Uber, Deliveroo… The government must stop playing the platform game

Two texts are being examined in November by Parliament: the bill to ratify the ordinance of April 21, 2021 relating to the methods of representation of platform workers, which deals with social dialogue, and the financing bill. de la Sécurité sociale (“PLFSS”), which deals with the financing of social protection for all French citizens. In principle, these two subjects should have nothing in common. In practice, however, parliamentarians have discovered: on the one hand, that the ordinance does not define the objects of future social dialogue; on the other hand, that an article in the PLFSS proposed that social protection be part of this same social dialogue.

Why does a text that talks about a subject not define it, while another text that is not the subject defines it (at least partially)? To answer this question, it is necessary to review the history of relations between workers and platforms, as well as the positions taken by France since 2015 in terms of regulation. The first social movements led by platform workers erupted in 2015, in reaction to drastic price cuts, together with a sharp increase in the commission, and therefore de facto in remuneration, imposed by the platforms on supposedly “independent” workers. .

Uberization, stupid trap? “The precariousness of these workers has prevented the social elevator from functioning”

It was these conflicts that triggered the first requalification procedures which subsequently resulted in convictions. The Court of Cassation, which it should be reiterated that it is all the same the highest judicial court in the country, has twice recalled, in its case law, in 2018 and in 2020, that by using a commercial statute and “independent” workers, the platforms exempt themselves from social contributions, transfer all risks to their workers, structure the activity they have created in order to keep control over prices and the organization of delivery or transport, creating in fact an economic dependence on workers and, therefore, a situation of subordination.

The consecration of a two-tier social system

Despite this case law, and on the contrary of the movement that has gradually taken shape in many European countries, the public authorities have not yet followed the path of requalification. They explored another path, which quickly turned out to be disastrous. In 2018, the government endorsed the approach advocated by certain platforms for the creation of a system of “unilateral charters”: it was no more and no less than leaving the hand to the platforms to decide on prices and working conditions. and social protection – in short, everything.

“The first day, a guy opens me in his underwear”: a week in the life of an Uber-Eats delivery man, by Julien Blanc-Gras

It is the consecration of a two-speed economic and social system: it suffices to call oneself a “networking platform”, to organize an activity that already exists (delivery of meals, VTC, etc.) but otherwise (via algorithms) to benefit from real privileges. In exchange for these charters, these same platforms would be protected from any legal risk, first and foremost, obviously, that of requalification.

After a long legislative career, first in the law on the professional future, then in the mobility orientation law (“LOM”), these charters, denounced by all stakeholders (with the exception of their instigators), were validated. But their scope concerning the requalification is immediately censured by the Constitutional Council. Back to square one.

Either a worker is an employee or he is self-employed

At the start of 2021, the French government (which still has not chosen the path of requalification) decides – finally! – to move away from unilaterality, by creating a social dialogue between workers and platforms. Light at the end of the tunnel? It seems so, since a mission worked at the beginning of 2021 on the modalities of the dialogue and auditioned, once again, all the actors. Organizations from the field were unanimous: either a worker is an employee or he is self-employed.

In the event that it is legally independent, the first thing to do is to exclude social protection from social dialogue. For them, it is about not giving in to social dependence, that is to say social rights granted according to the turnover achieved on the platform. Social dependence on platforms is neither more nor less than a third status, which also generates unequal treatment between self-employed workers using platforms and those working in their own name. Their arguments are heard, and the report submitted to the government specifies it in black and white:

« [La protection sociale] must be negotiated at the national level, not within a subset or at the industry level. The actors have alerted us to the fact that once they are independent, they have the right to choose the terms of their social protection, without the principal intervening directly in the definition of its outlines. “

The government initially suggests that the position of the report will be retained, and the organizations from the field feel heard, for the first time since the beginning of this whole affair. Total illusion!

Build solutions with all the players

It is then that the legislative texts arrive: the ordinance which aims to establish the field of dialogue does not specify the field of dialogue; an amendment to the Social Security financing bill introduced at the last minute reintegrates social protection into the social dialogue. Thus, the government becomes the accomplice of the objectives of certain platforms, giving them the means to create a social dialogue which will have only one object: to create social dependence. Whether in substance or form, this decision is outrageous.

Fortunately, by their vote of November 12, 2021, the senators blocked the strengthening of the power of platforms, by adopting an amendment by the Committee on Social Affairs which aims to remove social protection from social dialogue. The rapporteur has also denounced the presence of this « cavalier social ». Will the government be able to learn from it?

We, organizations that are on the ground every day, near or far, with platform workers, demand from the government to abandon a policy that plays into the game of platforms, some of which are sent back to corrections for undeclared work, and to build solutions with all the players. France is a great democratic nation, it cannot play into the hands of a single category of actors, the most powerful.

The petitioners :

Abraham Ben Ali, INV union

Edouard Bernasse and Jerome Pimot, CLAP

Franck Bonot, Sharers & Workers network and SCP-VTC union

Odile Chagny, réseau Sharers & Workers

Hind Elidrissi, Indépendants.co union