Creating a new social
contract for work in the
21st Century
We are on a quest for change – a change in the way
we think about work in a rapidly changing world. It
is time to reimagine the systems we use to support
and enable diverse forms of work so that everyone
has an equal opportunity to prosper. It’s a quest for a new social
contract for the 21st century.
The rise of technology and, in particular, the platform economy –
where digital applications connect workers with employers – has
further enabled new ways of working and new opportunities.
However, it has also highlighted significant gaps in the social
contract for work, injecting fresh momentum into calls for a new
social framework for all types of work.
Governments, employers and social partners need to redesign
society to ensure that all forms of work are secure and
sustainable, so that there is adequate social protection for all
workers. All stakeholders should work together to facilitate a
gradual shift towards the individual, portable and transferable
build-up of social accounts.
The Adecco Group’s position is
clear. Where there is a national
system of building up social rights,
workers should not lose these as
they move between forms of work
or economic sectors. When it
comes to platform work, the correct
classification of types of work is key.
If there is a de facto employment
relationship between a platform and
a worker, it should be defined and
classified as such, and all relevant
rights and obligations should apply
to both parties.
Setting the Scene
“Platforms change the scale and
speed at which new business
models can emerge and grow,” says
Matthew Taylor, President of the
Royal Society and chair of the recent UK Government review of
working practices in the modern economy. The speed of change
in the way we are working today is accelerating to the extent that
it is now time for governments, employers and social partners in
developed countries to act.
Platform work is one example of an increasingly
diverse and flexible labour market. In the EU and Japan, 42% of
individuals are not in full-time open-ended direct employment.
They work part-time, are in temporary work or are self-employed.
Page I 17
In the US, that figure is 40%. More than 175 million people in those
economies alone!
The social contract for work, in particular social protection, has
struggled to evolve with the labour market. It is often still funded
through employer and employee contributions related to direct,
open-ended, full-time direct employment contracts. Coverage for
other forms of work falls short, leaving workers vulnerable.
Social Protection Defined
Social protection encompasses the programmes designed to
reduce poverty and vulnerability throughout the lifetime of
individuals – and in most developed countries it is a widely
acknowledged right.
The International Labour Organisation (ILO) defines these as
the “policies and programmes designed to reduce and prevent
poverty and vulnerability throughout the life cycle. [It] includes
benefits for children and families, maternity, unemployment,
employment injury, sickness, old
age, disability, survivors, as well as
health protection.”
“Forms of work are
changing, If social
protection systems don’t
take that into account,
and instead try to enforce
what was designed many
decades ago, things will go
wrong.”
Professor Paul Schoukens, Institute for Social Law at
the University of Leuven
Drivers of Change
The growth of alternative working
arrangements reflects the new
possibilities of the digital world
and the new economic reality
following the 2008 financial
crisis, with organisations across
all sectors looking to save costs,
improve back-office efficiency
and review their hiring and
talent strategies. But it is also
symptomatic of a new desire for
flexibility – from both employers
and employees.
Facing the heightened competition
of globalising markets, employers
need labour flexibility, according
to the OECD’s Stijn Broecke, “to deal with fluctuations in
demand, to address risks, and to grab opportunities.” Diverse and
flexible employment arrangements give employers greater agility
at a much lower cost than they would have with a workforce
dominated by “inflexible” contracts. Few would dispute this. The
controversy is around whether these diverse forms of employment
are good for workers, who might face heightened economic risks
and sometimes lower access to social protection.