First published in 1948, the International Social Security Review is the principal international quarterly publication in the field of social security.
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.
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 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.