Abstract
The challenges that present-day globalization poses in setting international labour standards are not uncharted. The conflict between the role of global considerations, on the one hand, and national and local dimensions, on the other, is one well-known by the International Labour Organization (hereinafter ILO) [1]. This issue resurfaces at this time when the ILO has expressed its commitment to adopting an international labour standard for decent work in the platform economy [2].
Against this legislative backdrop, it is particularly relevant to consider the wide range of existing institutional responses to platform work and their diverse content at national level. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the ILO’s member states, attempting a universal mandate on platform work adds an extra layer of complexity to regulating this phenomenon, compared to previous exercises conducted at a national level or even at a transnational level, as recently done by the EU’s directive.
In this regard, identifying how diverse domestic institutional systems -i.e. judicial, industrial relations, and legislative systems- have responded to the presence of platform work so far and reflecting on the factors that (may) have impacted them through the lens of the widely diverse contexts of the Global North (GN) and Global South (GS) may provide key lessons and a valuable understanding of the challenges faced in different regions, in light of the commitment to adopt an international labour standard on this issue.
This paper sets out to present a broad overview of precisely this by drawing on the data collected through a global mapping of jurisprudence, social dialogue, and legislative initiatives in the platform economy, which was carried out based on an extensive review of academic and grey literature, institutional and research databases, and media. This paper presents a portion of the results from this exercise, mainly from the perspective of the material scope and outcomes of the initiatives identified in the recollection. Research on this matter is essential, especially in the GS, due to it being heavily under-researched. [1] This paper seeks to contribute to bridging this gap by examining the global institutional responses, paying special attention to the GS.
[1] ‘Universal Labor Standards and National Cultures by Jean-Michel Servais :: SSRN’ <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=833266> accessed 7 October 2024.
[2] Oxford Internet Institute, ‘ILO Includes an International Convention on Platform Workers on Its Agenda’ (Fairwork, 31 March 2023) <https://fair.work/en/fw/blog/ilo-international-convention-platform-workers-agenda/>.
[3] ILO (ed), The Role of Digital Labour Platforms in Transforming the World of Work (ILO 2021).
[1] Richard Heeks and others, Digital Labour Platforms in the Global South: Filling or Creating Institutional Voids? (2020) 1–2; Simon Joyce and Mark Stuart, ‘Trade Union Responses to Platform Work: An Evolving Tension between Mainstream and Grassroots Approaches’ [2021] A Modern Guide To Labour and the Platform Economy 177, 177.