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.
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.