4 ms·

Did they also declare how delivery companies' business models can adapt, since this changes the fundamental assumption (gig economy) of it?

PeterisP 6y ago
The delivery companies can adapt to the same rules as any other employer. Nothing special is needed, their workforce costs just turn out to be a bit more expensive than they hoped - so they can rise the prices, decrease profitability or get out of the business. If some business model relies on an assumption that they will get a "separate economy" with weaker worker protections than what the country has decided all workers should have, and can't function when that assumption turns out to be false, then, well, that's on the people who made that mistaken assumption, they can try to compete with delivery companies with full-time drivers under comparable rules for worker protection and compensation. There's no unalienable right to have all your drivers as non-employee contractors or to have your business model preserved, however, workers do have a right for state protection (e.g. section 40 of Spanish constitution), so one could even argue that the state has a duty to ensure that the gig economy (at least the most company-friendly models of it) does not happen.
- stevenalowe 6y ago
  Interesting. So if I offer a gig - contract work with clear terms and limits - and you accept the gig often enough, bam! You’re my employee whether either of us wanted to or not. Not buying it.
  - stevenalowe 6y ago
    Addendum: many drivers in the US (don’t know about Spain) drive for Uber and Lyft. Which one would be the employer?
    - webmobdev 6y ago
      Both of them.
  - webmobdev 6y ago
    Or rather, "gig contract" employment is no longer valid in delivery services without meeting the minimum requirements spelled out by the ruling / government / regulator (I am sure the same ruling can also be applied to other businesses, but this particular case was delivery services).

PeterisP 6y ago

The delivery companies can adapt to the same rules as any other employer. Nothing special is needed, their workforce costs just turn out to be a bit more expensive than they hoped - so they can rise the prices, decrease profitability or get out of the business. If some business model relies on an assumption that they will get a "separate economy" with weaker worker protections than what the country has decided all workers should have, and can't function when that assumption turns out to be false, then, well, that's on the people who made that mistaken assumption, they can try to compete with delivery companies with full-time drivers under comparable rules for worker protection and compensation. There's no unalienable right to have all your drivers as non-employee contractors or to have your business model preserved, however, workers do have a right for state protection (e.g. section 40 of Spanish constitution), so one could even argue that the state has a duty to ensure that the gig economy (at least the most company-friendly models of it) does not happen.

stevenalowe 6y ago
Interesting. So if I offer a gig - contract work with clear terms and limits - and you accept the gig often enough, bam! You’re my employee whether either of us wanted to or not. Not buying it.
- stevenalowe 6y ago
  Addendum: many drivers in the US (don’t know about Spain) drive for Uber and Lyft. Which one would be the employer?
  - webmobdev 6y ago
    Both of them.
- webmobdev 6y ago
  Or rather, "gig contract" employment is no longer valid in delivery services without meeting the minimum requirements spelled out by the ruling / government / regulator (I am sure the same ruling can also be applied to other businesses, but this particular case was delivery services).