Platform work and social security in German law: An international law perspective

Abstract

Abstract Platform work confronts traditional social security law in two dimensions. First, it makes the distinction between dependent and independent work uncertain and unclear, as the borderline between these blur. This is a profound challenge for social security law, because the criteria of dependent and independent work have to be precise. In the determination of work as dependent or independent, German law illustrates that a shift has taken place in determining employment status, moving from external and objective criteria to the contracting parties’ decision, which is to be executed under private law, but also respected under social security law. Second, platform work is heavily intertwined with digital communication, which has established a global environment for communication. Thereby, platform work can also facilitate international trade by making transnational work more accessible and efficient. Therefore, it seems necessary to examine the implications of platform work in international law. International law makes possible the choice of law, executed by the contracting parties. As a consequence, the protection of employees by social security law is related to the private law arrangements between the service provider and the service recipient. Gaps in social security protection of service providers are widespread. In many countries, awareness of the social protection deficits of platform workers has grown and responses to improve the social status of platform workers have come under scrutiny. Analysis reveals that there is a joint responsibility of the service provider and the service recipient to be bound to social security coverage under the same national legislation. Nevertheless, from an international law perspective, it is shown that reforms are confronted with restrictions under international law.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 3 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.