不久前，北京市人社局劳动关系处副处长王林化身外卖骑手，一天却只赚了41元。连续工作12小时的王副处长在一则刷屏视频中瘫倒路边，高呼： “太委屈了！这个钱不好挣。”

如今，普通中国人几乎每天的生活都离不开和所谓零工经济就业者打交道：他们或是外卖骑手、快递小哥，又或是网约车司机。互联网经济发展为大量灵活劳动力提供就业机会的同时，也不断引发对于从业者劳动权益问题的探讨。

进入2021年，伴随中国不断加强反垄断、数据合规监管力度，互联网巨头的日子并不好过，有人提出：频繁登上头条的劳动者权益问题，或许将成为悬在互联网公司头上的第三把“达摩克利斯之剑”。

面对质疑，各家互联网公司都提出了应对之策，例如美团启动 “同舟计划” ，饿了么提高 “蓝骑士关爱金”，滴滴成立“网约车司机生态发展委员会”，目的都是提高灵活就业人员的劳动保障水平。

然而在法律专家看来，相关问题的症结在于“我国目前的法律框架并不支持给外卖配送、网约车司机等临时从业人员与正式劳动关系相当的权利保护”，天达共和律师事务所顾问詹凯律师指出。

海问律师事务所合伙人刘宇翔律师也认为，零工经济的井喷式发展对我国的法律认定产生了不小冲击。“基于目前的经济形势和技术，现有的劳动关系认定和审查的标准和方式未免显得适应性不足。”刘律师坦言。

由于法律对于是否具备劳动关系的规定过于“非黑即白”，也使企业陷入两难。“如果将零工经济从业人员完全纳入劳动关系，会忽略其自由度和选择权，同时导致平台承受过重负担；但若归为平等民事关系，又忽略了劳动者在平台经济中的从属性地位和一定程度上被管理的特点。”刘宇翔律师说。

詹凯律师梳理了现有司法实践后发现，“对于零工经济者与平台公司是否存在劳动关系，大部分仲裁委和法院都持否定态度”。在他看来，劳动者和平台间更多具备临时用工的特点，“做一件事得一件报酬。这种关系更类似于独立承包人与发包人之间的关系”。

刘宇翔律师则指出，基于现行劳动法的滞后性，“同案类案不同判定”的现象也时有发生。甚至“在同一平台的同一时期，对于平台和从业人员法律关系的认定也大相径庭”。

“西学东鉴”

类似难题并非只发生在中国，受访律师指出，其他国家的实践或许能为中国相关制度发展提供启示。

例如在美国，“美国劳动者和劳动保护机构通过司法、立法运动等多种方式，试图为零工经济从业者争取与正式劳动者相同的权利。”詹凯律师介绍说，“尤其是以互联网经济著名的加利福尼亚州，该地区司法和立法动态更是全美的风向标。”

2018年，加州最高法院确立了区别独立承包商和员工的 “三步走” 原则，明确支持将零工经济下的劳动者视为公司正式员工，次年9月，加州通过AB-5法案，正式将零工经济从业人员视同于正式员工。

然而，上述问题“尚处于激烈的社会斗争和博弈中。”詹律师指出。例如加州上述举动就引发各平台强烈不满，在优步（Uber）、来福车（Lyft）等企业的干预下，加州议会又于2020年11月通过了加利福尼亚州22号提案，将原本认定为员工的从业者重新定义为 “独立承包商” 。

相关社会关系的认定变化也发生在欧洲。今年年初，英国将优步超7万名司机重新认定为工人（worker）；3月，意大利检方认定Deliveroo，Just Eat等四家外卖平台的6万多名骑手为公司雇员而非自雇人士，并以违反劳动法为由，令平台公司缴纳7.33亿欧元罚款。

就上述案例，刘宇翔律师分析道，英国的判例并未将该种劳动者认定为属于依赖性工人或独立承揽人，而是认定为工人（worker）；意大利的判例也没有将该种劳动者纳入1942年《意大利民法典》所确立的传统二元论中的从属性劳动给付者或自治性劳动给付者，而是认定为一种“准从属性劳动给付者”。

“通过折中方式，使得平台能够对从业人员进行有针对性的管控，既提升了劳动法的灵活性和适用性，也增强了平台对于从业人员权益的保障，不失为一个值得借鉴的方法。”刘律师指出。

开始探索

刘宇翔律师告诉ALB，近期中国部分地区已经开始了相关探索，例如广东及青岛等，出现了 “劳动关系权利义务界限的小幅度突破”，允许企业为非劳动关系的从业人员缴纳工伤保险，或鼓励其自行缴纳企业养老保险，推进实施新业态从业人员职业伤害险和综合商业保险等。

而在近期判例中，刘律师观察到，法官也更倾向于进行综合性考察，而非仅仅依赖于旧有法规。

在完善法律规定的基础上，行业披露也不失为一个监管好方法。刘宇翔律师建议：“可以通过行业标准或倡议，引导平台向用户进行相关信息披露，某种程度上能够引导用户选择更负责任的平台企业。”

而对平台企业，詹凯律师则建议“早做合规，早做预防”。具体来说，“企业要关注该领域立法，通过研究和关注世界范围内的立法动态来增进对该问题的了解。同时积极配合社会作出某些让步，例如通过企业让利，企业购买意外保险等方式为劳动者提供更多保护”。

 “互联网并非新生事物，世界各国对互联网经济加强管控已成为普遍共识。依靠传统的劳动力优势获得竞争优势的作法不仅不可持续，甚至可能阻滞企业进步和竞争力提升。企业应主动寻求技术突破，在劳动问题上作出自律性让步，与社会和解。”詹律师补充道。

 

The gig economy is here, but protections for workers are still some way away

It’s presently almost impossible for people in China to go about their daily lives without interacting with gig economy workers, whether they are food delivery drivers, courier men or ride-hailing drivers. But netizens recently got a shock when they found out what it’s like to be one of these workers. Wang Lin, deputy head of labour relations at Beijing’s human resources bureau, decided to work as a Meituan delivery man for 12 hours. His total earnings? Just 41 yuan ($6.40). “It’s truly too difficult, and I felt very aggrieved,” says Wang in a video that subsequently went viral.

While the development of China’s Internet economy has provided increasing numbers of jobs for people, the growth has been too rapid for labour rights protections to keep up.

“China's current legal framework does not support the protection of gig economy workers, who should have the same rights as formal labour relationships,” says Zhan Kai, a consultant at East & Concord. Adds Liu Yuxiang, partner at Haiwen & Partners: “Based on the current economic situation and technology, the existing standards and methods for identifying and reviewing labour relations are not sufficiently adaptable.”

Part of the problem is that the law governing employer-employer relationships is too black and white, says Liu. “If gig economy workers are fully included in employee, their freedom will be ignored and the platform will be overburdened; But if it is classified as equal civil relationship, then it ignores the subordinate position of workers and the characteristics of being managed to some extent,” he notes.

Meanwhile, arbitrators and courts also don’t feel that there is a labour relationship between gig economy workers and platforms. “It's more like the relationship between an independent contractor and an employer,” says Zhan.

Liu adds that due to the lag in the current labour laws, judgments can be inconsistent, even “in the same period of time on the same platform, the legal relationship between the platform and the workers can be interpreted quite differently.”

LEARNING FROM THE WEST

As the gig economy is not unique to China, lawyers feel that the practices of other countries may provide learnings for the legal framework here.

In the United States, for example, “American workers and labour protection agencies have sought through judicial and legislative campaigns, to fight for gig economy workers the same rights as regular employees. California, in particular, who is famous for its Internet economy, is a bellwether of judicial and legislative developments across the US,” says Zhan.

In 2018, the California Supreme Court established a three-step distinction between independent contractors and employees, explicitly upholding the idea that gig economy workers should be considered employees. Soon after, California passed AB-5, which formally treated gig economy workers as full-time employees.

However, the decisions did not always go down well with everyone, Zhan points out. For example, the above actions in California caused strong dissatisfaction among platforms. With the intervention of companies such as Uber and Lyft, the California Legislature passed Proposition 22 in November 2020, which redefined the workers as “independent contractors.”

Changes in the identification of relationships have also occurred in Europe. Earlier this year, more than 70,000 Uber drivers in the UK were reclassified as workers. In March, Italian judges found more than 60,000 delivery men on four platforms, including Deliveroo and Just Eat, to be employees rather than self-employed, and ordered the platforms to pay 733 million euro ($892 million) in fines for violating labour laws.

Analysing the above cases, Liu says that both British and Italian judgements looked to draw a balance between the rights and obligations of the platforms and the workers. “Through a compromise approach, platforms can now carry out targeted management and control over employees, which not only improves the flexibility and applicability of the labour law, but also enhances the platform's ability to protect. This is a method worth learning from,” he adds.

SMALL BREAKTHROUGHS

Certain provinces such as Guangdong and Qingdao have begun to tackle the issue of the relationship between gig workers and platforms, says Liu, leading to “a small breakthrough in the boundaries of the rights and obligations of labour relations.” This includes allowing enterprises to pay for social insurance for non-labour relations employees.

He adds that judges recently have also begun taking a more comprehensive view, rather than relying solely on old rules.

Liu encourages platforms to self-disclose how they treat workers. “Through industry standards or initiatives, the platform might be guided to disclose relevant information to users, which to some extent can guide users to choose more responsible platform,” he says.

Meanwhile, Zhan’s advice for platforms is “early compliance, early prevention.” Specifically, “companies should pay attention to legislation in this area and improve their understanding of the issue by studying legislative developments around the world. At the same time, we need to actively cooperate with the society to make some concessions, such as providing more protection for workers through the way of purchasing accident insurance etc.”

“The Internet economy is not a new thing, and it has become a common consensus for all over the world to strengthen control over them,” Zhan adds. “Relying on traditional labour to gain competitive advantages is unsustainable. Enterprises should take the initiative to seek technological breakthroughs and make self-disciplined concessions on labour issues.”

 

To contact the editorial team, please email ALBEditor@thomsonreuters.com.