+1 Recommend
1 collections

      If you have found this article useful and you think it is important that researchers across the world have access, please consider donating, to ensure that this valuable collection remains Open Access.

      Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation is published by Pluto Journals, an Open Access publisher. This means that everyone has free and unlimited access to the full-text of all articles from our international collection of social science journals, and the authors don’t pay an author processing charge (APC’s).

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Labour law for TOS and HITs? reflections on the potential for applying ‘labour law analogies’ to crowdworkers, focusing on employee representation



            A growing number of people are performing work tasks via online platforms, referred to under various designations such as ‘Human Intelligence Tasks’ (HITs), under conditions set out not in an employment contract but through the standardised Terms of Service (TOS) of their contract partner. This article argues that, in spite of increasing evidence of precarious working conditions and circumvention of labour law and social protection standards in ‘turking’-style work environments, attempts to classify these forms of crowdwork as employment relationships are of limited practical use and benefit for those working in the industry. Instead, departing from much-debated concepts of a ‘purposive’ approach to labour law, it makes the case for a differential analysis of the aims of diverse elements of labour law and a consideration of whether, and to what degree, these can be instrumentalised for dealing with a contractual relationship that, notwithstanding socio-economic similarities, is fundamentally different from the employment relationship for which that law was developed, in several respects. It discusses the merits of rules on workplace employee representation and explores options for operationalising these for crowdworkers. For this purpose, it considers forms of collective organisation of crowdworkers via various networks as they already exist and are emerging in practice to question whether it is or should be reasonable for crowdworkers to be legally entitled to rights analogous to the workplace representation bodies such as works councils, which would entitle them to rights ranging from information and consultation to co-determination as well as veto rights on specific issues.


            Author and article information

            Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation
            Pluto Journals
            Winter 2018
            : 12
            : 2
            : 38-59
            © Christina Hiessl, 2018

            All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.


            Sociology,Labor law,Political science,Labor & Demographic economics,Political economics
            gig economy,crowdwork,collective labour rights,purposive approach to labour law,workers' representation


            1. & (2014) Economic, Legal and Ethical Analysis of Crowdsourcing for Speech Processing . Accessed July 13, 2018 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235744847_Economic_Legal_and_Ethical_analysis_of_Crowdsourcing_for_Speech_Processing.

            2. & (2016) ‘Rebalancing interests and power structures on crowdworking platforms’, Internet Policy Review , 5 (2):1–19.

            3. (2016) ‘Commoditized workers: Case study research on labor law issues arising from a set of “on-demand/gig economy” platforms’, Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal , 37:653–90.

            4. , & (2015) ‘Can reputation discipline the gig economy? Experimental evidence from an online labor market’, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Discussion Paper No. 9501. Accessed July 13, 2018 from http://ftp.iza.org/dp9501.pdf.

            5. (2016) ‘Income security in the on-demand economy: Findings and policy lessons from a survey of crowdworkers’, Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal , 37 (3):543–76.

            6. (2013) ‘Suppressing the mischief: New work, old problems’, Northeastern University Law Journal , 6 (2):311–46.

            7. (2016) ‘Reading mike: Assessing work law and policy in an age of global capital – What's next? A matrix for the grey zone’, Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal , 20 (445): 101–26.

            8. (1984) ‘Recent trends in collective bargaining in Belgium’, International Labour Review , 123:319–32.

            9. & (2000) ‘The institutionalised participation of management and labour in the legislative activities of the European community: A challenge to the principle of democracy under community law’, European Law Journal , 6 (1):45–71.

            10. (2009) ‘Working for (virtually) minimum wage: Applying the fair labor standards act in cyberspace’, Alabama Law Review , 60 (5): 1077–1110.

            11. & (2016) ‘Crowdwork, corporate social responsibility, and fair labor practices’, in & (eds) Research Handbook on Digital Transformations , Cheltenham: Edward Elgar:291–312.

            12. (2015) Brief Overview of the Challenges Posed to Labour Law by the Regulation of Crowdsourcing Platforms . Accessed July 13, 2018 from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2734152.

            13. (2017) ‘The impact of emerging information technologies on the employment relationship: New gigs for labor and employment law’, University of Chicago Law Review , 4:63–94.

            14. (2017) ‘The status of Uber drivers: A purposive approach’, Spanish Labour Law and Employment Relations Journal , 6 (1–2): 6–15.

            15. (2015) ‘Homejoy shuts down after battling worker classification lawsuits’, Recode , July 17.Accessed November 7, 2018 from https://www.recode.net/2015/7/17/11614814/cleaning-services-startup-homejoy-shuts-down-after-battling-worker.

            16. , & (2016) ‘The impact of the collaborative economy on the labour market’, CEPS Special Report 138. Accessed July 13, 2018 from https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/SR138CollaborativeEconomy_0.pdf.

            17. (2016) ‘The rise of the “just-in-time workforce”: On-demand work, crowdwork and labour protection in the “gig economy”’, Conditions of Work and Employment Series 71. Accessed July 13, 2018 from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2682602.

            18. , , & (2017) ‘Towards collective protections for crowdworkers: Italy, Spain and France in the EU context’, Transfer , 23 (2):207–23.

            19. , & (2016) ‘Principal forms of crowdsourcing and crowdwork’, in , & (eds) The Digital Economy and the Single Market: Employment Prospects and Working Conditions in Europe , Belgium: Foundation for European Progressive Studies, Brussels:39–55.

            20. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2017) ‘A review on the future of work: Online labour exchanges, or “crowdsourcing”: Implications for occupational safety and health’, OSHA Discussion Paper, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), Santiago de Compostela, Spain.

            21. European Trade Union Confederation (2016) Resolution on Digitalisation: Towards Fair Digital Work . Accessed July 13, 2018 from https://www.etuc.org/en/document/etuc-resolution-digitalisation-towards-fair-digital-work.

            22. (2011) ‘Working the crowd: Employment and labor law in the crowdsourcing industry’, Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law , 32 (1):143–204.

            23. & (2015) ‘A proposal for modernizing labor laws for twenty-first-century work: The “independent worker”’, The Hamilton Project Discussion Paper 2015–10. Accessed July 13, 2018 from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/modernizing_labor_laws_for_twenty_first_century_work_policy_brief.pdf.

            24. & (2017) Understanding the Impact of Outsourcing in the ITC Sector to Strengthen the Capacity of Workers’ Organisations to Address Labour Market Changes and to Improve Social Dialogue . Accessed July 13, 2018 from http://unieuropaprojects.org/content/uploads/2018-02-15-factsheet-work-organisation-and-company-strategies.pdf.

            25. (2017) ‘Where did online platforms come from? The virtualization of work organization and the new policy challenges it raises’, in & (eds) Policy Implications of Virtual Work , Cham: Palgrave Macmillan:29–48.

            26. International Labour Office Governing Body (2000) Follow-Up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work: Priorities and Action Plans for Technical Cooperation . Accessed July 13, 2018 from http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb279/pdf/tc-3.pdf.

            27. & (2016) Stories We Tell About Labor: Turkopticon and the Trouble with ‘Design’ . Accessed July 13, 2018 from http://wtf.tw/text/turkopticon_stories.pdf.

            28. (1993) ‘The law of strikes and lock-outs’, in & (eds) Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations in Industrialized Market Economies , Amsterdam: Kluwer:731–797.

            29. (2016) Three Paths to Update Labor Law for the Gig Economy , The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Accessed July 13, 2018 from https://www.itif.org/publications/2016/04/18/three-paths-update-labor-law-gig-economy.

            30. , & (2015) ‘Accounting for market frictions and power asymmetries in online labor markets’, Policy Studies Organization . Accessed July 13, 2018 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284141461_Accounting_for_Market_Frictions_and_Power_Asymmetries_in_Online_Labor_Markets.

            31. & (2017) ‘Collective regulation of contingent work: From traditional forms of contingent work to crowdwork – A German perspective’, in , & (eds) Core and Contingent Work in the European Union , Oxford and Portland: Hart: 211–230.

            32. & (2016) Building Trust in Crowd Worker Forums: Worker Ownership, Governance, and Work Outcomes . Accessed July 13, 2018 from http://trustincrowdwork.west.uni-koblenz.de/sites/trustincrowdwork.west.uni-koblenz.de/files/laplante_trust.pdf.

            33. , & (2016) ‘New forms of employment and IT: Crowdsourcing’, in , & (eds) New Forms of Employment in Europe. Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations , The Hague: Kluwer:23–42.

            34. (2016) ‘The gig economy & the future of employment and labor law’, Legal Studies Research Paper 16–223. Accessed July 13, 2018 from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2848456.

            35. (2017) ‘Contingent work: A conceptual framework’, in , & (eds) Core and Contingent Work in the European Union , Oxford and Portland: Hart: 724.

            36. & (2017) ‘Crowd employment and ICT-based mobile work - New employment forms in Europe’, in & (eds) Policy Implications of Virtual Work , Cham: Palgrave Macmillan:51–80.

            37. (2016) ‘The transformation to a digital economy: The need for a contextualised and holistic approach to policy’, in , & (eds) The Digital Economy and the Single Market: Employment Prospects and Working Conditions in Europe , Brussels: Foundation for European Progressive Studies:153–71.

            38. & (2017) ‘Introduction: The policy implications of virtual work’, in & (eds) Policy Implications of Virtual Work , Cham: Palgrave Macmillan:3–28.

            39. & (2017a) ‘The legal protection of crowdworkers: Four avenues for workers’ rights in the virtual realm’, in & (eds) Policy Implications of Virtual Work , Cham: Palgrave Macmillan:273–96.

            40. & (2017b) ‘Uber, Taskrabbit, and co.: Platforms as employers? Rethinking the legal analysis of crowdwork’, Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal , 37:619–51.

            41. (2017) ‘Digital agoras: Democratic legitimacy, online participation and the case of Uber-petitions’, The Theory and Practice of Legislation , 5 (1):31–54.

            42. & (2015) ‘Like Uber, but for local governmental policy: The future of local regulation of the “sharing economy”’, Economics Research Paper Series 15–01. Accessed July 13, 2018 from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2549919.

            43. (2016) ‘Employment rights in the platform economy: Getting back to basics’, Harvard Law & Policy Review , 10:480–520.

            44. , , , , & (2015) We Are Dynamo: Overcoming Stalling and Friction in Collective Action for Crowd Workers . Accessed July 13, 2018 from http://hci.stanford.edu/publications/2015/dynamo/DynamoCHI2015.pdf.

            45. (2015) Human-Centered Computing and the Future of Work: Lessons From Mechanical Turk and Turkopticon 2008–2015 . Accessed July 13, 2018 from http://wtf.tw/text/lessons_from_amt_and_turkopticon.pdf.

            46. & (2015/2016) ‘Operating an employer reputation system: Lessons from Turkopticon, 2008–2015’, Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal , 37:505–42.

            47. & (2015) Rights on Demand: Ensuring Workplace Standards and Worker Security in the On-Demand Economy , National Employment Law Project. Accessed July 13, 2018 from http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/Rights-On-Demand-Report.pdf.

            48. (2017) ‘A structural-purposive interpretation of “employment” in the platform economy’, Florida Law Review , 69:1–52.

            49. & (2017) ‘The imperative of code: Labor, regulation and legitimacy’, in & (eds) Policy Implications of Virtual Work , Cham: Palgrave Macmillan:109–36.

            50. (2016) ‘The right to strike and the International Labour Organisation (ILO)’, King's Law Journal , 27 (1):110–31.

            51. (2014) ‘Amazon's Turkers kick off the first crowdsourced labor guild’, The Daily Beast , December 3. Accessed July 13, 2018 from https://www.thedailybeast.com/amazons-turkers-kick-off-the-first-crowdsourced-labor-guild.


            Comment on this article