Articles for category: Focus

A Hidden Battlefield

The platform work directive proposal presents important implications for the implementation of social security schemes (e.g. those relating to unemployment or incapacity). In particular, it required digital labour platforms to declare and inform social protection authorities of the work performed through the platform and to share with them relevant data, among other aspects. It is important that these implications are maintained in a final instrument, as suggested by the Parliament in its position for trilogue negotiations.

Schmerzgriffe als Technik in der polizeilichen Praxis

Bereits seit längerer Zeit kommen in (Teilen) der Polizei Techniken der Gewaltanwendung zum Einsatz, die als Schmerzgriffe bezeichnet werden. In der englischsprachigen Debatte werden diese Techniken unter dem Schlagwort „pain compliance“ diskutiert, was deutlich macht: Durch Schmerzen soll Gehorsam durchgesetzt werden. Rechtlich stellen sich Schmerzgriffe als problematisch dar, da sie vor allem auf eine Willensbeugung der Betroffenen durch (Angst vor) Schmerz abzielen. Die polizeiliche Praxis überformt zudem die rechtlichen Vorgaben zur Anwendung von Schmerzgriffen zugunsten einer effizienten polizeilichen Einsatzdurchführung. Sozialwissenschaftlich bzw. kriminologisch können Schmerzgriffe daher als Normalisierung und Verselbständigung polizeilicher Gewaltpraxen verstanden werden.

More than Formal Recognition?

The Commission’s proposal for a Platform Work Directive contains a number of provisions recognising collective labour rights for platform workers, mostly revolving around information and consultation rights for workers’ representatives. This suggests that, at least in principle, extending workplace representation and industrial relation practices to the platform economy is part of the Commission’s policy agenda. However, this blogpost argues that even if certain collective labour rights are formally recognised, the proposed directive does not offer adequate basis for their effective exercise. Trade union organising, collective bargaining and workplace democracy do not find sufficient support in the directive, thus limiting their development within the platform economy.

How the Platform Work Directive Protects Workers‘ Data

The Commission's proposal of the new platform labour directive came with a core promise to platform workers in the EU: to recognize the impact algorithmic management has on their working conditions. In doing so, the directive seeks to clarify and strengthen data rights of workers, regardless of whether they are classified as employees or not. This blog post argues that the main achievement of the proposed Directive is to clarify and reframe existing norms about automated decision-making in a way that shifts attention from data to working conditions. While the specific proposed provisions do not go far beyond norms already established in the General Data Protection Regulation, they are reframed in a way that clarifies that digital labour platforms have the responsibility to ensure fairness, transparency and accountability when making decisions that rely on algorithms.

A Timid Proposal

With the Council position of 12 June on the proposal for a EU Directive on improving working conditions in platform work, a presumption of employment status for digital platform work is now becoming the subject of trilogue negotiations. A lot could be said about the proposal, the process, and the innovation that would come with an EU Directive on platform work as such. This comment focuses on one central part of the proposal: the presumption of employment. The Commission’s and Council’s proposals suggest a well meant, but timid instrument. Given the already limited scope of te proposals in their definition of “digital labour platforms”, only the Parliament’s position that does not condition the presumption to any additional criteria is able to convince.

The Definition of ›Digital Labour Platform‹ in the Proposed Platform Work Directive

On 9 December 2021, the European Commission announced its proposal for a Directive on improving working conditions in platform work—the ‘Platform Work Directive.’ The Directive’s main goals are to reduce false self-employment among persons performing platform work, to regulate algorithmic management on digital labour platforms, and to provide legal certainty for platforms. This blog post focuses on an element of the proposed Directive that has gone relatively unremarked in the scholarly and policy debates so far: the definition of ‘digital labour platform.’

Tilting at Windmills?

The proposals for an EU Directive on platform work have been subject to much debate, and will continue to do so during the now announced trilogue negotiations in Brussels. What often remains blurry in this debate are the subjects of the legislation: Who is working on platforms? Are we talking about leisurely side arrangements, freelance entrepreneurs, or wrongly employed full-time earners? Empirically, we find a very broad spectrum of digital labour platforms, from online crowdworking platforms to the organisation of offline work such as care, repair or cleaning. This blog post examines the realities of platform labour and kicks off the new symposium 'Final Call for Digital Workers Rights in the EU'.

Wir können alles. Außer Versammlungsfreiheit.

Die Versammlungsfreiheit gerät unter Druck. Immer öfter versuchen staatliche Behörden in verblüffender Verkennung verfassungsrechtlicher Prinzipien dieses Grundrecht zu entkernen. Der neueste Akt dieser Entwicklung stammt aus Baden-Württemberg. Per Allgemeinverfügung vom 7.7.2023 verbietet die Stadt Stuttgart bis zum Ende des Jahres Blockadeaktionen der Klimabewegung, bei denen sich Aktivist*innen auf die Straße kleben oder anderweitig mit der Straße oder anderen Personen verbinden. Was zunächst als lokale Randnotiz erscheinen mag, erweist sich beim näheren Blick als Lehrstück eines sowohl zweck-, als auch rechtswidrigen Umgangs des Staates mit Klimaprotesten.

Kurzer Prozess für Klimaaktivist:innen in Berlin

Um den Aktivist:innen der „Letzten Generation“ mit den Mitteln des Strafrechts zu Leibe zu rücken, schwingt die Generalstaatsanwaltschaft in München die große OK-Keule unter Einsatz des § 129 StGB. Die Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin scheint sich jetzt in die entgegengesetzte Richtung zu bewegen. Sie greift in die strafprozessuale Mottenkiste und will das „beschleunigte Verfahren“ (§§ 417 ff. StPO) zum Einsatz bringen, ein zur Aburteilung Kleinkrimineller vorgesehenes Verfahren. Dazu sind Sonderabteilungen beim Amtsgericht Tiergarten geschaffen worden, die zur besonderen Verwendung durch die Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin eingerichtet sind. Das lässt den Eindruck von „Ausnahmegerichten“, eine Verletzung des Rechtes auf den gesetzlichen Richter (Art. 101 GG) und eine Beeinträchtigung der richterlichen Unabhängigkeit entstehen.

Intertemporal Freedom in the Historic Climate Protection Ruling of the German Federal Constitutional Court

The climate protection ruling of the German Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe of 2021 is a historic decision. It is on a par with the Court's major landmark decisions such as Lüth, Elfes, or Brokdorf. It updates the fundamental value of equal freedom: Freedom includes future freedom and, as a right to intertemporal freedom, can demand a proportional distribution of freedom opportunities over time.