Activities of Nikolaj VILLUMSEN related to 2019/2186(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Fair working conditions, rights and social protection for platform workers - New forms of employment linked to digital development (debate)
Amendments (25)
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 44 a (new)
Citation 44 a (new)
— having regard to Barcelona Social Court Decision No 24 of 12 January 2021; having regard to the Belgian Employment Status Commission decision of 13 January 2021; having regard to Amsterdam Court of Appeal Decision No 200.261.051/01 of 19 February 2021; having regard to the decision of 24 February 2021 by the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas platform work can create employment opportunities, increase choice, provide additional income, and lower barriers to entering the labour market; whereas platform work facilitates flexibility for both workers and clients, and the matching of demand for and supply of services, as well as innovation in digital tools, which is a useful vector for growth in times of crisis and recovery, but only if it takes place in conditions which comply with labour law and social standards; whereas platform work facilitates flexibility for both workers and clients; whereas, above all, it facilitates flexibility for platforms which benefit from a legal vacuum that enables them to evade their responsibilities at workers’ expense;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas platform work has also raised concerns aboutmeans precariousness or poor working conditions, lack of access to adequate social protection, fragmented and unstable income, and a lack of occupational health and safety measures for more and more workers, especially for lower-skilled on- location platform workers and workers performing micro-tasks, as highlighted during the COVID-19 crisis;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas platform work covers different realities and is characterised by a high level of heterogeneity in the activities carried out; whereas there are different categories of platform work such as online or on-location, requiring a high or low level of skills, paid per task or per hour, performed as a secondary or primary occupation, and that the profiles of platform workers and types of platforms vary widely; whereas, however, according to Eurofound 1a, in 2017 platform- determined and on-location work (meal delivery and passenger transport) represented the largest platform-worker job category; __________________ 1a https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/def ault/files/ef_publication/field_ef_docume nt/ef18001en.pdf
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas people working in the platform economy are generally classified as formally self-employed; whereas in reality matters are different; whereas, in their work, platform workers are in fact denied the basic rights of their self- employed status, such as to choose their customers or the conditions under which they perform their services; whereas, as such, these people do not benefit from the equivalent social, labour, health and safety protection that are connected to an employment contract in most countries;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas, in the absence of both national and European legislation, the blurred distinction between workers and the self-employed often seen in platform work causes uncertainty as regards their rightsaccess to employment rights, social protection, entitlements, and applicable rules: whereas there are concerns that more and more sectors are likely towill be impacted by this in the future; whereas, in addition, platform work is in fact the most visible form of a wider trend towards the precarisation of work, as can be seen from the constantly rising number of atypical workers 1a; __________________ 1a https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public /---dgreports/---dcomm/--- publ/documents/publication/wcms_53451 6.pdf
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas a growing number of judgments by European courts and administrative decisions find that digital platform workers are wrongly regarded as self-employed; whereas Member States have developed different approaches, leading to fragmented rules and initiatives; whereas there is a need for European level action to overcome the resulting legal uncertainty and improve platform workers’ rights;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the current European framework is unsatisfactory, with EU legal instrplatforms circumvents which do not cover all platform workers in their personal scope and which do not address the new realities of the world of working application of EU legal instruments; regrets that this fragmentation places some platform workers in a legally precarious situation, resulting in some platform workers enjoying fewer or more limited rights than should be guaranteed to all platform workers regardless of their employment status; takes the view accordingly that a rebuttable legal presumption of employment must be introduced, and that the burden of proof must lie with platforms, in conjunction with recognising platforms as businesses that are linked to their sector of activity;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the meaning of the terms ‘worker’ and ‘self-employed’ are not uniformly defined in all Member States; notes that the boundary between these two terms is less clear for new forms of work, and that some workers are at risk of being misclassified; takes the view accordingly that digital platform workers must have the same rights and the same access to social protection as other workers;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that this legal uncertainty must be urgently addressed, while acknowledging that it cannot be easily solved by a one-size-fits-all approach; believestaking account of the current digital labour platforms model, where some platform workers are genuinely self-employed and wish to remain so, when others would like to be genuinely self-employed and are denied that anby proposal must recognise the heterogeneity of platforms and of platform workers, and take into account the currentlatforms that require them to enter into a relationship of subordination; takes the view that there should be a European framework, which could be complemented by national legislation or collective bargaining agreements between digital labour platforms model, where some platform workers are genuinely self-employed and wish to remain so; and trade unions; recognises digital platforms as fully fledged businesses that must comply with their obligations, including as regards employer responsibility;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a legislative initiative to improve the working conditions of platform workers; calls on the Commission, if the social partners do not express the wish to initiate the process provided for in Article 155 of the TFEU, to put forward a new directive on platform workers in order to guarantee them a minimum set of rights regardlessbased ofn their employment status, and to address the specificities of platform work, while ensuring a level playing field in all Member States in order to prevent workers from being treated unequally and unfairly;
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the need to better combat bogus self-employment by means of a directive, so as to cover; points out that most platform workers which are fulfilling the conditions characteristic of an employment relationship based on the actual performance of work, and not on the parties’ description of the relationship; is of the opinion that special attention should be given to digital labour platforms that strongly organise conditions and remuneration of online and on-location platform work, which could be used as guidance for determining the degree of responsibility of platforms towards platform workers;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – indent - 1 a (new)
Paragraph 6 – indent - 1 a (new)
6. Calls on the Commission, when exploring ways to improve working conditions to: – make it clear that establishing a third status cannot be considered under any circumstances;
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – indent 1
Paragraph 6 – indent 1
– ensure that the collective bargaining framework functions properly and efficiently and better implement the prohibition of exclusivity clauses, and ensure all platform workers are permitted to work for different platforms (multi- apping) and not be subject to adverse treatment for doing so;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – indent 2
Paragraph 6 – indent 2
– improve rights in case of restriction, suspension or termination by the platform by ensuring all platform workers have the right to a prior reasoned statement, and, if this is disputed, a right of reply and to effective and impartial dispute resolution providing the possibility to re- establish compliance or rebut the statement;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – indent 3
Paragraph 6 – indent 3
– address the current lack of transparency by ensuring the provision of essential information regarding working conditions, the method of calculating the price or fee, assignment of tasks, the functioning of the algorithm, and transparency in the event of a change in the terms, conditions and procedures for temporary or permanent deactivation, if any, which should be preceded by consultationform part of a comanagement process;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
believes that the aforementioned communication should be made in a clear, comprehensive and easily accessible way and be forwarded both to workers and to their representatives;
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that some platform workers may be subject to increased health and safety risks; takes the view that digital platform workers must have the same access to social protection as all other workers; is of the opinion that the Commission proposal must address the occupational health and safety of platform workers as well as establish minimum requirements to enable them exercise a right to disconnect without any adverse consequences;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that platform workers should receive compensation in case of work accidents and occupational diseases, and be offered sickness and invalidity insurance coverage; welcome, together with all other entitlements deriving from labour law, such as paid leave and parental leave; considers, in this respect, that the initiatives of some platforms to provide insurance as well as occupational health and safety measures; are a first step that needs to be made mandatory by legislation;
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Recognises that freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining are fundamental rights for all workers, and believes a directive on platform workers should ensure that these rights are effective, applied in full and enforced; notes the potential for imbalanced and asymmetrical relationships between digital labour platforms and workers, who may lack the individual bargaining power to negotiate their terms and conditions; notes further that there are also practical issues such as a lack of common means of communication and opportunities to meet online or in person, which can prevent collective representation in practice; calls on the Commission to address such impediments in its proposal; stresses the need for platform workers and platforms to be properly represented in order to facilitate social dialogue, collective bargaining and worker representation by trade unions;
Amendment 275 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Regrets the legal difficulties in collective representation faced by platform workers, and is aware that the solo self- employed are wrongly considered ‘undertakings’, and as such are subject to the prohibition on agreements that restrict competition; welcomnotes in this regard the inception impact assessment published by the Commission16, and calls for the planned initiative to address this obstacle without hampering the legislative initiative to improve the working conditions of platform workers; is convinced that EU competition law must not hinder the improvement of the working conditions (including the setting of remuneration) and social protection of solo self-employed platform workers through collective bargaining; __________________ 16https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/ALL/?uri=PI_COM%3AAres %282021%29102652
Amendment 287 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Believes that basic training must be provided to platform workers by the platform at least on the use of their website or the application; believes further that platform workers, in particular less qualified workers, should be offered training enabling skilling and re-skilling to improve their employability and career paths; calls for the facilitation of the recognition, validation and portability of attainments in the field of non-formal and informal learning; believes in this regard that a ‘certificate of experience’ should be issued for platform workers who have participated in such training, which could be uploaded on individual learning accounts;
Amendment 302 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers that platform workers should be entitled tos must use transparent, non- discriminatory and ethical algorithms; believes that algorithm transparency should apply to task distribution, ratings and interactions, while respecting trade secrets, and thatassignment and distribution, price setting, advertising, ratings and interactions and that, in addition to a precise account of how the algorithm works, an intelligible explanation of the functioning of the algorithm on the way tasks are assigned, ratings are granted, the deactivation procedure and pricing should always be provided, as well as information in a clear and up-to-date manner on any significant changes to the algorithm; is of the opinion that ethical algorithm implies that all decisions are contestable and reversible, and in particular algorithmic decisions, are contestable and reversible, that human intervention is ensured, if necessary, and that incentive practices or exceptional bonuses in particular should not lead to risky behaviours; is convinced that non- discriminatory algorithms are those which prevent gender and other social biases; points out that working conditions are usually negotiated by an employer and workers’ representative trade unions within the undertaking concerned; considers that, in the case of digital platform work, working conditions are determined by the algorithm; takes the view therefore that platform workers should be able to act as comanagers of the algorithmic systems that directly impact their working conditions;
Amendment 320 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Recalls that all online platforms must ensure full compliance with EU non- discrimination and data protection law; believes further that platform workers should have access to all data concerning their own activities, understand how their personal information is processed, and have the right to export their ratings; believes that the possibility of a portable rating certificate, recognised between similar platforms, should be explored; believes that when necessary, and in accordance with the GDPR, workers’ representatives should be able to have access to personal data;
Amendment 337 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls onTakes the view that it is not necessary for the Commission to establish a European quality label which would be granted to platforms implementing good practices for platform workers in order for users, workers and consumers to make informed decisions, and which would highlight platforms withsince it is not necessary to highlight platforms that, finally, are applying labour law – an obligation that all employers have – in order to offer their workers quality working conditions, and transparent systemhat providing transparent algorithmic systems ought to be one of the obligations imposed on digital platforms as part of the collective bargaining process;