Person: Aloisi, Antonio
Loading...
Email Address
Birth Date
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Job Title
First Name
Antonio
Last Name
Aloisi
Affiliation
IE University
School
IE Law School
Department
Digital & Tech Law
Identifiers
Name
3 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Publication Regulation and the future of work: The employment relationship as an innovation facilitator(Wiley, 2020-02-06) Aloisi, Antonio; De Stefano, Valerio ; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75Digital transformation and the reorganization of the firm have given rise to new forms of work that diverge significantly from the standard employment relationship. Advocates of digital disruption suggest that the existing legal framework cannot accommodate “innovative” working templates and business models. This article, however, argues that labour regulation can continue to facilitate innovation, presenting the employment relationship as a flexible instrument, and standard forms of employment as the means of achieving efficiencies and cost advantages. First, they allow for the full exercise of managerial prerogative and attendant internal flexibility in workforce deployment, and, second, they constitute an effective device to deliver training and develop skills.Publication Between risk mitigation and labour rights enforcement: Assessing the transatlantic race to govern AI-driven decision-making through a comparative lens(SAGE Publications Ltd, 2023) De Stefano, Valerio; Aloisi, AntonioIn this article, we provide an overview of efforts to regulate the various phases of the artificial intelligence (AI) life cycle. In doing so, we examine whether—and, if so, to what extent—highly fragmented legal frameworks are able to provide safeguards capable of preventing the dangers that stem from AI- and algorithm-driven organisational practices. We critically analyse related developments at the European Union (EU) level, namely the General Data Protection Regulation, the draft AI Regulation, and the proposal for a Directive on improving working conditions in platform work. We also consider bills and regulations proposed or adopted in the United States and Canada via a transatlantic comparative approach, underlining analogies and variations between EU and North American attitudes towards the risk assessment and management of AI systems. We aim to answer the following questions: Is the widely adopted risk-based approach fit for purpose? Is it consistent with the actual enforcement of fundamental rights at work, such as privacy, human dignity, equality and collective rights? To answer these questions, in section 2 we unpack the various, often ambiguous, facets of the notion(s) of ‘risk’—that is, the common denominator with the EU and North American legal instruments. Here, we determine that a scalable, decentralised framework is not appropriate for ensuring the enforcement of constitutional labour-related rights. In addition to presenting the key provisions of existing schemes in the EU and North America, in section 3 we disentangle the consistencies and tensions between the frameworks that regulate AI and constrain how it must be handled in specific contexts, such as work environments and platform-orchestrated arrangements. Paradoxically, the frenzied race to regulate AI-driven decision-making could exacerbate the current legal uncertainty and pave the way for regulatory arbitrage. Such a scenario would slow technological innovation and egregiously undermine labour rights. Thus, in section 4 we advocate for the adoption of a dedicated legal instrument at the supranational level to govern technologies that manage people in workplaces. Given the high stakes involved, we conclude by stressing the salience of a multi-stakeholder AI governance framework.Publication Fundamental Labour Rights, Platform Work and Human-Rights Protection of Non-Standard Workers(Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 2018-02-28) De Stefano, Valerio; Aloisi, Antonio; Bellace, Janice R.; ter Haar, Beryl; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75The spread of non-standard forms of employment in industrialised and developing countries over the last decades has prompted an extensive debate on how to reshape labour regulation to accommodate these new formats. However, limited attention has been devoted to the access of non-standard workers to fundamental labour rights. This chapter aims at reorienting the debate towards these neglected dimensions of labour regulation. In particular, it focuses on the risks affecting work in the so-called ‘gig’ or ‘platform’ economy, since the relative novelty of these forms of work may obscure the difficulties these workers face in enjoying fundamental labour rights. Platform workers, together with casual workers and some self-employed workers not only are more exposed to violations of fundamental rights but are also often excluded from the legal scope of application of these rights, which are sometimes reserved to workers in an employment relationship. This is particularly true for collective labour rights, as self-employed workers, including sham self-employed persons and platform workers, who are often deprived of full access to the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining. This happens, for instance, when their collective activities are found to be in breach of antitrust regulation. This chapter maintains that preventing self-employed workers who do not own a genuine and significant business organisation from bargaining collectively is at odds with the recognition of the right to collective bargaining as a human and a fundamental right. Consequently, it argues that only self-employed individuals who do not provide ‘labour’ but instead provide services using an independent, genuine and significant business organisation that they own and manage can have their right to bargain collectively restricted.