“Can You Complete Your Delivery?” Comparing Canadian and European Union Legal Statuses of Platform Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In December 2021, the European Commission proposed a directive creating five criteria for the presumed classification of platform economy workers as salaried employees. The issue is timely, of course, as the digital organisation of work continues to grow rapidly. Our article contrasts the merits and limitations of this initiative to the Canadian experience concerning so-called independent contractors in the platform economy. In fact, Canadian labour law has long recognised a third status of workers—dependent contractors. It permits collective bargaining, while platform workers remain autonomous, notably for tax purposes. Immediately, the striking similarities between the European Union’s five criteria and judicial tests applied by Canadian labour tribunals seem to indicate that both entities are moving in the same direction. However, the federal structure of labour law in Canada and the single market’s social dimension also pose important challenges regarding the uniform implementation of new protections. Based on recent fieldwork in Toronto, and as the European Union directive moves into the approval and implementation stages, our article addresses the research question of how basic labour rights in the platform economy progress similarly (or differently), and which actors are driving the change on each side of the Atlantic. We argue that this policy field provides labour market actors with opportunities for “institutional experimentation” navigating the openings and limitations of federalism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".