Internet Platform Employment in China : Legal Challenges and Implications for Gig Workers through the Lens of Court Decisions

Wang, Tianyu; Cooke, Fang

doi:https://doi.org/10.7202/1083612ar

Browse the articles in this issue

Les intervenants sociaux à l’aune de la nouvelle gestion publique : difficultés émotionnelles, relations professionnelles sous tension et collectifs de travail fragilisés

Les identités professionnelles des mineurs d’uranium au prisme des transitions industrielles : du régime d’exception au repli identitaire

Article outline

Back to top
Abstract
References

Toolbox

PDFDownload
Cite this article
Share

Abstracts

Summary

Research Objective and Questions

We aimed to examine court rulings on disputes between network platforms and labour providers in order to understand the nature of the employment relations and the broader consequences for society as a whole. We addressed two questions :

What is the attitude and role of the courts in resolving disputes between Internet network platforms and labour providers in China within a civil law system ?
What are the prospects that legal innovations will improve protection for platform labour providers who fall outside the scope of labour law, in order to counter the unregulated expansion of digital capitalism at the expense of the under-/unprotected ?

Methodology

We primarily used secondary data, namely 102 publicly available Court decisions from 2014 to 2019. The case decision reports were downloaded from the Supreme People’s Court “Network of Court Decision Papers.”

Results

Disputes occurred mainly in cities that have the most developed platforms and an independent worker model of employment. They mainly involved network platforms that provide such services as driving, food delivery and courier services. All of the disputes involved road accidents, and over half occurred in Beijing and Shanghai—two leading cities in China that have dense populations. Dispute cases rose sharply, peaked in 2017, started to drop in 2018 and fell even more in 2019. The disputes seem to have educated people on both sides, with the result that more precautions are being taken.

Contributions

Our study makes three contributions. First, we identified three types of platform employment in China, the motives of the platforms in their choice of labour utilization and the legal implications in terms of labour and third-party protection. Second, we examined the attitude and role of the courts in judging disputes between network platforms and labour providers within legal constraints. Third, we propose that socialization of contract service should be central to platform employment.

Keywords:

China,
court decisions,
gig economy,
legal challenges,
platform employment,
subordination theory

Appendices

References

Aloisi, Antonio (2016) “Commoditized workers. Case study research on labour law issues arising from a set of ‘on-demand/gig economy’ platforms.” Comparative Labour Law and Policy Journal, 37(3), 674–676.
10.1016/j.riob.2018.11.001 Google Scholar
Arrêt n°374 du 4 mars 2020 (19-13.316) - Cour de cassation - Chambre sociale (France)
10.1007/s10551-012-1439-7 Google Scholar
Ashford, Susan J, Brianna Barker Caza and Erin M. Reid (2018) “From surviving to thriving in the gig economy : A research agenda for individuals in the new world of work.” Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 23–41.
10.1016/j.riob.2018.11.001 Google Scholar
Banakar, Reza and Travers, Max (2005) Theory and Method in Socio-Legal Research. Portland : Hart Publishing.
10.7202/1072349ar Google Scholar
Beesley, Luke (2018) Trade unions (Germany) : Worker power in the platform economy.https://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article46128. Retrieved on 19th April 2019).
10.1177/0022185607082215 Google Scholar
Bolton, Sharon C, Maeve Houlihan and Knut Laaser (2012) “Contingent work and its contradictions : Towards a moral economy framework.” Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 121–132.
10.1007/s10551-012-1439-7 Google Scholar
Bourke, Latika (19th February 2021). ‘Subordination’ : Uber drivers are not self-employed, rules UK Supreme Court. The Sunday Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/uber-drivers-are-workers-and-not-self-employed-uk-supreme-court-rules-20210219-p57483.html.
10.4324/9780203100851 Google Scholar
Butler, Sarah (29 June 2018) “Deliveroo couriers win six-figure payout in employment rights case.” The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/28/deliveroo-couriers-win-six-figure-payout-in-employment-rights-case.
10.1177/0019793917717222 Google Scholar
Cherry, Miriam A and Antonio Aloisi (2017) “‘Dependent contractors’ in the gig economy : A comparative approach.” American University Law Review, 66(3), 635–689.
10.1080/10301763.2017.1377048 Google Scholar
Cockayne, Daniel G (2016) “Sharing and neoliberal discourse : The economic function of sharing in the digital on-demand economy.” Geoforum, 77, 73–82.
10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.10.005 Google Scholar
Coiquaud, Urwana and Isabelle Martin (2020) “Access to Justice for Gig Workers : Contrasting Answers from Canadian and American Courts.” Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 75(3), 582–593.
10.7202/1072349ar Google Scholar
Cooney, Sean (2007) “China’s Labour Law, compliance and flaws in implementing institutions.” Journal of Industrial Relations, 49(5), 673–686.
10.1177/0022185607082215 Google Scholar
Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., No. 3 :2013cv04065 - Document 256 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
10.1177/0001839218759646 Google Scholar
Davidov, Guy (2017) “Subordination vs domination : Exploring the differences.” International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 33(3), 365–389.
10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00472.x Google Scholar
De Stefano, Valerio (2016) “The rise of the ‘just-in-time workforce’ : On-demand work, crowdwork, and labor protection in the ‘gig economy’”. Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 37(3), 471–504.
10.1111/soc4.12493 Google Scholar
Douglas O’Connor, et al., v. Uber Technologies, INC., et al., Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC., Docket No. 357 (2015).
10.1177/1461444817738236 Google Scholar
Götz, Norbert (2015) “‘Moral economy’ : Its conceptual history and analytical prospects.” Journal of Global Ethics, 11(2), 147–162.
10.1080/17449626.2015.1054556 Google Scholar
Grandy, Alicia, James Diefendorff and Deborah E Rupp (2013) Emotional labor in the 21st century : Diverse Perspectives on Emotion Regulation at Work. London : Routledge.
10.4324/9780203100851 Google Scholar
Guido, Smorto (2018) Protecting the weaker parties in the platform economy. Global Law Review, 4, 55–68.
10.1177/1035304617722461 Google Scholar
Hall, Jonathan V and Alan B Krueger (2018) “An analysis of the labor market for Uber’s driver-partners in the United States.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 71(3), 705–732.
10.1177/0019793917717222 Google Scholar
Healy, Joshua, Daniel Nicholson and Andreas Pekarek (2017) “Should we take the gig economy seriously ?” Labour and Industry : A Journal of the Social and Economic Relations of Work, 27(3), 232–248.
10.1080/10301763.2017.1377048 Google Scholar
International Labour Organization (2018) Digital labour platforms and the future of work : Towards decent work in the online world. Geneva : International Labour Organization.
10.1177/0022185617716730 Google Scholar
International Labour Organization (2021) The ILO’s World Economic and Social Outlook 2021 : The role of digital labour platforms in transforming the world of work. Geneva : International Labour Office. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_771749.pdf.
10.2139/ssrn.2866874 Google Scholar
Ipeirotis, Panagiotis G (2010) “Analyzing the Amazon Mechanical Turk Marketplace.” ACM XRDS, 17(2), 16–21.
10.1145/1869086.1869094 Google Scholar
Lévesque, Christian, Peter Fairbrother and Nicolas Roby (2020) “Digitalization and Regulation of Work and Employment : Introduction”. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 75(4), 647–659.
10.7202/1074558ar Google Scholar
Li, Xue-er and Fang Chen (26 Aug 2019) “Meituan take-out daily orders exceeded 25 million orders, opening up the distribution platform of Meituan.” https://new.qq.com/omn/20190506/20190506A0DTGB.html.
Google Scholar
Meituan (2021) “Meituan 2020 Financial Report.” http://media-meituan.todayir.com/2021041908000317739722495_tc.pdf, 2021/6/8.
Google Scholar
Miles, Matthew B and Huberman Michael (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis : An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications.
Google Scholar
Ministry of Information Industry (2021) “Report on China’s Sharing Economy Development (2021).” http://www.sic.gov.cn/archiver/SIC/UpFile/Files/Default/20210219091740015763.pdf.
Google Scholar
Minter, Kate (2017) “Negotiating labour standards in the gig economy : Airtasker and Unions New South Wales”. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 28(3), 438–454.
10.1177/1035304617724305 Google Scholar
Petriglieri, Gianpiero, Susan J Ashford and Amy Wrzesniewski (2019) “Agony and ecstasy in the gig economy : Cultivating holding environments for precarious and personalized work identities.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 124–170.
10.1177/0001839218759646 Google Scholar
Red Star News (8 June 2021). “Behind the sudden death of Ele. ? : Pay 3 yuan service fee to the platform, and only bought 1.06 yuan insurance” 红星新闻：《饿了么骑手猝死背后：给平台交3元服务费，只买了1.06元保险》.
Google Scholar
Rubery, Jill, Carilyn Carroll, Fang Lee Cooke, Irena Grugulis and Jill Earnshaw (2004) “Human resource management and the permeable organization : The case of the multi-client call centre.” Journal of Management Studies, 41(7), 1199–1222.
10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00472.x Google Scholar
Schor, Juliet B and William Attwood-Charles (2017) “The ‘sharing’ economy : Labor, inequality, and social connection on for-profit platforms.” Sociology Compass, 11(8), e12493.
10.1111/soc4.12493 Google Scholar
Shapiro, Aaron (2018) “Between autonomy and control : Strategies of arbitrage in the ‘on-demand’ economy.” New Media and Society, 20(8), 2954–2971.
10.1177/1461444817738236 Google Scholar
Spreitzer, Gretchen M, Lindsey Cameron and Lyndon Garrett (2017) “Alternative work arrangements : Two images of the new world of work.” Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 473–499.
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113332 Google Scholar
Stanford, Jim (2017) “The resurgence of gig work : Historical and theoretical perspectives.” The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 28(3), 382–401.
10.1177/1035304617724303 Google Scholar
Stewart, Andrew and Jim Stanford (2017) “Regulating work in the gig economy : What are the options ?.” The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 28(3), 420–437.
10.1177/1035304617722461 Google Scholar
Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 (United Kingdom)
Google Scholar
Waas, Bernd, Wilma B Liebman, Andrew Lyubarsky and Katsutoshi Kezuka (2017) Crowdwork – A comparative law perspective. Frankfurt : Bund.
Google Scholar
Wang Tianyu (2016) “The distinction between manager employment contract and appointment contract.” China Law, 3, 285-292.
Google Scholar
Wang, Tianyu and Fang Lee Cooke (2017) “Striking the balance in industrial relations in China ? An analysis of court decisions of 897 strike cases (2008–2015).” Journal of Industrial Relations, 59(1), 22–43.
10.1177/0022185616658496 Google Scholar
Wang, Quanxing and Qian Wang (2018) “Labour relationship determination and rights protection in China’s ‘network jobs’.” Law Science, 4, 57–72.
Google Scholar
Wang, Qi, Qingjun Wu and Weiguo Yang (2018) “Research on the nature of employment on digital platform : Based on case study of P Car-Hailing Platform.” Human Resources Development of China, 35, 96–104.
Google Scholar
Wang, Yan and Lihua Zhang (2019) “A study on the new employment pattern of sharing economy in China.” Journal of China University of Labor Relations, 33, 49–60.
Google Scholar
Wang, Zetao and Weiqun Li (2018) “Definition of the employment relationship of online car booking service : Taking P2P mode as the core.” Journal of Shanghai Business School, 19, 87–93.
Google Scholar
Wood, Alex J, Mark Graham, Vili Lehdonvirta, V and Isis Hjorth (2019) “Good gig, bad gig : Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy.” Work, Employment and Society, 33(1), 56–75.
10.1177/0950017018785616 Google Scholar
Wouters, Mathias (2018). Directing labour market outcomes : why are digital labour platforms not deemed private employment agencies ? In G. Casale and T. Treu (eds.), Transformations of work : challenges for the national systems of labour law and social security. Turin : Giappichelli, pp. 1431-1438.
Google Scholar
Wu, Qingjun and Wei Li (2018) “Labour process control and job autonomy in sharing economy : A case study of online car-hailing drivers’ work.” Sociological Studies, 4, 139–141.
Google Scholar
Yang, Lixin (2016) “The construction of legal relations in online trading.” Social Sciences in China, 2, 114–137.
Google Scholar
Xie Zengyi (2009) The connotation of employment relations and the identification determination of the employer and employee. Journal of Comparative Law, 6, 74–83.
Google Scholar
Xie, Zengyi (2019) Identification of Internet platform employment. Social Sciences Digest, 2, 77–79.
Google Scholar
Xie, Pengxin, Fuxi Wang and Yanyuan Cheng (2017) “How did Chinese Migrant Workers Fare in Labour Dispute Mediation ? Differentiated Legal Protection and the Moderating Role of the Nature of Dispute.” Journal of Industrial Relations, 59(5), 611–630.
10.1177/0022185617716730 Google Scholar
Zhao, Pei (2018) “Platforms, information and individuals : Characteristics and legal connotation of sharing economy.” Global Law Review, 4, 69–86.
Google Scholar
Zou, Mimi (2017) “The regulatory challenges of Uberization in china : Classifying ride-hailing drivers.” International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 33, 2, 269–294.
10.2139/ssrn.2866874 Google Scholar

Abstracts

Summary

Appendices

References

Citation Tools

Cite this article

Export the record for this article