关于有偿劳动的(错误)分类:什么时候零工应该具有雇员身份?

IF 1.6 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
D. Halliday
{"title":"关于有偿劳动的(错误)分类:什么时候零工应该具有雇员身份?","authors":"D. Halliday","doi":"10.1177/1470594X211015467","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The emergence of so-called ‘gig work’, particularly that sold through digital platforms accessed through smartphone apps, has led to disputes about the proper classification of workers: Should platform workers be classified as independent contractors (as platforms typically insist), or as employees of the platforms through which they sell labor (as workers often claim)? Such disputes have urgency due to the way in which employee status is necessary to access certain benefits such as a minimum wage, sick pay, and so on. In addition, classification disputes have philosophical significance because their resolution requires some foundational account of why the law should make a distinction between employed and freelance workers in the first place. This paper aims to fill this foundational gap. Central to it is the idea that employment involves a worker ceding certain freedoms in return for a degree of security, at least with respect to income. Insofar as the misclassification objection has force against digital platforms, it is when a platform is attempting to have it both ways: Workers are giving up freedom but not being granted a proportionate increase in security. As I shall explain, this approach offers some flexibility as to how actual disputes might be resolved – justice may be indifferent between whether platforms offer greater security or permit workers greater freedom, provided they do at least one of these things.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"52 1","pages":"229 - 250"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the (mis)classification of paid labor: When should gig workers have employee status?\",\"authors\":\"D. Halliday\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1470594X211015467\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The emergence of so-called ‘gig work’, particularly that sold through digital platforms accessed through smartphone apps, has led to disputes about the proper classification of workers: Should platform workers be classified as independent contractors (as platforms typically insist), or as employees of the platforms through which they sell labor (as workers often claim)? Such disputes have urgency due to the way in which employee status is necessary to access certain benefits such as a minimum wage, sick pay, and so on. In addition, classification disputes have philosophical significance because their resolution requires some foundational account of why the law should make a distinction between employed and freelance workers in the first place. This paper aims to fill this foundational gap. Central to it is the idea that employment involves a worker ceding certain freedoms in return for a degree of security, at least with respect to income. Insofar as the misclassification objection has force against digital platforms, it is when a platform is attempting to have it both ways: Workers are giving up freedom but not being granted a proportionate increase in security. As I shall explain, this approach offers some flexibility as to how actual disputes might be resolved – justice may be indifferent between whether platforms offer greater security or permit workers greater freedom, provided they do at least one of these things.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45971,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politics Philosophy & Economics\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"229 - 250\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politics Philosophy & Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X211015467\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X211015467","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

所谓的“零工”的出现,尤其是通过智能手机应用程序访问的数字平台销售的零工,引发了关于工人正确分类的争议:平台工人应该被归类为独立承包商(平台通常坚持),还是作为他们出售劳动力的平台的雇员(工人经常声称)?这种纠纷具有紧迫性,因为雇员的身份是获得某些福利(如最低工资、病假工资等)所必需的。此外,分类纠纷具有哲学意义,因为它们的解决需要一些基本的解释,为什么法律首先应该区分雇佣工人和自由职业者。本文旨在填补这一基础空白。它的核心思想是,就业意味着工人放弃一定的自由,以换取一定程度的安全,至少在收入方面。就错误分类的反对意见对数字平台产生的影响而言,这是一个平台试图两全兼顾的情况:工人放弃了自由,但没有得到相应的安全提升。正如我将解释的那样,这种方法在如何解决实际纠纷方面提供了一些灵活性——在平台是否提供更大的安全或允许工人更大的自由之间,只要他们至少做到其中一件事,司法可能是无关紧要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On the (mis)classification of paid labor: When should gig workers have employee status?
The emergence of so-called ‘gig work’, particularly that sold through digital platforms accessed through smartphone apps, has led to disputes about the proper classification of workers: Should platform workers be classified as independent contractors (as platforms typically insist), or as employees of the platforms through which they sell labor (as workers often claim)? Such disputes have urgency due to the way in which employee status is necessary to access certain benefits such as a minimum wage, sick pay, and so on. In addition, classification disputes have philosophical significance because their resolution requires some foundational account of why the law should make a distinction between employed and freelance workers in the first place. This paper aims to fill this foundational gap. Central to it is the idea that employment involves a worker ceding certain freedoms in return for a degree of security, at least with respect to income. Insofar as the misclassification objection has force against digital platforms, it is when a platform is attempting to have it both ways: Workers are giving up freedom but not being granted a proportionate increase in security. As I shall explain, this approach offers some flexibility as to how actual disputes might be resolved – justice may be indifferent between whether platforms offer greater security or permit workers greater freedom, provided they do at least one of these things.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Politics, Philosophy & Economics aims to bring moral, economic and political theory to bear on the analysis, justification and criticism of political and economic institutions and public policies. The Editors are committed to publishing peer-reviewed papers of high quality using various methodologies from a wide variety of normative perspectives. They seek to provide a distinctive forum for discussions and debates among political scientists, philosophers, and economists on such matters as constitutional design, property rights, distributive justice, the welfare state, egalitarianism, the morals of the market, democratic socialism, population ethics, and the evolution of norms.
×
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