Person:
Aloisi, Antonio

Profile Picture
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

Filters

2015 - 201982020 - 202518
Reset filters

Settings

Has files: true ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 26
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    “A Worker is a Worker is a Worker” Collective Bargaining and Platform Work, the Case of Deliveroo Couriers
    (SSRN, 2019) Aloisi, Antonio; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75
    The focus of this commentary is the compatibility of Section 296(1)(b) of the 1992 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A) with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), insofar as it excludes workers who do not provide their service personally from being represented by a union on the negotiation of pay and terms and conditions of work. The case shows how the domestic term worker may be equivocal and its interpretation seems at odds with various international standards, including the ILO’s instruments. This confusion raises the question of whether steps should be taken to “bring domestic law into alignment [with European law] in the interests of legal certainty.”
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Artificial intelligence is watching you at work: digital suveillance, employee monitoring, and regulatory issues in the EU context.
    (University of Illinois Press, 2019) Aloisi, Antonio; Gramano, Elena; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75
    By affecting activities in both traditional and modern industries, countless invasive devices constitute a burgeoning terrain for new forms of monitoring assisted by artificial intelligence and algorithms; these range from badges to tablets, from wearables to exoskeletons, from collaborative software to virtual personal assistant, from computer networks to face recognition systems. From a legal perspective, these tools constantly collect, produce, share and combine data that may be used by the employer for all the many different reasons, thus leading to a “genetic variation” of the organizational, monitoring and disciplinary prerogative, considered as the core of the employment contract. When it comes to recruiting, managing, and vetting the workforce, AI applications can be considered as an effective combination of big data analytics and algorithmic governance. Only recently, have international, European and domestic institutions started considering how to update existing regulation in order to face these complex and far-reaching challenges. This article assesses the effects of AI application on the employment relationship, with a view to understanding how social and legal institutions act, react or adapt to a potential experience of unprecedented digital surveillance in the workplace, entrenching command-and-control relationships between management and workers. The paper is organized as follows. After describing the new arenas of workplace surveillance, we provide a comprehensive conceptualization of AI application. Section 2 explores the latest generation of digital devices, understood in their broadest definition encompassing both physical supports as well as intangible tools. In many cases, AI prevents accidents caused by human error or reduce the hazard (or even the burden) of routine and menial activities. On the other hand, these software and devices create an effective, invasive and elusive system of watchfulness increasing conformity and promoting docility. Section 3 describes how the EU has set the tone globally in the regulation of privacy and data protection. In particular, we scrutinize the new GDPR thoroughly. One concern on its effectiveness revolves around the limits on the automated decision-making processes (Art. 22). Section 4 describes how some European civil law systems deal with the regulation of surveillance of workers. The cases of France, Germany and Italy are analyzed by stressing the common elements and loopholes. Section 5 assesses some conclusions by verifying whether the current regulations are suitable to cope with the adoption of AI at work.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Workers Without Workplaces and Unions Without Unity: Non-Standard Forms of Employment, Platform Work and Collective Bargaining
    (SSRN, 2019-05-14) Aloisi, Antonio; Gramano, Elena; Pulignano, Valeria; Hendrickx, Frank; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75
    Non-standard forms of employment (NSFE) are on the rise in different sectors and various countries all over the world. Concomitantly, technological and organizational change represents a major challenge for collective bargaining systems, given that they are often still predicated on the concept of a standard employment relationship. Meanwhile, some innovative and spontaneous solutions are emerging. In order for collective bargaining, unions, and business associations to continue to be impactful in the “new world of work”, it may be necessary to adapt the way they currently operate. There may also be a need to adjust or update the relevant legal frameworks. This article investigates challenges to freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining for non-standard workers, from a legal and practical perspective. In particular, the article examines the relevant legal framework with a critical approach and stresses the relevance of legal hurdles that non-standard workers face. After presenting the legal determinants of NSFE, the paper provides an analysis of existing legal frameworks regulating the organization of non-standard forms of work and the negotiation of terms and conditions of work at the supranational level, with a particular focus on the implications related to competition law and its rigid limits in the European Union system. Finally, it sketches a mapping of nascent initiatives of workers’ organization, by distinguishing classic resources of unionization from other tools (e.g. social media groups, strategic litigation, rating widgets) in a selection of European Union countries.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    ‘With Great Power Comes Virtual Freedom’. A Review of the First Italian Case Holding That (Food-Delivery) Platform Workers Are Not Employees
    (SSRN, 2018) Aloisi, Antonio; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75
    This dispatch concentrates on a review of the first Italian ruling on the legal status of six platform workers who demanded to be reclassified as employees of the food-delivery company Foodora. Last April, the Employment Tribunal of Turin rejected their claims on the basis of the freedom they enjoyed in deciding if and when to work and even to disregard previously agreed shifts. The case note is organised as follows. Section I describes the main facts underlying the legal dispute, according to the judge’s description. Section II offers a context analysis of the Italian legal framework by clarifying the differences between the notions of employment and self-employment. Particular attention is paid to the most recent legislative interventions aimed at extending labour protections to independent workers whose personal activity is organised by the client. By arguing that the judge failed to consider the specificities of the digital work model, section III criticises the reasoning relying on a too narrow and formalistic understanding of the notion of subordination as well as the conclusive relevance attributed to the riders’ presumed flexibility. Section IV closes by summarising the main rulings decided in a set of European countries and providing some reflections on the possibility of applying the current legislation to platform worker. In sum, the dispatch advocates that, in order to properly classify the nature of the actual activity performed by platform workers, judges should assess the role of digital tools when it comes to organising, monitoring and disciplining the workforce, rather than merely focusing on discontinuity and flexibility that are key features of these non-standard work arrangements enabled by technology.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Commoditized Workers. Case Study Research on Labour Law Issues Arising from a Set of 'On-Demand/Gig Economy' Platforms
    (University of Illinois Press, 2015-08-14) Aloisi, Antonio; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75
    In the framework of the so-called “sharing economy”, the number of on-demand companies matching labour supply and demand is on the rise. These schemes may enlarge opportunities for people willing to find a job or to top up their salaries. Despite the upsides of creating new peer marketplaces, these platforms may also be used to circumvent employment regulation, by operating informally in traditionally regulated markets. Literature showed how, by 2009, over 2 million worker accounts had been generated within these frameworks. Productivity may be fostered but, at the same time, a new version of Taylorism is disseminated (i.e. the fragmentation of labour into hyper-temporary jobs – they call them microtasks – on a virtual assembly line), strengthened by globalisation and computerisation. All these intermediaries recruit freelance or casual workers (these continue to be independent contractors even though many indicators seem to reveal a disguised employment relationship). Uncertainty and insecurity are the price for extreme flexibility. A noteworthy volume of business risk is shifted to workers, and potential costs as benefits or unemployment insurance are avoided. Minimum wages are often far from being reached. This paper will present a case study analysis of several “on-demand work” platforms, starting from the Amazon Mechanical Turk, one of the first schemes founded in 2005, which is arguably “employing humans-as-a-service”. It splits a single service in several micro “Human Intelligence Tasks” (such as tagging photographs, writing short descriptions, transcribing podcasts, processing raw data); “Turkers/Providers” (workers) are selected by “Requesters” to rapidly accomplish assignments online, are then rated according to an internal system and are finally paid (also in gaming credits) only if delivery is accepted. After having signed up and worked within some platforms, I comment upon TaskRabbit (thousands people on the service who bid to do simple manual tasks), Handy and Wonolo (personal assistance at a local level), oDesk and Freelancer (online staffing), Uber and Lyft (peer-to-peer ridesharing), Airbnb (hosting service), InnoCentive (engineering solutions), Axiom (legal research or service), BitWine (consultancy). Finally I highlight downsides and upsides of work in these platforms by studying terms of service or participation agreements to which both parties have to agree. I look into several key features such as (i) means of exchange/commodities, (ii) systems of payment, (iii) demographics, (iv) legal issues concerning status and statutory protection of workers, indicators of subordination, treatment of sickness, benefits and overtime, potential dispute resolution, and deprived “moral valence of work” and I discuss potential strategies to address these issues.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Hierarchies without firms? Vertical disintegration, outsourcing and the nature of the platform
    (SSRN, 2018-02) Aloisi, Antonio; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75
    New forms of labour intermediation through digital platforms such as Uber, Deliveroo or Amazon Mechanical Turk can be conceptualised as the latest stage of a long-lasting process of disaggregation of the firm and “disorganisation of labour law.” In particular, the rise of platform-mediated work can be seen as an instantiation of deliberate business strategies aimed at outsourcing labour while retaining intense and pervasive managerial prerogative. The phenomenon is exacerbating several unresolved tensions inherent in the contemporary world of work, let alone the perverse impact that “platformisation” is having on precariousness and social inequalities. In short, new technologies allow platforms to abandon traditional methods of workplace governance and adopt a stronger version of the “command and control” logic. Direct interaction is replaced by a significant reliance on information communications technology: workers are monitored more closely and intimately than they ever used to be by means of tech tools, including algorithms, artificial intelligence and customers’ reviews. This leads to the question whether the existing concept of “firm” is appropriate to face this transformational new reality, whether minor or major adaptations may be necessary or whether we need a total re-invention of the underlying assumptions of the employment relationship. After describing the theoretical antecedents of hierarchical outsourcing, the article explores the literature on the nature of “non-standard forms of firm” by applying transaction-cost economics. In an attempt to update the incomplete trichotomy among “hierarchies,” “markets” and “networks,” I present a complementary model combining pre-existing schemes. By building on theories unfolding the disarticulation of the formal employing entity and the pulverisation of work-related responsibilities, this paper demystifies the prototypical business model of rampant socio-economic actors.
  • Thumbnail Image
    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/02jjdwm75
    Digital 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    The “spillover effect” of algorithmic management and how (not) to tame it
    (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2024-04-22) Aloisi, Antonio; Potocka Sionek, Nastazja; European Union’s Erasmus+; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75
    This chapter delves into the implications of the algorithmic management (AM) “spillover effect”, namely the diffusion of AM systems and practices from the platform economy to conventional work settings and the broader labour market. The AM spillover is tracked across the factual, jurisprudential and legislative dimensions. The crucial questions on which this chapter is targeted are as follows. Are the existing judicial and regulatory responses keeping pace with developments? What are the lessons to be learned from the first wave of litigation concerning AM in the food delivery sector and the first generation of laws targeting AM in the platform economy? Finally, what is the way forward when it comes to addressing the AM spillover most effectively? This chapter begins by dissecting the tools and practices adopted to engage, dispatch, manage, control and assess people who perform platform work. It then examines the case law and regulatory instruments addressing AM in the platform economy and beyond at both EU and national levels. The analysis reveals a significant shift in focus towards data protection, non-discrimination, and working conditions for larger workforce segments. Moreover, a normative critique of the emerging fragmented regulatory approach is presented, contending that a comprehensive solution requires the effective implementation of the existing legal framework and the design of AM specific legislation to close the gaps in the EU and national acquis.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Platform work in Europe: Lessons learned, legal developments and challenges ahead
    (Sage journal, 2022-01-31) Aloisi, Antonio; European Union’s Erasmus+; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75
    Several years since first emerging in Europe, platform work continues to represent a ‘social dilemma’ for workers, social partners, policymakers and society as a whole. As a result of intense litigation, analysis and reporting, much is known about the contractual and working conditions in this growing labour market segment. While the European Union (EU) institutions are considering adopting a new Directive based on Art. 153 TFEU, there are a number of significant top-down and bottom-up national cases worth discussing. Workers across Europe have been reclassified by many courts; some governments have taken regulatory initiatives to address the risk of precariousness and have implemented new comprehensive legal instruments to safeguard a level playing field for both workers and platforms. This article discusses how existing and new domestic and EU labour law provisions can improve the labour conditions of platform workers. Its overarching goal is to address possible policy gaps and the implications for EU social law by exploring the lessons that can be drawn from recent policies and legal developments. Section two briefly touches upon the policymaking initiatives in France, Spain and Italy. Moreover, it presents and reviews the main outcomes of litigation at the domestic level, focusing on the pervasive role played by algorithmic management. After introducing the Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR), section three critically analyses two key achievements at the EU level: the Directive on transparent and predictable working conditions and the Recommendation on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed. Section four explores the elasticity of the triad of Directives that regulate atypical forms of employment (part-time, fixed-term and temporary agency work). It is argued that the narrow construction of the Directives’ scope of application could represent an obstacle. However, an adaptive and purposive approach by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) could result in the classification of platform workers as falling within the scope of the social acquis in certain fields. Finally, section five concludes by providing concrete policy proposals focussed on cross-border issues, algorithmic transparency, the introduction of a presumption of employment status and collective bargaining.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    A Solution in Search of a Problem? Collective Rights and the Antitrust Labour Exemption in Italy
    (Cambridge University Press, 2022-05) Aloisi, Antonio; Gramano, Elena; Paul, Sanjukta; McCrystal, Shae; McGaughey, Ewan; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75
    This chapter investigates potential conflicts arising in the Italian legal framework between collective labour rights and the application of competition law to the constellation of personal labour relations that escape binary taxonomies. Its overarching goal is to understand whether and to what extent concerted wage-fixing practices are granted a special immunity. Historical evidence suggests that collective agreements covering the kaleidoscopic group of non-standard workers have never been targeted by the Italian competition authority. We situate the examination of labour antitrust exemption in the broader picture of the adequacy of the current mechanisms of “collective self-regulation” for self-employed workers. This chapter illustrates the Constitutional framework and case law developments on whether self-employed workers fall within the personal scope of collective rights. It also argues that several provisions corroborate that the Italian lawmaker often entrusts social partners in regulating specific aspects of the relationship of certain categories of self-employed workers. The chapter also presents a selection of collective agreements for non-standard workers, and then discusses how long-established trade unions have included non-standard workers in their membership through multiple, not necessarily successful, attempts. Finally, it presents practical hurdles that make it difficult to build impactful solidarity amongst non-standard workers.