Extract
[...] However, this law has faced strategies of circumvention by the platforms. For example, Uber Eats has resorted to subcontracting and Deliveroo has exited the Spanish market19. In some states, platform workers are classified in a 'third status' (intermediate categories that are considered neither as employees, nor as independent contractors). For example, outside the European Union, in the United Kingdom, the 'workers' status was created by the Employment Rights Act 1996. They benefit from certain rights reserved to the category of employees (minimum wage . [...]
[...] In Europe, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJUE) has also been seized on several occasions on the subject. On 22 April 2020 (n°C-692/19), the CJUE has replied to a prejudicial question on the interpretation of Directive 2003/88/CE on working time, considering that there was no link of subordination between the courier and the delivery platform. Many decisions have been made on the subject in the member states of the European Union. In Spain, notably, the Spanish Supreme Court has concluded that there is a « requalification of the employment contract of a delivery person, under the TRADE (autonomously economically dependent worker) status, as that of an employee. [...]
[...] However, platform workers are particularly vulnerable to hidden work. Thus, in January 2023, it was revealed that a subsidiary of the Post Office, Stuart, delegated part of its activity to platforms hiring delivery workers without employment contracts, thereby having no paid holidays, social coverage, or payment for their overtime35. However, no protection will be granted to them in view of the proposal. This finding, although unfortunate, is in line with one of the implicit objectives of the proposal of directive which is to create fair competition conditions between platforms and more traditional companies. [...]
[...] In fact, unions such as the European Trade Union Confederation point out that only a well-crafted directive could grant rights to platform workers and that incentive instruments are insufficient. In addition, unions point out that the European Commission retains a significant margin of maneuver to carry out formal checks45 and to decide whether the agreement meets the objectives and priorities of the European Union. In addition, social partners question the directive itself because, since the publication of Uberfiles in 2022, no one ignores the intensity of the lobbying exercised by Uber with regard to political leaders, particularly for the drafting of the directive46. [...]
[...] But it's also because the presidency had returned to the Czech Republic, which was rather reserved about the content of the text, that three options were proposed, namely an automatic presumption (European Parliament), a presumption based on European criteria and a presumption based on national criteria. France is in favor of the second option, i.e. the criteria for the presumption should be adaptable. However member states including the Baltic states and France have ultimately rejected the provisional agreement which they considered too far removed from the version of the directive proposed by the Council. The agreement retained the Commission's initial vision, that is to say that two out of five indicators were sufficient, which was not accepted by certain Member States. [...]
