Résumés
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
Parties annexes
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.
- Arrêt n°374 du 4 mars 2020 (19-13.316) - Cour de cassation - Chambre sociale (France)
- 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.
- Banakar, Reza and Travers, Max (2005) Theory and Method in Socio-Legal Research. Portland : Hart Publishing.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Cherry, Miriam A and Antonio Aloisi (2017) “‘Dependent contractors’ in the gig economy : A comparative approach.” American University Law Review, 66(3), 635–689.
- Cockayne, Daniel G (2016) “Sharing and neoliberal discourse : The economic function of sharing in the digital on-demand economy.” Geoforum, 77, 73–82.
- 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.
- Cooney, Sean (2007) “China’s Labour Law, compliance and flaws in implementing institutions.” Journal of Industrial Relations, 49(5), 673–686.
- Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., No. 3 :2013cv04065 - Document 256 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
- Davidov, Guy (2017) “Subordination vs domination : Exploring the differences.” International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 33(3), 365–389.
- 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.
- Douglas O’Connor, et al., v. Uber Technologies, INC., et al., Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC., Docket No. 357 (2015).
- Götz, Norbert (2015) “‘Moral economy’ : Its conceptual history and analytical prospects.” Journal of Global Ethics, 11(2), 147–162.
- Grandy, Alicia, James Diefendorff and Deborah E Rupp (2013) Emotional labor in the 21st century : Diverse Perspectives on Emotion Regulation at Work. London : Routledge.
- Guido, Smorto (2018) Protecting the weaker parties in the platform economy. Global Law Review, 4, 55–68.
- 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.
- 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.
- International Labour Organization (2018) Digital labour platforms and the future of work : Towards decent work in the online world. Geneva : International Labour Organization.
- 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.
- Ipeirotis, Panagiotis G (2010) “Analyzing the Amazon Mechanical Turk Marketplace.” ACM XRDS, 17(2), 16–21.
- Lévesque, Christian, Peter Fairbrother and Nicolas Roby (2020) “Digitalization and Regulation of Work and Employment : Introduction”. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 75(4), 647–659.
- 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.
- Meituan (2021) “Meituan 2020 Financial Report.” http://media-meituan.todayir.com/2021041908000317739722495_tc.pdf, 2021/6/8.
- Miles, Matthew B and Huberman Michael (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis : An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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》.
- 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.
- 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.
- Shapiro, Aaron (2018) “Between autonomy and control : Strategies of arbitrage in the ‘on-demand’ economy.” New Media and Society, 20(8), 2954–2971.
- 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.
- Stanford, Jim (2017) “The resurgence of gig work : Historical and theoretical perspectives.” The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 28(3), 382–401.
- 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.
- Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 (United Kingdom)
- Waas, Bernd, Wilma B Liebman, Andrew Lyubarsky and Katsutoshi Kezuka (2017) Crowdwork – A comparative law perspective. Frankfurt : Bund.
- Wang Tianyu (2016) “The distinction between manager employment contract and appointment contract.” China Law, 3, 285-292.
- 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.
- Wang, Quanxing and Qian Wang (2018) “Labour relationship determination and rights protection in China’s ‘network jobs’.” Law Science, 4, 57–72.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Yang, Lixin (2016) “The construction of legal relations in online trading.” Social Sciences in China, 2, 114–137.
- Xie Zengyi (2009) The connotation of employment relations and the identification determination of the employer and employee. Journal of Comparative Law, 6, 74–83.
- Xie, Zengyi (2019) Identification of Internet platform employment. Social Sciences Digest, 2, 77–79.
- 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.
- Zhao, Pei (2018) “Platforms, information and individuals : Characteristics and legal connotation of sharing economy.” Global Law Review, 4, 69–86.
- 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.
10.7202/1072349ar