3 ms·

> Is it really so impossible to create new labour laws, agreements or whatever we need that actually take into account the existence of app-based casual labour

> Is it really so impossible to create new labour laws, agreements or whatever we need that actually take into account the existence of app-based casual labour realities of our time? What's the point of having labour laws if all that's needed to just discard them to reduce labour costs is a very thin veneer of an app? What's so fundamentally different about an app?

netcan 5y ago
Because uber, deliveroo and such aren't a veneer. They're an actual mode of labour. You can find analogies in the past. Some might even be close. But, the scale, implications and context is not the same. Labour law related to the kinds of labour that existed. Salaried, hourly, piecemeal, day labour, etc. Any one of those can be considered a "thin veneer" to any other, if you want to play thick. Yet, they did see fit to create laws that take their existence into account. App-work exists. I agree that it doesn't come with enough labour protections. Create some. Meanwhile, there are some notable social advantages to the existence of app-work just as there were to day-labour, piecemeal and other modes of the past. Low friction work can never be low friction enough. The ability to just sign up and work is valuable to some people some of the time. I agree that it shouldn't be a workaround to paying pensions, for example. OTOH... it exists. What are the rules?
- cloudfifty 5y ago
  > They're an actual mode of labour. You can find analogies in the past. Well, indeed, day labouring and precarious work nothing new under the sun. And the past experience with those is why societies have laws that limits them to various extent. I mean, employers could've just called people on their phones and said it was necessary due to the spread of phones to abandon the now obsolete labour laws. But back then people (and a stronger labour movement) would've just laughed it off and businesses knew that they couldn't pull that trick off. But atm the times are more ripe for this. > But, the scale, implications and context is not the same. What implication and context? That suspiciously vague. Why is scaled-up day labouring suddenly not the same? If any thing it's even more obvious - and important - that it breaks the rules. > if you want to play thick A bit cocky for someone that seem to ignore history. You've said nothing to answer the question what's fundamentally different to justify the regression. The dread of day labouring what one of the very reasons for the existence of these laws in the first place! Now you come along with an app and say that day labouring is henceforth necessary? That makes no sense whatsoever. > Create some. They are already there? One of their very purposes is to protect against exactly this. > App-work exists > it exists What kind of an argument is that even? Still doesn't mean it's legal, just that corps feel the times are ripe enough to try to challenge them by just refusing to comply and spend vast resource on lobbying and taking it to court. > I agree that it shouldn't be a workaround to paying pensions To avoid paying proper benefits/pensions is the very reason of their existence.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  Division of labor in different kinds is an arbitrary social/legal construct that's defined by labor law. You don't get to create a new separate category just as a part of your business - there is no right to just start "app-work" if labor law does not allow for it - you want do labor through apps, you can look in labor law and see what types of contracts are a legitimate option to employ workers in this country. You can do commerce only within the bounds of law, and you can only employ people within the bounds prescribed by labor law. And you can pick the options which are appropriate for you - you can treat them as part-time employees (and you need to fulfill the criteria), you can treat them as piecemeal/day-labor gigs (if you fulfill the criteria, most "gig work" companies don't), and if all the options are bad for you, then you either change your business model to fit them anyway or simply don't use the labor until labor law changes to permit you to do so under the desired structure. The current rules are quite clear, and re-approved by this court - all the existing labor protections apply, those are your employees with full rights and app-work is not getting any special treatment unless and until law is changed to make it so - perhaps gig work should have a special regime because it is quite different from full time work, but it's not yet, at least in NL.
  - netcan 5y ago
    >>The current rules are quite clear Somehow, this is a statement that is always said, despite clear evidence to the contrary. If the rules are clear, why did it take six years for a court to act?
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      Do you know how long it takes to evict a tenant that isn't paying? The rules are quite clear there too
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      Because with sufficient lawyers it takes six years to perform all the appelation rituals if the company wants to delay enforcement. It's not an indication of the questionability of the dispute; a ruling was made in 2019 already, but there are ways to drag it out.
- lucian1900 5y ago
  Piece work is not new either. That’s all these apps do.

netcan 5y ago

Because uber, deliveroo and such aren't a veneer. They're an actual mode of labour. You can find analogies in the past. Some might even be close. But, the scale, implications and context is not the same. Labour law related to the kinds of labour that existed. Salaried, hourly, piecemeal, day labour, etc. Any one of those can be considered a "thin veneer" to any other, if you want to play thick. Yet, they did see fit to create laws that take their existence into account. App-work exists. I agree that it doesn't come with enough labour protections. Create some. Meanwhile, there are some notable social advantages to the existence of app-work just as there were to day-labour, piecemeal and other modes of the past. Low friction work can never be low friction enough. The ability to just sign up and work is valuable to some people some of the time. I agree that it shouldn't be a workaround to paying pensions, for example. OTOH... it exists. What are the rules?

cloudfifty 5y ago
> They're an actual mode of labour. You can find analogies in the past. Well, indeed, day labouring and precarious work nothing new under the sun. And the past experience with those is why societies have laws that limits them to various extent. I mean, employers could've just called people on their phones and said it was necessary due to the spread of phones to abandon the now obsolete labour laws. But back then people (and a stronger labour movement) would've just laughed it off and businesses knew that they couldn't pull that trick off. But atm the times are more ripe for this. > But, the scale, implications and context is not the same. What implication and context? That suspiciously vague. Why is scaled-up day labouring suddenly not the same? If any thing it's even more obvious - and important - that it breaks the rules. > if you want to play thick A bit cocky for someone that seem to ignore history. You've said nothing to answer the question what's fundamentally different to justify the regression. The dread of day labouring what one of the very reasons for the existence of these laws in the first place! Now you come along with an app and say that day labouring is henceforth necessary? That makes no sense whatsoever. > Create some. They are already there? One of their very purposes is to protect against exactly this. > App-work exists > it exists What kind of an argument is that even? Still doesn't mean it's legal, just that corps feel the times are ripe enough to try to challenge them by just refusing to comply and spend vast resource on lobbying and taking it to court. > I agree that it shouldn't be a workaround to paying pensions To avoid paying proper benefits/pensions is the very reason of their existence.
PeterisP 5y ago
Division of labor in different kinds is an arbitrary social/legal construct that's defined by labor law. You don't get to create a new separate category just as a part of your business - there is no right to just start "app-work" if labor law does not allow for it - you want do labor through apps, you can look in labor law and see what types of contracts are a legitimate option to employ workers in this country. You can do commerce only within the bounds of law, and you can only employ people within the bounds prescribed by labor law. And you can pick the options which are appropriate for you - you can treat them as part-time employees (and you need to fulfill the criteria), you can treat them as piecemeal/day-labor gigs (if you fulfill the criteria, most "gig work" companies don't), and if all the options are bad for you, then you either change your business model to fit them anyway or simply don't use the labor until labor law changes to permit you to do so under the desired structure. The current rules are quite clear, and re-approved by this court - all the existing labor protections apply, those are your employees with full rights and app-work is not getting any special treatment unless and until law is changed to make it so - perhaps gig work should have a special regime because it is quite different from full time work, but it's not yet, at least in NL.
- netcan 5y ago
  >>The current rules are quite clear Somehow, this is a statement that is always said, despite clear evidence to the contrary. If the rules are clear, why did it take six years for a court to act?
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    Do you know how long it takes to evict a tenant that isn't paying? The rules are quite clear there too
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    Because with sufficient lawyers it takes six years to perform all the appelation rituals if the company wants to delay enforcement. It's not an indication of the questionability of the dispute; a ruling was made in 2019 already, but there are ways to drag it out.
lucian1900 5y ago
Piece work is not new either. That’s all these apps do.