26 May 2018

Author: Kanengoni A.
Date of Publication: 2018

This Issue of BUWA! offers feminist critiques of the current discourses framing the future of work in Africa. [View Resource]

Authors: Elena Gramano and Maurizio Del Conte
Date of Publication: 2018

Self-employment has always been looked at with high suspicion by both lawmakers and legal scholars, under the undeclared assumption that long-lasting relationships where an independent contractor directly provides for an activity in favor of someone else often hides a substantial subordinate employment relationship, voluntarily obscured by the “strong” party, namely the employer, in order to avoid costs and legal responsibilities. This article discusses a law in Italy protecting self-employed workers. [View Resource]

Author: Manoj Dias-Abey
Date of Publication: 2018

This article examines how non-traditional labor organisations, also known as ‘alt labor,’ can improve the working conditions of migrant farm workers in the United States and Canada. [View Resource]

Author: Olga Chesalina
Date of Publication: 2018

A common feature of platform work in Germany and Russia is that in both countries the new forms of employment can usually only be classified as self-employed work in the form of ‘solo self-employment’, despite the fact that platforms use direct and indirect control mechanisms indicating a personal or at least an economic dependency of the digital workers on the platforms. The difference is that, in Germany, as the main rule, self-employed persons are not obligatorily insured in the state pension insurance scheme, whereas in Russia, unlike Germany, the state pension insurance scheme is mandatory for all self-employed persons. Considering the different legal frameworks in Germany and in Russia, the article analyses various reform proposals aiming at tackling the above-mentioned challenges for the social security systems, and looks for adequate responses to ensure access to social security for digital platform workers. [View Resource]

Authors: Tallia B. Gillis and Jann Spiess
Date of Publication: 19 July 2018

For many financial products, companies distinguish between people based on their different risks and returns. However, distinctions of this nature are constrained by legal rules that prohibit certain types of discrimination. This rise of artificial intelligence and “big data” raises the question where and how existing law can be applied to this novel setting. The paper argues that legal doctrine is ill-prepared to face the challenges posed by algorithmic decision-making and proposes a framework for regulators to test decision rules in a way that provides meaningful comparisons between lenders. [View Resource]