrial Relations. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.
Zyskowski, K. et al.(2015, March). Accessible crowdwork? Understanding the value in and challenge of microtask employment for people with disabilities (SIGCHI Conference Paper). Available at http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/228714/crowdwork_and_disability.pdf. Accessed 3 Nov 2016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Prassl, J., Risak, M. (2017). The Legal Protection of Crowdworkers: Four Avenues for Workers’ Rights in the Virtual Realm. In: Meil, P., Kirov, V. (eds) Policy Implications of Virtual Work. Dynamics of Virtual Work. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52057-5_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52057-5_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52056-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52057-5
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)