The importance of competition and consumer law in regulating gig work and beyond

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Tess Hardy, S. McCrystal
{"title":"The importance of competition and consumer law in regulating gig work and beyond","authors":"Tess Hardy, S. McCrystal","doi":"10.1177/00221856211068868","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Much ink has been spilt on why gig workers should be brought into the protective fold of mainstream employment law. Much less time has been spent considering the advantages and disadvantages of regulating gig work through alternative regulatory frameworks, such as via competition and consumer laws. In part, this is because we generally understand this jurisdiction to be inherently anti-collective. However, significant changes within competition and consumer regulation in Australia challenge our pre-existing assumptions about the potential role and utility of this jurisdiction for protecting the rights of the self-employed, including gig workers. The High Court decision in Workpac v Rossato, emphasising contractual formalism, also impels some reconsideration of the utility of commercial law solutions given that there is unlikely to be any expansion of labour law protections any time soon. In this short paper, we summarise two key developments in this space. First, we discuss the provisions relating to unfair contract terms under the Australian Consumer Law, which are about to be substantially enhanced. Second, we explore a class exemption introduced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which effectively permits collective bargaining by small businesses, including those engaged in platform work. This article will critically examine each of these developments and weigh up their potential in addressing some of the most pressing issues facing non-employed workers in the gig economy and beyond.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00221856211068868","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Much ink has been spilt on why gig workers should be brought into the protective fold of mainstream employment law. Much less time has been spent considering the advantages and disadvantages of regulating gig work through alternative regulatory frameworks, such as via competition and consumer laws. In part, this is because we generally understand this jurisdiction to be inherently anti-collective. However, significant changes within competition and consumer regulation in Australia challenge our pre-existing assumptions about the potential role and utility of this jurisdiction for protecting the rights of the self-employed, including gig workers. The High Court decision in Workpac v Rossato, emphasising contractual formalism, also impels some reconsideration of the utility of commercial law solutions given that there is unlikely to be any expansion of labour law protections any time soon. In this short paper, we summarise two key developments in this space. First, we discuss the provisions relating to unfair contract terms under the Australian Consumer Law, which are about to be substantially enhanced. Second, we explore a class exemption introduced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which effectively permits collective bargaining by small businesses, including those engaged in platform work. This article will critically examine each of these developments and weigh up their potential in addressing some of the most pressing issues facing non-employed workers in the gig economy and beyond.
竞争和消费者法在规范零工及其他方面的重要性
关于为什么零工工人应该被纳入主流就业法的保护范围,人们已经花了很多笔墨。很少有人花时间考虑通过其他监管框架(如竞争法和消费者法)来监管零工的利弊。在某种程度上,这是因为我们普遍认为这种管辖权本质上是反集体的。然而,澳大利亚竞争和消费者监管方面的重大变化挑战了我们之前关于这一管辖权在保护包括零工工人在内的自营职业者权利方面的潜在作用和效用的假设。高等法院在Workpac诉Rossato案中强调合同形式主义的判决,也促使人们重新考虑商法解决方案的效用,因为劳动法的保护在短期内不太可能扩大。在这篇短文中,我们总结了这一领域的两个关键发展。首先,我们讨论了澳大利亚消费者法中有关不公平合同条款的规定,这些规定即将得到实质性的加强。其次,我们探讨了澳大利亚竞争和消费者委员会引入的一类豁免,该豁免有效地允许小企业(包括从事平台工作的小企业)进行集体谈判。本文将批判性地审视这些发展,并权衡它们在解决零工经济及其他领域非就业工人面临的一些最紧迫问题方面的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信