3 ms·
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
by 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 agoDo you know how long it takes to evict a tenant that isn't paying? The rules are quite clear there too
- PeterisP 5y agoBecause 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.