Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Mar 2024

Platform Work: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

As members know, if they are joining remotely, they must to do so only from within the Leinster House complex. Apologies have been received from Deputy Matt Shanahan.

Today, we will discuss platform work. Platform work is a form of employment in which organisations or individuals use an online platform to access other organisations or individuals to solve specific problems or provide specific services in exchange for payment. Platform work is sometimes referred to as the “gig economy” and is in common areas, such as providing taxi, freelance delivery and home services. Concerns have arisen regarding the classification of some platform workers as self-employed and the impact this may have on their labour rights and social protections usually afforded to employees.

I am pleased we have the opportunity to consider these matters further with the following representatives. From SIPTU we have Ms Teresa Hannick, services division organiser; from Eurofound we have Mr. Ivailo Kalfin, executive director, and Dr. Dragos Adascalitei – apologies if I mispronounced that – research officer; and from Social Justice Ireland we have Ms Susanne Rogers, research and policy analyst, and Ms Mansi Rawat, junior research and policy analyst.

Before we begin, as I always do, I will explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practices of the Houses as regards references that may be made to another person in evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

The opening statements have been circulated to all members. To commence our consideration of the matter, I invite Ms Hannick to make opening remarks on behalf of SIPTU.

Ms Teresa Hannick

SIPTU welcomes the opportunity to appear before this committee to comment on platform work. As some members may be aware, SIPTU is the largest trade union in Ireland and the SIPTU services division represents thousands of workers in various services sectors across the island of Ireland.

Platform work, which is sometimes called gig work, is a relatively new phenomenon regarding the technological solutions it uses, but it is in fact part of a general increase in non-standard forms of employment. All these forms share the similar issues of casualisation of work, externalisation of social costs and a general rise of precarious work.

The standard operating model of platform companies assumes that their workers are mere independent contractors. This allows the platforms to externalise social costs: they avoid paying for social contributions, other employee-related fees and certain taxes. At the same time, it means that such workers do not benefit from any rights such as sick leave or unemployment benefits while bearing the financial risk associated with the job, for example, car maintenance costs. Platform work is not a distinct sector of the economy. The workers usually perform tasks that have existed for decades, such as on-demand transport, deliveries, content creation, programming, click-working, engineering and caring, where the only real difference between platform and traditional workers is how they are hired and controlled through positive and negative incentives based on data.

On the one hand, it means that platform workers should not be treated differently from the rest of the workforce in their sector. On the other hand, it also implies that the platform work model can spread to many more sectors, with other transport sub-sectors being prime candidates. The platform model already impacts traditional companies through unfair competition, as platform companies avoid paying due taxes and social contributions.

A 2021 survey by the European Trade Union Institute, ETUI, on Internet and platform work gathered information from 14 EU countries, one of which was Ireland, about the number of people who use the Internet and digital labour platforms as a source of income. Ireland had the second-highest percentage of respondents who were platform workers and had a higher-than-average intensity. The ETUI report also found that lower-skilled tasks were more common in Ireland, with transport and delivery the most reported and with these workers engaged in this form of work on at least a monthly basis. On-location platform work was the most commonly found in Ireland.

The report further found that platform work was found to be an add-on to off-line work and not a replacement for it. Platform workers reported working about ten hours a week, regardless of any other form of employment. Wages varied between €8 an hour for delivery work and €15 for professional remote work. For most of the platform workers, this form of work provided half or less of their annual income. The report shows, though, that these types of jobs resulted in high staff turnover, short-hour jobs and delivered low-income levels and that many workers were not optimistic that the platform economy could offer a solution to people who do not have or are unable to get jobs in the traditional economy. Many platform workers moved in and out of this type of work very quickly.

Every day in SIPTU, we are experiencing first-hand the difficulties our members are facing working in platform work. Multiple reports have exposed the precariousness of platform work. The following issues have been identified by our members in relation to platform companies: low earnings; workers being denied their rights to organise; occupational health and safety breaches; bogus self-employment; a lack of social protection, including sick leave; arbitrary deactivations and a lack of grievance mechanisms; non-transparent organisation of work based on algorithms and monitoring; algorithmic biases leading to discrimination; competitive pressure among workers; avoidance of liability by the platforms; and a lack of access to sanitary facilities.

SIPTU has been involved with the European Trade Union Confederation, ETUC, and its federations, including the European Transport Workers' Federation, UNI Europa, IndustriALL and the European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions, on a campaign for all platform workers to have access to fair pay, decent working conditions and social protection. Platform workers are entitled to correct employment classification. Multiple court cases in Europe and beyond have proven that the model used by platform companies has nothing to do with independence and flexibility for the workers. Correct classification will give the workers social protection, a fair hourly wage and other labour rights, while still allowing for flexibility concerning working hours. The workers should be treated as their colleagues in similar jobs that work for a traditional employer.

Bogus self-employment in platform work must be contested. It is time that platforms take on the responsibilities they have avoided for so long. The reversal of the burden of proof must accompany the presumption of employment status, that is, it will be up to the platform company to prove that the worker is not an employee. Such an approach strengthens the position of the weaker party, which in this case is the worker.

Platform workers have the right to fair pay and decent working conditions. Platform workers must be paid in line with the minimum wage regulations and bargaining agreements, including holiday pay and extra pay for unsocial hours. The calculation of wages for on-location workers must be based on an hourly rate, not by task. Workers spend a substantial share of their working time waiting for orders or tasks and they cannot use this time for any other activity.

Similarly, platform companies must be responsible for the occupational health and safety of their workers. On-location platform workers in the transport sector must be given proper safety instructions when they take the job and have access to adequate protective gear, free of charge. The platform companies must cover the maintenance costs of their vehicles. The workers must have access to sanitary facilities. Unfortunately, we still come across cases where they are not allowed to use restaurant toilets. At the same time, the platform companies do not provide any alternative option, which clearly violates workers’ right to dignity.

Platform companies must take responsibility. Where companies do not cover their share of social contributions, it allows them to continue to avoid taking responsibility and have society cover the risks. Like any other employer, they must respect employment legislation and regulations and should make social insurance contributions into the social insurance fund. They should also have to comply with fiscal laws, for example, concerning VAT. Otherwise, they benefit from an unfair competitive advantage in comparison with employers that are in line with existing regulations.

The recent failure to bring about a European directive to protect platform workers is extremely disappointing for us all. Millions of workers will continue to be forced into bogus self-employment after a small number of countries torpedoed the chance to find a deal on the platform work directive. We must not ignore these workers just because the directive has been prevented from moving forward. Our Government has a responsibility to ensure all workers, including platform workers, are protected. It should work with trade unions and take action to protect these vulnerable workers and end the scandal of bogus self-employment.

The platform economy model is spreading quickly, generating exciting opportunities for our economy. However, this cannot be an excuse to step back and undermine the solid set of workers’ rights that Irish workers enjoy. I thank the committee members for their attention and I will be happy to answer any follow-up questions.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Ms Hannick. I now invite Mr. Kalfin to make his opening remarks.

Mr. Ivailo Kalfin

I thank the committee for the invitation to speak on behalf of Eurofound. We research in the field of working and living conditions and social dialogue. We have done extensive work on platform workers and a great deal of comparative analysis across European countries. My colleague in the agency whose work focuses on this issue in particular, Dr. Adascalitei, and I will be happy to respond to questions from the members later.

Platform work is not a new phenomenon. We have research dating back to 2010 and even before. These practices existed then, but the size of platform work and the number of people involved in this area increased dramatically with the development of digital technologies. This was especially the case after the Covid crisis and all the disturbances this produced in the labour market. When we speak about the definition of "platform workers", it is not clear what this is. We do not have a clear definition across Europe of who is a platform worker. We usually have an intermediary, which is usually a digital platform, between the service provider and the consumer of the service. This is platform work. Then we also have a number of differences. I refer to how many hours a worker spends working on platforms, what share of the worker's income is received from working on platforms, etc. The definition in this regard, then, is still not there. We have national examples of dealing with this issue across Europe, which create further inequalities and problems in the labour market.

Types of platform work include on-location platform work, delivery services, taxi drivers, etc., and online platform work. In terms of size, our research shows that back in 2022, on average, about 2.4% of the working population in Europe engaged in providing online services, while 1.9% engaged in providing services through on-location digital platforms.

The platform economy provides a number of benefits and a number of challenges. The benefits are that it gives more opportunities for people to have an additional income and better access to consumer services. It further opens labour opportunities. My colleague from SIPTU mentioned a number of challenges for people whose income is over-dependent on platform work. This is especially the case when people spend most of their time working on platforms. There are issues with the integrity of the labour market, contributions to the social protection system and the working conditions as the legislation is still being drafted. There are also problems with representation and giving voice to people involved in these types of services.

When we look at the national experiences in regulating the social services, we see several issues that come to the attention of law makers at a national level. The first is the status of the platform workers. The question centres on who is supposed to be classed as a platform worker and is supposed to have most of their income related to platform work. If it creates a dependence on the platform work then eventually the status has to be that of a platform worker. If not much time and a higher percentage of the income is not linked to participation in platform systems, this might mean the person is classed as self-employed. The definition is very important because it further leads to responsibility for representation, social protection contributions, tax payments and so on.

The second area of regulation is the working conditions of platform workers. Those whose time and income are dependent on platform work should have the possibility to also be given the working conditions that are regulated in the general regulations. Otherwise, this will create something which is the opposite of a level playing field in the labour market. Regarding the representation of the platform workers, the common view is that there are employers and workers, with the self-employed having their own right to representation. This is not very clearly set out in the legislation and needs to be clarified.

Regarding national experiences, several countries in Europe are already acting and going forward. Spain is the country with the broadest law. It very clearly created conditions to enable the status of platform workers to be assessed and the responsibility of the platforms to assure the corresponding working conditions. In France, the definition of the status of platform workers is much more liberal, but France is very strong in defining working conditions and ensuring that, whatever the status, that working conditions are similar to the ones in the regulated market.

In Denmark it is very much based on social dialogue and the agreement between employers and workers' organisations. This social dialogue and strong representation is typical of the Nordic countries. In Estonia, there is also a focus on working conditions. We can see that there have different attempts across Europe to regulate at national level. We already know that there is still draft legislation at European level. This makes sense insofar as we speak about equalising conditions in the European labour market and ensuring mobility. It was close to being adopted by the European Council, before Christmas. Under the Spanish Oresidency, the Council rejected the provisional agreement with the European Parliament. On 11 March, the Council has called another meeting. If a solution can be found to the issues of the four countries opposing the legislation, we can expect European legislation on platform workers setting the very general guidelines and leaving, at national level, the exact criteria and having the active social partners negotiate the conditions for workers.

My colleague and I are ready to answer any additional questions.

Ms Susanne Rogers

Social Justice Ireland welcomes the opportunity to make a submission on platform work to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

In our policy framework for a new social contract, we call for decent jobs as part of a vibrant economy. This echoes the call of the UN sustainable development goal which calls for decent work for all. Jobs should provide decent working conditions and pay a wage that allows employees to achieve a decent standard of living. Recent decades have seen a gradual erosion in the quality and security of employment, not just in Ireland, but across the developed world.

In order to respond to issues highlighted in our submission, the Government should consider the following points. It should recognise the challenges presented by precarious employment and adopt targeted policies to address these. It should strengthen and enforce legislation to tackle job precarity and low pay. Policy should at all times seek to ensure that new jobs have reasonable pay rates, and adequate resources are provided for the labour inspectorate. The Government should increase the national minimum wage to the living wage. It should benchmark social welfare rates to 27.5% of average weekly earnings in 2024, with a view to developing a system of indexation over time. It should develop flexible working initiatives to support increased participation of vulnerable groups and those underrepresented in the labour market. Finally, Government should increase investment in lifelong learning and the upskilling of those who are unemployed, or who are at risk of unemployment.

While still relatively small in scale, platform work is an area that continues to expand and develop. Among the main issues emerging are: employment status; access to rights and entitlements for platform workers; the ownership and management of platform algorithms and consumer protection. At an international level, in an examination of the impact of the pandemic on labour markets, the OECD identified precarious working arrangements with low pay and limited, or no access to social protection, lifelong learning and collective bargaining as the trends that continue to impact the labour market.

At a national level, data from the European Trade Union Institute, ETUI, survey on Internet and platform work - and here I am echoing my colleague from SIPTU - shows that Ireland had the second highest percentage of respondents reporting platform work within the previous 12 months and that the work had a higher than average intensity. Lower-skilled tasks are more common in Ireland, with transport and delivery being the most commonly reported, with these workers engaged in this form of work on at least a monthly basis. When judged over time, CSO labour force data suggest the emergence of a greater number of workers in precarious employment situations. While the number of people employed is now higher than at any other time, just over one in five workers is a part-time worker; more than 100,000 are under-employed, that is, working part-time but with fewer hours than they are willing to work.

Data from the 2022 CSO survey on income and living conditions, SILC, indicates that 5.8% of people in employment were living in poverty in 2022. Over time, poverty figures for the working poor have remained more or less static. This reflects a persistent problem with low earnings. However, in 2022, the number increased by 40%, compared to the previous year. This is a remarkable statistic and it is important that policy makers better recognise and address this problem. The CSO SILC 2023 is due to be published tomorrow. There could be some interesting figures in that.

Social Justice Ireland is concerned that platform work will exacerbate the challenge of precarious employment and the problem of the working poor, given the aforementioned issues regarding rights and entitlements and the fact that the income from this type of work is very low. In addition, platform work can erode collective bargaining efforts, as the decentralised and individualised nature of employment relationships in the platform economy undermine traditional models of collective negotiation.

Potential opportunities associated with platform work, such as the labour market integration of disadvantaged groups and allowing women to remain connected to the labour market, have been referenced. However, it is unclear as to how the potential opportunities are being, or have been, realised.

In the context of such persistent problems, such as work poverty and low earnings, it is of great concern that according to the ETUI survey data, in Ireland, a larger proportion of workers rely on platform work as their main source of income, compared to the European average. This indicates a relatively high economic dependence on platform work. The survey also found that their income from platform work is very low and it means that a worker relying exclusively on platform work would be living below the poverty line.

Precarious work affects the ability to plan ahead and may affect the ability to enter into contracts and rental agreements as wages are unstable. There can also be extra risks to health and safety experienced by platform workers as social isolation, unconventional workplaces and work–life conflict and the algorithms to allocate tasks, monitor and evaluate workers’ performance and behaviour can undermine workers’ autonomy, job control and flexibility and result in heavier workload, exhaustion, anxiety and stress negatively affecting health and well-being.

Social Justice Ireland believes that now is the time to adopt substantial measures to address and eliminate these problems. Our commitment to the development and adoption of a living wage reflects this. Providing a living wage would alleviate the problem of low-paid employment and have a positive economic multiplier effect. Ireland has one of the highest rates of low-paid employment in the OECD. If issues regarding income adequacy are not addressed, progress in reducing the numbers of people in poverty will not be evident. Ireland has one of the highest rates of low-paid employment; it is six times the rate of Belgium, which is the best performer, and second worst behind the US.

Aside from pay rates, policy also needs to address issues of work quality and security more aggressively - increasingly so in light of the digital and green transitions that are taking place in the workplace. As the world of work changes, such as the increasing prevalence of platform work, so too must our social protection systems in order to provide support for people across the life cycle and to provide adequate support for people of working age when they find themselves in a period of unemployment. As noted earlier, both the OECD and the EU Social Protection Committee have called attention to the need for social protection systems to adapt and provide better coverage of workers in non-standard forms of employment. We look forward to further engaging with the committee on our submission.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

I thank all our witnesses for all the evidence they have given us. My first question is probably for all of them. It relates to the issue of flexibility, and I use that term very loosely. I have engaged with some of the senior executives who run these platform outfits and they tell me repeatedly - I know Ms Hannick will be very familiar with this argument - that the workers really want flexibility. They do not want to be tied down with anything awkward like a contract, they love the flexibility and have no interest in paperwork and they love the freedom of being able to work all day almost killing themselves for what amounts to probably a fraction of the minimum wage. I am not convinced by that argument. Will the witnesses outline the impact this type of work has on the person and the economy? I put that question first to Ms Hannick as she probably has more knowledge of how this affects workers.

Ms Teresa Hannick

If I had a cent for every time an employer said "Oh, the workers don't really want it", I would probably be on a yacht somewhere rather than sitting here. It is wonderful that they will not even acknowledge sometimes that these are workers, yet they say it is flexibility. There is no doubt that flexibility is an attractive part of platform work for various people. A lot of people associate platform work with delivery riders but many people working in IT are in platforms. That suits some of them.

The category of workers we have been trying to deal with may have wanted to do platform work for a brief period but there is no future in it. If that is the only employment they can get, it is not helpful to them. People who do not have a regular income cannot get a loan, even a credit union loan to put a pair of shoes on their child's feet. They cannot pay their bills regularly. That is the biggest problem we have. As all the speakers noted, we need to look at what type of work platform work is. Who delivered something to your house last week in a white van? That is the type of stuff we see. Who is the person who answered a phone call or replied to you via a website? They are the type of people we are talking about. There are people who want to be recognised and have the opportunity to have a full-time job and earn a regular income. We all spoke about precariousness. Insecurity and low pay constitute the biggest problem. Ireland is not immune to bogus self-employment. We have been dealing with it out in Donnybrook for several years, so members can imagine how easy it is for these companies that do not class themselves as employers to talk about bogus self-employment.

Mr. Ivailo Kalfin

Flexibility is important for some people. Our research has found that it is mostly women who are interested in working part time on a platform to supplement their income. It is interesting for people with disabilities who could work from home and provide some services and for highly skilled people like translators or IT specialists who are very comfortable working like that from home. To a large extent, particularly for highly skilled specialists, it might be considered self-employment. However, with regard to the massive participation of people who are dependent on one single platform for their income and who spend 40-plus hours per week working for the same platform, these people are practically dependent on this employer and this employer is not responsible for providing working conditions, social security, etc. This creates problems in the labour market. The reason there are protests against Uber and Airbnb in a number of countries in Europe is that there are employers that have to comply with the regulations while others involved in bogus self-employment say they want the freedom and their workers want the freedom to be self-employed so they are not responsible for them. This undermines the level playing field.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

Effectively, they are undermining the rate of pay because they can and the workers who are getting the rate are being undermined by people doing the same job but who are misclassified as self-employed.

Ms Susanne Rogers

I am conscious that freedom sounds brilliant. Autonomy is proven to be one of the key factors in job satisfaction, in other words, being somewhat in charge of what you do and when you do it. I am not necessarily convinced that this is autonomy in the sense that you have very specific tasks to do. It is embedding insecurity in the guise of offering choice. We fell for that with the housing assistance payment. I am not buying it. I do not agree with it. There is an element of offering access to paid employment to those who cannot access it traditionally. When we went into Covid, I was fascinated by the concept of the digital nomad - if you can work from anywhere, why not come and work here on the beach and we will give you a special visa? I got to thinking that if we do this well, digital work could transform nomadic people's access to employment but that is not the same as platform work and the gig economy.

I was at the national sustainable development goals stakeholder forum in Tullamore on Friday, which discussed businesses and business acting in sustainable ways. David McRedmond, the CEO of An Post, was at it and spoke about how it was his job to reduce costs and run a viable business. He said he could sack all of his postmen and pay people to deliver parcels on a parcel-by-parcel basis. However, he said it destroys communities and sustainability and asked who will pay the pensions of Deliveroo drivers, Amazon workers and Uber drivers. It is that externalisation of social costs.

We were at a meeting with Seán Moynihan from Alone last week. He said that we are currently talking about pensions in terms of whether we add €5 or €10 and asking what the cost of it will be. We are entering an era where people will be retiring when they are in the private rented sector so the conversation will have to be about whether we double the pension in order to put a roof over people's heads.

All of this is connected, including allowing people access to social benefits or social protection during periods of unemployment. I do not think anybody likes insecurity. It does not sit well with us in any aspect. We are not geared towards it. We are being sold the gig economy as a choice. As the Deputy said, however, an employer might say people want freedom, but employers are not in the room to give their opinion.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

They have given their opinion to me and I challenge it, which is a nice way of putting it.

My next question is for Eurofound. What is the impact of the misclassification of platform workers' employment status on tax evasion, public finances and the social protection system? Is there evidence in Ireland and across Europe that public finances are suffering due to the misclassification of workers as self-employed when they are, in fact, workers?

Dr. Dragos Adascalitei

I thank the Deputy for the question. I will note how many platform workers are currently working in Europe. When we look at the aggregate numbers, 11% of workers in Europe have performed platform work in one way or another. Out of that 11%, 2% are main platform workers. They are platform workers who derive at least 50% of their income from doing tasks on platforms and work at least 20 hours a week on those platforms. Those 2% of platform workers, as close as we can estimate, could be classified as employees. If the directive were adopted tomorrow, at least 2% of workers would be classified as employees and not self-employed.

On contributions to the social security system, tax evasion and bogus self-employment, we do not have any kind of systematic evidence at present that shows how much in additional funds would be added to social security systems were platform workers classified as employees. However, we know for sure that a large amount of unpaid social security contributions come from the platform economy because we do not even know, and governments do not have good estimates of, how many people are actually engaged in platform work. When we talk about platform work, we forget that it is not only about delivery drivers and taxi drivers. Platform work is much larger. Quite a large number of people who do online platform work derive an income from such work, but their incomes are not necessarily counted towards social security contributions, unemployment contributions, pensions and so on. The issue of non-declared income in the platform economy is much broader than on-location platform workers because a large number of workers perform online platform work, whose incomes are not necessarily counted towards social security contributions.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

That is a very important point. When we think about platform workers, we tend to think about the doorbell ringing but it is right around us. It reminds me of the very start of the privatisation of our public services, when groups of certain professional workers within the public service thought that while the cleaning might be outsourced, they would not be outsourced as they were professionals. It now affects every grade, group and category of worker right across the public service. Initially, it was a case of this being something that happens in the private sector and it would not come to the public sector. People in the public sector then thought it only affected unskilled or semi-skilled workers and professionals would be safe. It is the same thing. We tend to think of platform workers as being delivery riders but it is right across the spectrum. It is something that is very invasive. It now impacts on many aspects of work and the economy.

My next question is for Ms Hannick. There have been a lot of initiatives aimed at improving working conditions in recent years. Most of those cannot apply, as far as I can see, to those workers who have been misclassified. Sick pay, any increases in annual leave and all of that, cannot apply to them. Do any of our guests, and Ms Hannick in particular, have a view on the plan of action on collective bargaining coverage, which we know is coming through the directive on adequate minimum wages? How can this be applied to platform workers? The witnesses will be well aware of Sinn Féin's position on the right to organise. We believe workers have to be provided with, and legislators have to legislate for, the right to organise. How can these workers be organised as it stands? Is there a legislative change, or change that could be brought in through the plan of action, which might make it easier for those workers to get organised?

Ms Teresa Hannick

It is difficult to organise these workers because as much as they class themselves as workers under current employment legislation, everybody classes them as self-employed. As the Deputy correctly said, they do not have any rights to any of the employment legislation in this country, so it is difficult to organise them. The key issue is probably the categorisation of workers. As we see it, there should be a reversal and the onus should be on the employer to prove such workers are not employees. We spent the best part of a decade dealing with construction, in particular proving people were in employment in that sector. I will explain what people who have worked for the same employer for years lose out on in that regard. I know of a woman who has lost out on maternity payments and maternity leave protection for two of her children. That is the kind of level we are talking about. She has lost those years of pension and PRSI entitlements. This company is facing a bill from the State where the amount it has to pay is unbelievable. There is evidence, even if it is generated down to where people have proven to be in bogus self-employment, of how much is lost from it.

As my colleague said, I am conscious 11 March is another day we are looking at when there will be some movement on the EU directive on platform workers. If these people were classified as workers, that would be helpful. The directive on the minimum wage and the right to organise is important. We do not have the right to organise in employments that recognise their workers, so it is nearly impossible for platform workers. If people are relying on an algorithm or somebody to give them work, they will not put their head above the parapet. It is very difficult. The people we dealt with who tried to do some work a couple of years ago moved out of those employments because they were no longer getting work. It is nearly impossible to say somebody has been blacklisted when they are not an employee.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

That is a very interesting point. Every day of the week workers are effectively being blacklisted but because they are not classified as workers, they cannot be blacklisted as workers.

Deputy David Stanton

I thank the witnesses for their presentations and the submissions they have made on this issue. I have done some reading on it. One of the things that strikes me, as Deputy O'Reilly said, is because the type of workers involved are people who do not have an awful lot of power, they do not have much of a say. This issue has gone under the radar quite a bit for a lot of people. It has not really hit the headlines. We had a Valentine's Day strike but there has not been much apart from that, except for reports of workers being physically abused, robbed and so on.

We have also received some very recent communication, in the past hour, from the European Language Students Union of Ireland, which references feudalism-----

An Cathaoirleach

I remind the Deputy that communication has not officially come to the committee. We have not agreed to accept it. If the Deputy is quoting from it-----

Deputy David Stanton

I know. I have just seen it and read it. I got it. It makes all kinds of allegations and accusations. Maybe I should not mention it, but it is quite concerning-----

An Cathaoirleach

I am happy to discuss that in private session. The Deputy can refer to it if he wants but-----

Deputy David Stanton

I just want to refer to coercive control and things like that.

An Cathaoirleach

-----I remind him that letter will not be subject to privilege-----

Deputy David Stanton

I know that.

An Cathaoirleach

-----because we have not accepted it as of yet.

Deputy David Stanton

Fair enough. I thank the Cathaoirleach for his guidance on that. I am concerned about other alleged activities that may be going on because these workers are so vulnerable.

The Eurofound website features initiatives on the various European countries where Ireland is mentioned.

The witnesses talked about an update of the code of practice on determining employment status in Ireland which was referring, I think, to the Code of Practice on Determining Employment Status which was issued by the Department of Social Protection in July 2021. The witnesses mentioned eight initiatives. Other countries do much more. How do we compare with other European countries in how we treat platform workers? This is with respect to Dr. Adascalitei's work on his website.

Dr. Dragos Adascalitei

That is an important question when it comes to regulation. As the Deputy rightly mentions, Ireland is using a code of practice for determining the employment status of platform workers. The main difference is that the code of practice is not binding. It can be used in court rulings but it is not binding as a directive or the transposition of a directive would be in Irish law. The second main difference is the criteria used in the code of practice versus the directive. The directive has much more precise criteria for determining the control that platforms have in the relationship with the platform workers, whereas the code of practice proposes a series of tests to determine whether the platform worker is self-employed or is in a relationship of dependent employment. The main added value of the directive is clarifying much better in which situations a platform worker is in a relationship of dependent employment.

In addition to that, the directive goes much further in clarifying, for example, what rights platform workers, both employed and self-employed, have when it comes to the use of algorithmic management systems, which we know from our evidence have a huge impact on the working conditions of platform workers, as well as detailing the conditions under which platform workers can engage in, for example, collective bargaining. One innovation of the directive is that it proposes a set of rules with respect to collective bargaining with platform workers. A much less-discussed aspect of the directive is that the Commission has also proposed a set of guidelines for collective bargaining for the self-employed, which would respond, for example, to the concerns that emerge in competition law when it comes to collective bargaining for the self-employed.

Deputy David Stanton

Has Ms Hannick any idea of how many platform workers are in Ireland, even a rough idea? I notice there are many different types of platform workers, from rideshare services, to food delivery, freelance marketplace, home rental schemes, task-based services, online tutoring, paid care services, microtask platforms and so on. There are so many different types. As I think Ms Hannick said earlier, this is relatively new but expanding at a quick rate. Has she any idea of the percentage? Maybe others will have it.

Ms Teresa Hannick

I would not have an up-to-date figure. My colleagues have talked about-----

Deputy David Stanton

I think about 2%.

Ms Teresa Hannick

Some 2% is roughly what was said. The Deputy is quite right that we are even finding people in the care industry working on the platform, which is concerning, considering what we were talking about earlier.

Deputy David Stanton

Could I ask about the EU directive on transparent and predictable working conditions, which was adopted in 2018? What impact is that having on platform workers? Could it be more impactful?

Dr. Dragos Adascalitei

That is a very good question. It can have an impact on working conditions for platform workers. We already have European experiences that show that the transposition of the directive into national law can impact more broadly on the employment relationship. Italy has transposed the directive in an innovative way. The experience from Italy is interesting because, in transposing the directive, Italy has gone for setting rules with regard to the transparency of algorithmic management systems that apply not solely to the platform work, though they apply to platform workers, but to employees more broadly too. The directive can be quite impactful in changing the way algorithmic management systems are used in the platform economy.

Deputy David Stanton

Is Dr. Adascalitei saying that if the 2019 directive was fully transposed here, it would have a major impact?

Dr. Dragos Adascalitei

It can have an impact. It remains the choice of individual member states as to how they choose to transpose the directive.

Deputy David Stanton

The issue of legal definitions comes up as a critique of the current directive that the Council and European Parliament have agreed on at this stage. I know 11 March is another red letter day for this with respect to coming to a decision. What are the problems with the legal definitions and how can they be addressed with respect to employment?

Dr. Dragos Adascalitei

There is no common definition of platform work across Europe. This is one of the attempts to do it in order to assure the mobility of the labour market in Europe. The original proposal of the Commission was to have five criteria and, when two of these five criteria are met, the worker would be considered an employee, not self-employed. Under the Spanish Presidency, in December, it was expanded to seven criteria, which were rejected by the member states. It now goes more towards having a set of criteria but more freedom at national level to define them clearly. In general, what we are doing in research is to see how much of the working time of the person is on platform and what percentage of income comes from the platforms. I would say these are the major criteria. Whatever shape and form the others take, these two would stay.

Deputy David Stanton

I read that migrant workers form a large part of this workforce here and, because they are migrant workers, some of them may not be working legally. Because of the language difference and because they are from a different country, they can be vulnerable. Would any of the witnesses like to comment on that?

Ms Teresa Hannick

Migrant workers who may not have documents or work permits to work are vulnerable workers. They are exploited by every sector of this economy, not just platform work. It is particularly easy to be exploited in platform work because of the lack of regulation and there is no payslip when a payment is made. It is much easier for these people to be exploited. Language is a difficulty. We talked about low-skilled workers. Not having fluency in the English language can be a difficulty for many people. It is a problem that people like this are exploited. It does not matter if they are platform workers but it is much easier for people to exploit platform workers.

Deputy David Stanton

The three main points of the directive that is being discussed at the moment include presumption of employment relationship and the algorithms, which we spoke about. The third is transparency in data protection. Could the witnesses expand a little on what is meant by that?

Mr. Ivailo Kalfin

Basically, companies are dealing with the personal data of their workers and they have responsibilities for this personal data. When we do not have a clear definition of whether this is an employee, the responsibility for this personal data is not exactly there. The idea of the legislation is to define clear responsibility regarding protection of the personal data. It is also in line with the transparency of the algorithms. The workers need to know how decisions are taken. The self-employed need to know what happens with their personal data. It should be clear who is responsible and in charge of that. There is currently no clear classification of this.

Deputy David Stanton

We have spoken a lot in this committee about the advent of AI, artificial intelligence, and its impact. We are talking about algorithms. I have read about how workers can be dismissed using algorithms, AI and so on. Is that something that would concern the witnesses? Is it actually happening? Have they evidence of that?

Ms Teresa Hannick

Workers, because of these algorithms in AI, have no access to a grievance mechanism with a human control. One is dealing with a set of answers. In one of the cases when one talks about the algorithm, the Italian courts ruled against a food delivery company rider-ranking algorithm, citing it was a violation of workers' laws. When a rider failed to give 24 hours' notice that he was cancelling a shift, the algorithm downgraded him and give him no work, and it kept getting worse. Neither the algorithm not AI can tell whether the person is out sick. The rider had employment protection such as parental leave or force majeure. They just downgraded him once he was absent. The difficulty they are finding is that there is no human contact and there is no HR. Many of these companies will ask why they would have HR given that they are not employers. They have an algorithm which has dealt with it. There is probably another platform worker who is doing the clink work on it - feeding the data into it. It is a problem.

Deputy David Stanton

It seems we could bring forward many of the proposals in the directive without it being transposed at all.

Deputy Mick Barry

I will start by talking about what I was doing on Valentine's night. Before all cover their ears, I took a walk down to the spire where I met a large group of Deliveroo workers who had attended a protest organised by the English Language Students Union, which has done sterling work on this issue. They marched to Dáil Éireann. They marched elsewhere afterwards, but I went with them as far as Dáil Éireann. The key point they were highlighting was that whereas they were paid €4.29 per delivery before 2021, they are now being paid €2.15. In other words, in the space of a few years their wage has been cut in half. In fact, some workers raised the point that it works out closer to €1 a delivery, but €2.15 is the official rate. Other issues that came up included some of the points raised here such as pensions; getting pushed out of the picture in relation to social welfare sick pay; violence, which has been an issue over the years and has got worse since the riots in Dublin before Christmas; gangs trying to rob bikes; and racism. Their main demand was that their delivery rate should be increased to €5 a delivery. I strongly support that, but I also want to look at the more general background to the rights for these workers. I want to be clear about the role of the State and the Government in this regard. I have a couple of questions I would like to ask. My understanding is that the platform workers directive has been debated and discussed in Europe for well over five years and there have been at least six rounds between the European Council and the Parliament. The first draft was probably the most worker-friendly draft. The idea that there was a presumption of employment and platform workers would be entitled to the rights of all other workers unless the employer could show that this was not the case, and they would have to opt out actively. My understanding is that at that stage in the negotiations, the State was opposed to that most-worker friendly position. Can the witnesses confirm whether that is correct?

Mr. Ivailo Kalfin

We cannot. We cannot discuss individual countries' positions on that. The directive appeared at the end of 2021. There were two stages of consultation with the social partners and the larger public before that. In this original proposal of the Commission, as I mentioned, there were five criteria. When two of those are met, the workers have to be acknowledged as employees. There was exactly the presumption that they are employees until the platforms proposed that they are not; that they are self-employed.

Deputy Mick Barry

Would the SIPTU representative like to comment on whether the Irish State blocked and opposed the most worker-friendly version of the directive?

Ms Teresa Hannick

I do not have any direct evidence of it but I am led to believe, in even the most recent directive, the difficulty was with the Irish Government. I should not use the term "the dirty dozen", which our colleagues in Europe used to call those who halted the last one. That is our understanding but, unfortunately, I cannot confirm one way or the other. I do not run in those circles.

Deputy Mick Barry

It is my understanding as well that Ireland was prominent in blocking the most worker-friendly version of this. Then there was a second version. The level of lobbying that was going on with Macron, etc., has come out since in the Uber files and a watered-down version of the first version came up. It is my understanding that the Irish Government was in an alliance with a number of other states to block that second version as well.

As this directive has progressed, the Irish Government has been more a part of the problem than a part of the solution. The level of comment about that in the Irish media has been shameful. It is not a widely known fact. It is not something that a light has been shone on. A light should be shone on it and it should be a widely known fact. The Government should not be allowed to get away with trying to project an image of caring and being worker friendly when we have an example of a practical change that could have been made but was blocked by the Government, along with other states. It blocked the most worker-friendly version and watered it down. We are at a point now where only four states - Germany, France, Greece and Estonia - are supporting the least worker-friendly version of this. At the meeting next Monday, the idea is to try to turn that around.

The role of the Irish Government has not been honourable in relation to this. There is a certain cloudiness around all of this. If Ministers or Government TDs want to come out and challenge me on it, I am happy to debate it with them. I have no problem in doing so.

I am all for any steps forward that can be made from legislation but at the end of the day, as is always the case for working people, it boils down to the level of worker organisation and the amount of pressure that can be developed from below.

I encourage trade unions which are taking this up to look at the issue of communication and language. I found it difficult to communicate with workers as we marched from the spire to the Dáil. The main languages would have been Brazilian Portuguese and Latin American Spanish. That is a priority issue. Organisation of workers and languages is a key central issue there. Ms Hannick might want to comment but I will leave my comments there.

Ms Teresa Hannick

I would agree with Deputy Barry on the organisation of workers. I would stress I am no legal expert. I have sometimes the concern that we have to rely too much on legislation to win rights where I believe workers themselves have a better level of power.

It is difficult to organise a campaign among a group of workers, especially, as the Deputy said, a vulnerable group of workers like this. Language is a difficult. The Deputy is quite right. It is Portuguese and South American Spanish that is mostly spoken.

Given the nature of work, there is a huge amount of movement. People are in it for a while and then they go. It can be difficult.

It is something we try to work at. It is not that anybody would try to leave a work group behind. It can be difficult because of the voluntarism associated with industrial relations in this country. We talked earlier about the right to organise. We have no right to organise. We have no right for any employer to come in, even if the employer recognises them as employees. I am currently in a row with a body that gets some State funding. I am trying to get in a third party so that the workers can be represented. As the Deputy can imagine, it is ten times more difficult when they are not even recognised as workers.

The Deputy is quite correct when he says that people feel vulnerable in the work they are doing. I would totally agree with the Deputy on that one.

Senator Paul Gavan

I thank all of our guests for coming in today to shine a light on this shocking practice. We can see it ten minutes from here, on Camden Street, on any evening. I saw it last night. Young people gathered on their bicycles outside of these fast-food outlets waiting, like the old hiring fairs of 100 years ago, for a fare.

I was struck by one of the comments from the English Language Students Union. It is worth putting on record what it says in its letter.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator, just-----

Senator Paul Gavan

I hear the Cathaoirleach. I will not put the committee in any difficulty, I assure him. The letter states:

At the moment, in its current form, platform work represents a return to feudalism in Europe, this time controlled by AI, algorithms and offshore hedge funds instead of lords and kings - cyber-serfdom, if you will.

We heard Ms Hannick talk about how someone can be relegated and effectively sacked by AI. That brings it home particularly clearly.

I will also quote one worker who described how they earn €3.81 for a delivery. The person stated:

The lady on this takeaway always makes us wait almost 10 mins for the order, the traffic on that road is one way system, so I have to go around to the roundabout to then go down to the costumer, a lot of red lights across this route too,

Even though it is not over the bridge, this would take me 20 mins to travel and come back,

10 mins waiting

20 mins travel

Total of a 30 mins delivery for just £3.81,

That’s if the costumers answers the door,

If they don’t we have to wait 10 mins and still get paid £3.81.

I hope none of us here would deny that what we are talking about here is gross exploitation.

I want to take up the really good point Deputy Stanton made, which is that we do not have to wait for an EU directive. I am not optimistic about the EU directive, given the ideological forces at play at the moment. Why do our guests think that governments for the past number of years have not acted on the need for this legislation? In particular, is there some kind of ideological objection to the idea of assuming that a worker is an employee? That seems to me to be at the heart of fixing this issue. If we look at the examples our colleagues from Eurofound have given, that seems to be how other countries have tackled this. To develop that question, the witnesses have cited a few examples, including Denmark and Spain. Would they like to comment on best practice in that regard? We seem to be behind the curve on this.

Mr. Ivailo Kalfin

I very much agree with the Senator that there is already legislation at national level. It is very much needed because there are very divergent court decisions across Europe. Looking only at the court decisions that happen, the different practices and the divergences increase further. The legislation kind of creates a more predictable environment where you could eventually carry out policies.

The Senator is absolutely right that there are some ideological reasons for opposing this that we see in some member states. This is the juxtaposition between legislation and a fully free market and a lack of total legislation in order to stimulate business innovation and business activities. In this particular sector, that is not a new one or a growing one. We already have the hard evidence that there are problems. Again, there are benefits and opportunities with platform work. These have to be recognised, but there are problems that exist and they are very clear.

The Senator asked about efficiency in the different member states. The ones that have already adopted legislation are the ones that have their experience. They can adapt this legislation afterwards. Where there is no legislation, I would not say you help very much your labour market. It is not-----

Senator Paul Gavan

We often hear, though, from people on the right about the need for an agile economy. Presumably, the economy in Denmark has collapsed now that there is a collective bargaining agreement.

Mr. Ivailo Kalfin

Exactly.

Senator Paul Gavan

Presumably, in Spain, there is no more delivery of food because there are proper terms and conditions. This argument from the right is absolute nonsense, is it not?

Mr. Ivailo Kalfin

Yes. Looking also at labour mobility, you do not make a more attractive labour market. People are not rushing to countries where there is no legislation and there are totally free markets. We already have the hard evidence that the lack of legislation creates problems, not only for the employees - the workers - but also for the business. As regards a business which is under regulation, we see this with the case of hospitality businesses. During the pandemic, it was a matter of helping to maintain the jobs. After the pandemic, people disappeared from the businesses and many of them went to this gig economy, possibly because you have a regulated business which is much less competitive than all forms of circumventing the labour legislation, and that is a race to the bottom.

Ms Teresa Hannick

I think Mr. Kalfin might have been a trade unionist. There is an ideological difficulty with this in various ways. Four years ago, when the pandemic began, I think the position of delivery drivers in particular became an issue. We had a lot of nice soft talk from members of the Government parties about what it was right to do. Any kind of employee or worker protection legislation, even if it is an EU directive, seems to be weakly transposed in this country. I am recalling that this year it will be the ninth anniversary of the closure of Clery's. We and many workers called for a change as regards protection of workers in a liquidation situation. It has been nine years. There have been various reports. We have had high-profile closures since then, for example, Debenhams. There was an awful situation there. We have had one this week with the Body Shop. There is still no change. Still those workers are the last to know. Still those workers get an email, a text or a notice to say it is closing tomorrow. While everybody is out crying in the streets and saying this is a terrible thing to happen to workers, in here people do not want to do the business, and that is our difficulty. Ideologically, I think there is an issue with protecting these workers.

Senator Paul Gavan

Well said.

Ms Susanne Rogers

The recent periodic review by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was published just this week, I think, and it recommends that the Irish State take all necessary measures to limit the use of part-time work, precarious self-employment and zero-hour contracts by creating decent employment opportunities that guarantee job security and adequate protection of workers' rights. It said the labour and social security rights of people in precarious work, including part-time work, self-employment and zero-hour contracts, must be fully guaranteed in law and in practice. Legislation is necessary. I know there is always this tension with the freedom of the market to deliver, and that is fine for market goods, but I do not think the free market can deliver on public or common goods. The free market, as much as it might want to shirk governance and legislative provision, is built on the protections the state provides and always has been. I could probably talk for the rest of the morning about the ideological aspect of this. There is that outsourcing, that privatisation and that slow erosion of the public and common good and of the solidarity we have as a community. We were chatting about this before we came in. My mother used to work in a hospital in the 1980s, making the night teas and mopping the floors. They were employed by the hospital, so if you were in hospital for six months, my mother was the last person you saw with her cup of tea every night. That was their kitchen and their area. All of that was outsourced and put out to agency work. There is a lack of community and a lack of connection. As regards the ideological nonsense that if government services are run like a business they will be more efficient, the jury is in. We can see that this has not delivered anything like what had been hoped would be delivered. We can see that this is very much not a steady foundation on which to build anything. Precarity and insecurity, be it in the health system or in any aspect of life, are really damaging. As regards the basic things like going out to work and where your money is going to come from at the end of the week, everything else sits on top of that, and if that is not secure, it will be very difficult. Like with many other issues, we are storing up trouble for the future. There is no doubt about it.

Senator Paul Gavan

To finish, I will just say we have been given a really powerful message by all the witnesses. The difficulty over the past 20 years has been that whenever there has been a competition, as it were, between the rights of workers or the rights of business, the workers have lost out every time. We can see that from the increase in precarious work. That is the issue.

An Cathaoirleach

I call Deputy Bruton.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I thank the witnesses for the presentations.

The key issue is how you define an employment relationship in these sort of arrangements. How does the EU propose to do that? The witness said it will have a list of criteria but where will the burden of proof lie? Will it be for the employer to establish the status - I presume there are things like who has control, are they integrated into their system, what obligations are on the worker and so on. The burden of proof seems to be key. In a context like that relating to Ireland, where we have the habit of bodies like the Workplace Relations Commission producing codes of practice, would that be the way it would ultimately evolve so that, over time, it would not be a fixed set of things, it would evolve with practice. I would like to understand how that would work.

The witness said rights vis-à-vis the algorithms that control people will be developed. I would be interested in hearing more about the nature of those and how we can think about that issue. The witness gave a few examples of where legislation has been proceeded with. He said that the authorities in France impose working conditions. How do they handle the issue of defining if there is an employment relationship in countries like France? Have they produced something that would set a precedent? If I am not wrong, Italy has gone a step further and essentially said any work organised through platforms automatically has labour and social protection obligations, which goes beyond the definition, and you do not prove the employment relationship, you prove whether it has been platform organised or not. How has that worked? Everyone acknowledged that there are benefits for some people. How has that impacted the opportunity for people to get opportunities through platforms in the Italian setting?

Mr. Ivailo Kalfin

I will start by answering a few of the questions, and then I will ask my colleague to elaborate on the French and Italian experiences. The burden of proof is important. In the draft European legislation, this lies with the platform. The presumption is that the workers are employees in the platform. If the platform has sufficient proof that this is not the case, then it has to bear the burden to prove it. It is close to impossible for platform workers to prove whatever because of reasons we already mentioned. They do not have proper representation, they do not have a proper voice, they do not have the room to communicate, etc. It is important that the burden of proof lies with the more powerful party, which is the platform.

On artificial intelligence regulations, it is not only that artificial intelligence is firing people, it is hiring, managing and firing people. There are cases of some companies outside of the European Union where it is already recognised - there is no human interaction. A computer hires the people, distributes the tasks and decides whether these tasks are properly performed or not according to the computer sufficiency understanding and, eventually, fires the people. The use of artificial intelligence makes no human intervention in the whole process of hiring, managing and firing a worker. This is something important which is prevented in national legislation and in the European draft directive, saying that at some point there should be a human interaction, human decision and there should be the possibility for the platform worker to address a human being, not a computer.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Is that a right acquired after you make a complaint and go through reams of unequal relationships before you get to this point? Do they have to spell out in their algorithm the principles under which it is built? Which is it? It is sort of the case that you can complain and take your chances that you will eventually find a human and they will justify the decision, or are platforms forced to design it under certain moral principles?

Mr. Ivailo Kalfin

Yes indeed. In the directive, it is about the transparency of the algorithm. The platform workers have the right to understand how decisions are taken in the algorithm.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Can a trusted partner do it on their behalf?

Mr. Ivailo Kalfin

The trusted partner is the representation. We come to the possibility to be represented by a trade union. Representation is another important issue. Some of the platforms say they can be represented but not with a trade union.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Do they have to join? Is there nobody who would act as an independent trusted partner to oversee that the platform design is fair, justifiable, meets acceptable conditions for hiring and firing and all the rest?

Mr. Ivailo Kalfin

Does the Deputy mean at corporate level or national level?

Deputy Richard Bruton

At national level. It will be tricky to get such workers organised. Is there a provision for some sort of a regulator to make sure of the position? It could be Coimisiún na Meán in Ireland, because it is taking on these responsibilities now.

Mr. Ivailo Kalfin

It is very much a national decision as to how the legislation will be enforced and how this will be controlled because, there are many differences. My colleague can elaborate on the French and Italian examples.

Dr. Dragos Adascalitei

To add to the discussion, the proposal for a directive includes a clause that requires platforms to have a human who is the ultimate decision-maker in instances in which it is about the disconnection of the platform worker from the platform. There is a broader discussion that takes place at the European level about having, ultimately, the human in command when it comes to algorithmic decisions. That is a good innovation the directive currently proposes in order to ensure that the working conditions for platform workers are improved. When it comes to France and Italy, the experiences are quite different. The French legislation completely ignores the issue of the employment relationship. It assumes everybody who does work on platforms is a self-employed individual. However, there is a body of legislation that began in 2016 that tries to address working conditions in the platform economy through collective bargaining. In 2021, France instituted a directorate called the employment and social relations authority for platforms which is responsible for setting and guiding collective bargaining in the platform economy. If I am not mistaken, there are nine sectoral collective bargaining agreements in France that cover platform workers and regulate working conditions and wages in the economy. They regulate, for example, the minimum wages delivery drivers and taxi drivers should receive on the basis of the work they do.

With respect to Italy, I am not aware of such legislation that automatically reclassifies platform workers as employees. The only legislation that seeks to do that is the Spanish legislation, the Riders' law, which deals only with a specific subsector of the platform economy, delivery drivers and riders. The Spanish legislation has come under immense pressure. It gave the government a lot of powers in regulating and addressing issues related to non-declared work and bogus self-employment in the sector. However, in Spain, there are many court cases that relate to the massive fines the Spanish state applied on location platform companies for not paying social security contributions and for having otherwise bogus self-employed workers.

Senator Marie Sherlock

I thank the Chair. I also thank all our contributors for their detailed submissions.

To my mind, as SIPTU's contribution and the other written submissions make clear today, this is not a new phenomenon. This is a new form of casual work but it is a form of casual work that SIPTU grew out of 100 years ago. It was the very foundation of its origins. In terms of the current form of platform work, there are two issues, that is, the employment relationship and the algorithmic management. I want to ask the witnesses from Eurofound about the classification of platform work. I apologise if this has already been covered. Are there any countries looking at classifying platform work as a form of work in its own right or has the debate in most countries remained that it should be either as an employee or self-employed? In that case, how do we regulate the algorithm? Understanding how platform work is being classified in other countries is important for starting that conversation.

Mr. Ivailo Kalfin

There is no classification of the platform worker, as such. It is part of the non-standard forms of work, which are new forms of work that are mainly appearing with digitalisation. As this form of work involves human relations, representation and working conditions, all of this is covered. This is not considered as being atypical or very strange type of work. This is again a work that consumes time and brings income but that uses other forms for that. There is no definition of these particular forms but the question is how we regulate the impact of these different forms on the known.

Senator Marie Sherlock

I wish to ask about the current legislative landscape to deal with this form of work. In Italy, for instance, the data protection authority there has used GDPR legislation to try to prosecute platforms for breaches of use of the riders' data. Are we seeing other countries using GDPR legislation to be able to try to tackle this issue? I take the view that we need a new set of legislation. The Labour Party has proposed legislation to specifically regulate algorithms and how they manage work but are we seeing in other countries the use of GDPR legislation to try to regulate that sector?

Mr. Ivailo Kalfin

As GDPR is a general legislation, it applies to all sectors. Of course it applies to the platform economy but the platform economy has its particularities. I mean the platforms might be physically placed outside of the European Union and the data could be contained in clouds outside the European Union. Sometimes, in particular with the platform economy, one can find ways to circumvent the GDPR, so it needs a particular regulation.

Senator Marie Sherlock

Sure, but beyond Italy though, we have not seen the GDPR legislation being used to try to fine platform companies.

Mr. Ivailo Kalfin

No.

Senator Marie Sherlock

Okay. That is great. I am conscious that my time is short. I thank SIPTU very much for its submission today. I suppose bogus self-employment is obviously an issue that has been around for ever but I just want to understand a point.. While most people recognise the delivery cyclist or driver as the very public face of platform work, where does Ms Hannick see it within the services sector? Is there an attempt or risk that logistics companies or firms in other sectors will contract out this work, but on a platform basis?

Ms Teresa Hannick

Transport is the big one in particular, for example, white van persons. We see it a lot in the tech area. It happens a lot especially in some of the financial firms and in some specialist areas. We are also seeing people on a platform in the care sector. It will go anywhere where there is a piece of work to be done. It is spread wide and thick.

We have talked here all morning, and in the submissions, about what it does to the terms and conditions of employment, workers' rights or even to general society. It is important for everybody to remember that these people are human beings like us. They are out to try to have a good life, look after kids and do their work. That is all they want. At the moment we have an algorithm deciding what work you will get or whether you will get work. An algorithm deciding if you have a grievance is totally unfair. We used to often ask what is a good employer and what is a bad employer. To me, a good employer is the one that treats people with respect and dignity and is prepared to sit down and listen to what they say. At the moment, these platforms are not prepared to listen to what these workers are saying and what their life is like.

Senator Marie Sherlock

I just want to be clear about SIPTU's position on the automatic classification of workers as employees. Obviously there has been a discussion for many years now as to exactly how to approach the bogus self-employment issue. There is probably a strong view that they should be automatically classified as employees but I would like to hear from SIPTU.

Ms Teresa Hannick

Yes, 100%. We believe it should be up to the employer or the platform company to prove the worker is not an employee. As my colleagues were saying, it is very difficult for somebody working if they do not have payslips. Money could be paid in. We know people who get paid into a Revolut account or they might be getting paid into somebody else's Revolut account because they do not have their details. It is very hard to prove it. It is like everything else, these platform companies have all the information and they are in the stronger position. It should be the default that everybody is an employee unless it is proven otherwise.

Senator Marie Sherlock

In the last few seconds I have left I will go to Social Justice Ireland. I thank the witnesses very much for their very detailed submission. One of the arguments that keeps on coming up with regard to who is in platform work in Ireland is that we see a lot of students coming here on stamp 2 visas to English-language colleges. There is a call to lift the 20 hours ceiling per week on the basis that, effectively, nobody can live off that income. It is effectively pushing those students underground and making them even more reliant, in that the power imbalance is all the greater because they are working more than 20 hours but that is not legal. I would like to hear the view of the witnesses from Social Justice Ireland on the stamp 2 visa and whether there should be changes or otherwise to it. How would we put in place greater protections for those workers?

Ms Susanne Rogers

That is a very specific question and I do not have the answer with me, so we can maybe have a look to see what we have. In terms of workers generally, and access to work generally, obviously we are advocates of the living wage but that does imply then that a person has access to the hours. Being guaranteed a living wage is fine but if you only get five hours a week it is irrelevant. This is really down to the relationship, if you are working and putting in time doing a task in return for payment. To be honest with Senator Sherlock, people's right to work and the sort of stamps they are on and all of that, might be more likely a question to put to SIPTU.

We are very much about decent work, access to work and the protections that come with it. We have talked a lot as well about the fact that many of these jobs that are now what is called "broad skill", would have been called "low skill" in the past. I am really interested in seeing what the SILC figures come out with tomorrow in terms of people working who are living in poverty. If we are to really tackle poverty and the other issues it is important to have access to education and for people who come here to have language support, as well as access to constantly upskill and reskill to allow them to move into other areas of work.

There are broad-skill jobs that will always have to be done but the issue is the extractive nature of it and the poor reward for doing these really vital jobs. Covid highlighted so clearly how dependent we were on people who were doing low-paid, broad-skill jobs. I do not know whether we would have been missed or not if we never returned to work but somebody stacking a shelf in a supermarket or delivering food to our door was vital. It is about recognising all work, the dignity of all work, and the reward for that work. I know it is a social protection issue, but that is the link between paying in and being protected. It is probably a political decision in terms of who has the right to do what type of work but work in general, at a very minimum, should allow you to put food on the table, put the heat and lights on and keep the roof over your head.

Senator Marie Sherlock

I thank Ms Rogers. It is important to call it a living income as opposed to a living wage because that takes the hours and the wages into account.

An Cathaoirleach

Does Senator Garvey or Deputy Stanton want to come in again?

Deputy David Stanton

I have a question for Ms Hannick on the code of practice in determining employment status which I mentioned earlier. What is her experience of this code in operation here? It says that certain people are either employed or unemployed and goes through a whole series of tests and conditions in respect of that. I believe what she said earlier on that is that is just a code of practice and is possibly not legally binding. Has she any comment to make on that or should we be strengthening that in some way?

Ms Teresa Hannick

The codes of practice are very beneficial but, as the Deputy has said, they are not binding in law. We have a voluntary system of industrial relations in this country. If I, as an employer or as a company, say that I do not even have to acknowledge your existence, that is the end of it. It does no good if we are trying to prove that somebody actually is an employee. For much of the time, we have to chase these employers all over the place. Especially for the worker, it means that they do not have the time as they have to go to find another job which will pay them a wage. That can cause a great deal of difficulty. One has to understand why the individual must have an income coming in. They are helpful in many ways but they are not binding.

Deputy David Stanton

My final question on that is to ask is there any enforcement of this code of practice, checking by some State agency or oversight of it?

Ms Teresa Hannick

I am not 100% sure. I know we have recently done something but, in fairness, this was an employer who sat down and co-operated with the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC. Much of the determination was done by Revenue as to whether this was employment. One sees a great deal more where Revenue has the right to swan in and decide that these workers are employees and the WRC or the Labour Court is in something of a different position. I am not aware if there is oversight and I am sure that the WRC will go through some matters but no, I am not 100% sure. My apologies.

Deputy David Stanton

I thank Ms Hannick and the Chair.

An Cathaoirleach

That concludes our consideration of this matter. My apologies, as I notice Senator Gavan wishes to make a contribution.

Senator Paul Gavan

My apologies, Chair, as I have another question for Ms Hannick, if she does not mind. Again, I thank her for her patience.

I make the point that at the heart of all of this is the fact that what these workers deserve and need is collective bargaining. The fact that we are an outlier in Europe and do not have collective bargaining rights is fundamentally undermining these workers on a daily basis. I ask our guests about the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Revenue Commissioners v. Karshan (Midlands) Ltd t/a Domino's Pizza, where the court ruled that delivery drivers for Domino's Pizza should be treated as employees and not contractors. The Supreme Court ruling has very significant implications in the battle against bogus self-employment and Sinn Féin has previously called on the Government to set out in primary legislation how a worker's employment status will now be determined following the decision. I ask our guests if they could elaborate on how this judgment now affects the determination of a worker's employment status.

Ms Teresa Hannick

From a trade union perspective, does that mean that to prove a person is an employee, one has to go to a High Court or the Supreme Court? That is the problem. It is difficult enough when one is going through the third-party industrial relations machinery in the State with regard to the length of time it takes. One knows, however, how long that case has gone on for and the costs are astronomical for workers. One welcomes things like this but the decision can be overturned again by the next appeal. That is the concern we would have but it should not be that hard for a worker. The employer should say, for instance, that the worker is not an employee and should prove that; it should not be the other way round.

Mr. Ivailo Kalfin

I wish to add that there are very diverse practices in Europe. In some countries, it ends up in court but in most of the cases the courts take a similar decision to the one taken in Ireland. In some other cases, it is the opposite decision but, again, this is not the solution. If an employee in a platform economy has to go to the court, that is a long and winding way. Theoretically, this exists but in practice, people would just accept precarious work, or would leave the job and go somewhere else rather than going to court proceedings.

Ms Susanne Rogers

Perhaps, I am being just very basic and simple but work should probably just be divided into an employee with a contract with a link to an employer or self-employed. I do not understand as there probably should not be too many types of work that do not fall into either of those very clear categories. The difficulty is that where I am a PAYE worker, I get a payslip and I can see at the end of every month that I have a contract or I am self-employed. I knew somebody, a friend of mine, where self-employment was rife in the language schools. I said to him to ensure that he had all of his stamps up to date in case he ever needed to sign on. He told me that he had no intention of signing on and I said fair enough. It is not that anyone ever has the choice in the matter but, like that, he was content enough to be bogus self-employed up to a point. There should not be too many in such a situation as I do not understand how one can go to work, be paid, and not realistically be one or the other. The fact that people are sitting in between these two spaces goes back to that extractive nature of the employment and the privatisation of risk. All of that is very much the key concern.

Senator Paul Gavan

I just want to finish, if I may, with another quote from one of the workers involved in this industry at present. He said that he had an accident while working and did not receive any help. Even without being able to, he returned to work 15 days later using only one leg so that he would not go hungry and be kicked out of the place that he was living in. This is the reality facing these workers and the elephant in the room is the fact that this Government and successive governments refused to legislate to give workers collective bargaining rights. That is at the heart of this and as long as that problem continues, these workers will be failed. I thank the Chair.

An Cathaoirleach

As no one else wishes to contribute, this concludes our consideration of this matter today. I thank the representatives for assisting the committee in its consideration of this important matter. As that concludes the business of the committee in public session for today, I propose that the committee goes into private session now to consider other business. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The joint committee went into private session at 11.16 p.m. and adjourned at 11.28 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 20 March 2024.