atypical employment
Recently Published Documents

Crowdwork is a new form of digitally enabled work in which organizations assign tasks to an anonymous group of workers via platform intermediaries. For crowdworkers, crowdwork offers both opportunities and risks. On the one side, crowdworkers enjoy high flexibility on when, where, and how much to work. On the other side, risks comparable to other forms of atypical employment arise: no labor regulation, unstable income, and uncertainty about whether enough tasks are available. Regulation of working hours lies within the crowdworkers’ own authority. Also, crowdwork in industrialized nations is often conducted during leisure times as a side-job to some other kind of employment. In accordance with Conservation of Resources Theory, we state that when leisure time gets used up with crowdwork, regeneration cannot occur and health declines. On a sample of N=748 German crowdworkers recruited from four different platform types, we analyzed whether participation in crowdwork is linked to increased somatic symptoms compared to regularly employed personnel. We found that crowdworkers show significantly increased somatic symptoms as compared to a German norm sample, that are stable across different kinds of tasks and platforms, gender, and age groups, and that is statistically due to the extent of participation in crowdwork. Specifically, we found that total work hours per week were not associated with an increase in somatic symptoms, but we did find associations with strain-based work–family conflict and the primary motivation to do crowdwork being to earn money. Consequences for research and labor regulations are discussed.

AbstractIt is well known that German and Spanish labour markets are quite different from a macro point of view. In this paper, we look at these markets through the lenses of individual unstable spells. These include all forms of atypical employment (such as temporary contracts and mini-jobs) as well as unemployment. This combined unstable state captures a fuller picture of the individual experience of volatile income and uncertain employment status than unemployment alone. We find that the survival rates of unstable spells in the two countries are much more similar than those from unemployment. This suggests that the usual focus on unemployment stocks and durations exaggerates the contrast between the two countries in terms of workers’ experience of instability. We place these findings in the context of very similar aggregate shocks in the two countries and different policy choices on labour market reforms.

This article provides an analysis of the jurisprudence concerning the discriminatory nature of a fixed-term employment contract with a particular employee, while other employees in a similar position are subject to indefinite employment contracts.

This paper explores the transformation of the German employment and industrial relations model from a political economy approach. Using the IAB Establishment Panel, the evolution of atypical employment and the coverage of the dual system of industrial relations is analysed in different groups of firms. Additionally, using a shift-share technique, we estimate the impact of the change in the employment structure on this process. The results reveal that once institutional constraints were relaxed, firms across the whole economy increased their use of flexible work and individualized the wage bargaining. Moreover, our findings suggest that structural change played a minor role in the process.

Problem setting. Nowadays one of the little-studied forms of atypical employment in the science of labor law is on-call work. At the end of 2020, the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Agriculture of Ukraine prepared a draft Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Labor Code of Ukraine to regulate some non-standard forms of employment”, which proposed the construction of a zero-hours contract. This was the second “attempt” to introduce the construction of such an employment contract. If we analyze the definition and content of the zero-hours contract contained in the project, we can see that it does not apply to the contract with zero working hours, nor to the contract “minimum-maximum”. This raises a number of questions about its legal regulation and its applicability in practice. Analysis of resent researches and publications. The legal regulation of atypical employment has been analysed by S. Golovin, I. Kiselev, A. Lushnikov, M. Lushnikova, D. Morozov, O. Motsna, N. Nikitina, O. Protsevskyy, O. Rymkevych, V. Soifer, O. Yaroshenko. At the same time, the scientific literature has not yet developed uniform approaches to defining on-call work, the agreements that apply to it, and possible ways of its legal regulation. Аrticle’s main body. “On-call work” is a generalizing concept in relation to both “zero hours” and “minimummaximum” contracts. Based on the etymological meaning of the word “challenge” – a request or demand to appear somewhere, “work on call implies that the employee performs labor functions only when he is invited (called) by the employer. What the minimum-maximum and zero-hour contracts have in common is that the employer has no obligation to hire the employee. The zero-hours contract, which was presented in the draft, does not fully apply to contracts with zero working hours, nor to contracts “minimum-maximum”, and in our opinion, its legal structure needs careful refinement. Conclusions and prospects for the development. In modern conditions, a contract on call can be attractive only to people who are unstable to work (for example, students, retirees, housewives) or those who are looking for an additional source of income. Therefore, we believe that the developers of regulations that will regulate the relations arising from non-standard forms of employment, it would be more appropriate to pay attention to the contract “minimum-maximum”, which is a more optimal form for regulating work on call. The introduction of a domestic employment contract on call will contribute to the legalization of this type of labor relations, while, in our opinion, the protective function of labor law should remain a priority in relation to the economic function.

The main objective of the following study is to introduce readers to the issue of the 2nd National Scientific Conference in the series “Atypical Employment Relations” organized on 3 October 2019 by the Centre for Atypical Employment Relations of the University of Lodz. The consequence of extending the right of coalition to persons performing paid work outside the employment relationship was that they were guaranteed important collective rights, which until 1 January 2019 were reserved primarily for employees. The rights which Polish legislator ensured to non-employees include the right to equal treatment in employment due to membership in a trade union or performing trade union functions; the right to bargain with a view to the conclusion of collective agreement and other collective agreements; the right to bargain to resolve collective disputes and the right to organize strikes and other forms of protest, as well as the right to protect union activists. The author positively assesses the extension of collective rights to people engaged in gainful employment outside the employment relationship, noting a number of flaws and shortcomings of the analyzed norms. The manner of regulating this matter, through the mechanism of referring to the relevant provisions regulating the situation of employees, the statutory equalization of the scope of collective rights of non-employees with the situation of employees, the lack of criteria differentiating these rights, as well as the adopted model of trade union representation based on company trade unions, not taking into account the specific situation of people working for profit outside the employment relationship, are the reasons why the amendment to the trade union law is seen critically and requires further changes.

"Employers’ liability for damages is an extremely strict, no-fault liability. In practically all cases, employers are liable for employment-related damages suffered by employees. Rules on employers’ liability for damages has been changed in many aspects by the Hungarian code of labour law in the private sector, Act I of 2012 on the Labour Code (hereinafter referred to as Labour Code). These changes have introduced some, generally private law institutions into the assessment of liability, such as the foreseeability clause. The application of these rules raises a lot of questions even in typical employment relationships, while for atypical employment relationships it is especially true. We must realize that the system of the employers’ liability for damages has been designed for conventional employment relationships. The purpose of this presentation and study is to review to what extent the rules governing employers’ liability for damages may be applied for atypical employment relationships unobjectionably, e.g. remote working, or for atypical elements of typical employment such as home office."

The paper investigates the issue of the unity of labor law in the context of development of legalization of so-called new, atypical forms of employment in European countries and their forthcoming (and partially already completed) legalization in the Russian Federation. The author has analized some negative features of atypical forms of employment, the preservation of which can threaten the unity and integrity of labor law. the paper highlights the inadmissibility of reducing the uniform standard of labor rights and focuses on problems in the institution of labour remuniration and protection. On the basis of the analysis of elements characterizing the unity of labor law, the author describes deviations from the classical features of labor relations that sometimes lead to shifting employers’ (entrepreneurial) risk on the person involved in hired labor.The author concludes that the extension of the scope of application of the provisions of Chapter 53.1 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation (albeit in a very limited scope) to employees working in government authorities and the public sector is a very disturbing trend. Traditionally, the budget sphere is seen as low-paid stable employment. The introduction of non-permanent, atypical employment into the public sector reduces the low level of employment rights of employees in the public sector. The development of atypical forms of employment not only actively affect the informal employment sector, but also invade the field of “traditional” relations, setting incorrect directions of HR policies. In this regard, acts adopted by the legislator in the case of legalization of one of the atypical forms of employment must be strictly correlated with the fundamental principles of labor law, the concept of a uniform labor relation and basic rights of the employee, which will prevent the destruction of the unity of labor law.