Much of the literature produced in recent years has tried to systematize the various forms of platform work while considering how to (re)classify those working through digital platforms. While this contributes to our understanding of the nature of work in the digital economy and the extent to which current labour law is problematic for some platform workers, the gender dimension and implications, especially the growing concern about discrimination between men and women in the digital economy, appear to have received little attention so far. A recent study showed that some female platform workers receive lower pay than their male counterparts. As some online platforms use algorithms to determine pay levels, the key question addressed here is to the extent to which current EU gender equality law, and the principle of equal pay for women and men in particular, is adequate for protecting platform workers in a situation where work-related decisions are not taken by a human being but by an algorithm that is the potential source of discrimination. To understand how regulation should be ‘calibrated’ in cases where algorithms result in discrimination, the theory of classification bias can be helpful. It is assumed that the reason for providing protection based on the equal pay principle to a specific group of employees is not compelling enough to exclude platform workers who are classified as self-employed. This article starts with a brief examination of the challenges of working in the digital economy and then goes on to analyse the role of algorithms and their potential to discriminate based on gender. It is argued that the theory of classification bias could be used to address discriminatory algorithmic decision-making. The theory is then applied to the EU’s principle of equal pay for women and men, suggesting some improvements in relation to platform work.
In April 2021, the European Commission published its first draft of the Proposal for a Regulation on Artificial Intelligence. Since AI in the work context has increasingly become important in organising work and managing workers, the AI Act will undoubtedly have an impact on EU and national labour law systems. One aim of the proposal is to guarantee ‘consistency with existing Union legislation applicable to sectors where high-risk Artificial Intelligence systems are already used or likely to be used in the near future’, which includes the EU social acquis. It could be argued that ensuring true consistency with EU law means guaranteeing that the way the AI Act will be implemented and applied will still allow the other pieces of EU labour law to fulfil their purpose. It is undeniable that the implementation of the AI Act will overlap with various fields of EU law, especially considering the increasing use of AI technology at work. Thus, this article seeks to identify ways to refine the AI Act, insofar as it impacts work. The contribution discusses the current AI Act as proposed in April 2021, thereby focusing on two particular areas, EU non-discrimination law and EU law on occupational health and safety (OSH), as these two areas are, more or less explicitly, addressed as legal fields in the AI Act. The article starts with taking the perspective of EU labour law influencing the development of AI systems used in the employment context. We argue that providers should respect EU labour law throughout the development of the AI system (section 2). Then, the areas where EU labour law and the AI overlap are identified, thereby viewing it from an employer's perspective, i.e., the user of the AI system (section 3). Using two specific EU labour law areas (the right not to be discriminated against and the right to healthy and safe working conditions) the article provides a first assessment of how the AI Act might influence work and the regulation thereof (section 4). Finally, the conclusion critically explores whether and to what extent AI in employment situations warrants particular attention (section 5).
For some time now, the European Commission has stressed the need to address the ongoing misclassification of employment status in platform work and has thus considered introducing a rebuttable presumption of employment status or a reversal of the burden of proof. This contribution focuses on the benefits and limitations of introducing a rebuttable legal presumption in EU labour law as an evidentiary means to improve the working conditions of platform workers. In doing so, some general remarks on rebuttable legal presumptions will be made, while also offering some comparative legal insights, before exploring their potential benefits and limitations in the context of EU labour law in general and platform work in particular. This contribution will finish with an analysis of how such a presumption could be integrated in the current EU social acquis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.