First published in 1948, the International Social Security Review is the principal international quarterly publication in the field of social security.
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.
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.
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.
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, workplace 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.
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 borderlines 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In this article the adequacy of social insurance benefits is addressed from the perspective of eight fundamental goals of social insurance. With respect to these goals, the legislated level of the benefit and other conditions represent tools to achieve adequate levels of benefits vis-à-vis contributory effort. The goals address income risks of various sorts: (i) income compensation; (ii) securing a decent standard of living; (iii) universality, implying simplicity and a high takeup of social rights; (iv) reducing income risk deriving from physical incapacity; (v) safeguarding insurability by balancing the expected payoff to the insured and the value of the contributions paid over the lifetime; (vi) intergenerational equity; (vii) containing work and savings disincentives; and (viii) risk reduction (prevention). A simple model serves to clarify what is needed to achieve benefit adequacy together with insurability and contribution adequacy. An example of income support in working age, based on Israeli data, illustrates the use of specific instruments to achieve a decent standard of living while containing economic disincentives. The example stresses the importance of synchronizing efforts with institutions outside the social insurance system.
The 2014 Research Conference of the International Social Security Association (ISSA), which offered a platform for discussion and analysis among social security administrators and academia, addressed issues concerning the adequacy and sustainability of social security. Core issues discussed were the definition and measurement of adequacy and the contribution of social security systems to social and economic development. Also addressed were "megatrends", including demographic ageing and climate change, and their impacts on social security systems. As an objective, the conference sought to evaluate the implications of these issues for social security administrations and, on the basis of national good practice and new research findings, to identify measures permitting future adaptation and innovation.
The BRICS countries have made important progress in extending social security coverage. However, much remains to be achieved to realize the goal of comprehensive universal social security protection. Using policy experiences from the BRICS, the article explores the possibility of drawing from existing models of social security provision to design effective policy interventions for universalizing social security. Main principles of a framework for bridging the coverage gap are identified. These principles are then placed in complimentary and supplementary relationships to develop a framework for policy interventions to bridge the social security coverage gap and achieve universal social security.
The rapid rise in unemployment since 2008 caused by the global financial crisis has created renewed interest in the effects of well-designed unemployment benefit systems on the speed at which labour markets recover and job creation resumes. On the basis of a newly-created database on labour market flows, this article makes use of a micro-founded macroeconomic model to estimate different effects of active and passive labour market spending on employment growth and the state of public finances. It demonstrates, in particular, that for the average G20 country, spending on unemployment benefits yields employment gains both in the short term and long term that are superior to those observed for active labour market policies. Moreover, rather than tightening their budgets prematurely, G20 countries would have fared much better in accepting further deterioration in public finances stemming from higher spending on social transfers in order to stimulate faster employment growth, which would have led to a more rapid recovery in the state of public finances as well.
This article offers a framework for the comparison and benchmarking of administrative expenditures of mandatory pension schemes as part of national social security provisions. It presents results of a quantitative analysis that builds on a framework developed around the extensive body of literature on both public and private pension programmes surveyed as part of this analysis. Our dataset includes over 100 observations and a broad set of explanatory variables. We developed and compared a number of standardized cost indices discussing their advantages and limitations. We also discuss major cost components and their shares in total programme costs. The regression analysis explains over 90 per cent of variation in administrative expenditures. It confirms some of the hypotheses expressed in the earlier studies and presents new evidence of driving factors for costs. We developed three different specifications for statistical analysis. The first set looks at the impact of design of a programme on total costs. The second group of specifications assesses differences in costs of managing pension liabilities between the public and private mandatory pension schemes. Finally, on the basis of the third model we generate benchmarks for staffing levels and for the total administrative expenditures, providing guidance for policy analysis and recommendations. Notably, the spread between low and high benchmark estimates for programmes of the same size and operating in the same economic environment can be four-fold and is driven by parameters of design and operation (for example, asset management function, in-house collection, or operation of special supplementary schemes). Therefore, inferences about the level of administrative expenditures should always be done keeping in mind the institutional context for each programme.