Suchergebnisse

Part I General background -- The state of devolution and decentralisation in social security, a comparative European analysis: an introduction to this edited volume (Paul Schoukens & Gijsbert Vonk) -- Federalism and devolution in social security (Danny Pieters) -- Sharing power with employers and employees: a tried and proven form of functional decentralisation in Europe (Ulrich Becker) -- Part II Country reports -- Devolution and decentralisation in social security: the situation in Austria (Verena Zwinger) -- Devolution and decentralisation in social security: the situation in Belgium (Jessie De Weyer & Paul Schoukens) -- Devolution and decentralisation in social security: the situation in the Czech Republic (Jakub Tomšej) -- Devolution and decentralisation in social security: the situation in Germany (Stephan Rixen) -- Devolution and decentralisation in social security: the situation in Hungary (Gb̀or Juhs̀z) -- Devolution and decentralisation in social security: the situation in Italy (Mario Battaglini) -- Devolution and decentralisation in social security: the situation in the Netherlands (Annette Jansen & Gijsbert Vonk) -- Devolution and decentralisation in social security: the situation in Slovenia (Luka Mišič & Grega Strban) -- Devolution and decentralisation in social security: the situation in Spain (Borja Sur̀ez Corujo) -- Devolution and decentralisation in social security: the situation in Sweden (Titti Mattsson & Elin Osbeck) -- Devolution and decentralisation in social security: the situation in Switzerland (Thomas Gc̃hter & Thuy Xuan Truong) -- Devolution and decentralisation in social security: the situation in Turkey (Galip Emre Yildirim) -- Devolution and decentralisation in social security: the situation in the United Kingdom (Guto Ifan & Ed Gareth Poole)

In this article, we take a closer look at EU policy to promote social inclusion in the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy. Concretely the legal consequences of the incorporation of social inclusion in the employment guidelines will be addressed. Since the employment guidelines are now connected in a structural way to the economic guidelines, we take a closer look at the monitoring procedures that accompany the implementation of these economic guidelines. Furthermore we test the potential legal consequences of the integrated approach by unravelling (the formulation of) the social inclusion-related Country Specific Recommendations. A first legal consequence relates to the question of the extent to which the harder sanctioning tools, which have been developed for controlling the EU's economic recommendations, can be similarly applied to the guidelines relating to social inclusion (such as the application of EU fines in cases when recommendations are not followed up by states). In our opinion there is a spill-over effect only in relation to social inclusion recommendations that have sufficient economic or budgetary relevance ('social inclusion recommendations of the negative kind', supporting economic or budgetary goals). In other words, social inclusion recommendations that support only social objectives do not enjoy the stronger legal effects of the integrated monitoring approach. From analysis of the concrete Country Specific Recommendations we demonstrate that the incorporation of social inclusion into the employment guidelines has two additional consequences. On the one hand, social inclusion recommendations are nowadays formulated mainly in terms of employment objectives. On the other hand, the link with social inclusion also has implications for recommendations in the field of employment and economy that should not be to the detriment of social inclusion. In this way the horizontal clause of art. 9 TFEU seems to extend to non-legislative measures, such as the guidelines developed in socio-economic monitoring processes.

"This book sheds an innovating light on a topic of major scientific as well as practical interest that has seldom been dealt with in a comprehensive way: the relations between EU and non-EU countries and nationals, as far as social security is concerned. These are dealt with in a number of contributions by eminent international experts. First, the internal co-ordination of the European Union in relation with third country nationals is analysed. The ways the social security systems of the EU Member States are being co-ordinated with those of the Mediterranean emigration countries are examined in a second contribution. The EU-EFTA social security arrangements are explored in a third one. An overview of the complex landscape of the existing bilateral and multilateral social security instruments binding EU states and non-EU states is given in a next one. A fifth contribution deals with the European and international law applicable to the social security of illegal foreign workers. The contributions were presented at a conference held on 2 April 2009 in Leuven, celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Master of European Social Security."--Publisher's description

With atypical work gaining popularity, platform work seems to combine all the elements which, by deviating significantly from the standard employment relationship, challenge social security systems. After an overview of the features of the standard employment relationship and the different ways in which non-standard forms of work diverge from them, the article focuses on the nature of platform work. It then analyses how platform work is regulated in five European social security systems (i.e. Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Belgium), and how this regulation may fare when analysed under the lens of the recent European Commission's proposal for a Council Recommendation on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed. The article concludes by highlighting the need for further adaptation of social security systems to the specific features of platform work, and by noting the risks of a regulatory approach towards this new form of work being dominated by the exclusion of low-paid work from the scope of labour-related social insurance schemes.

This special issue of the European Journal of Social Security explores the complexities of extending unemployment insurance to the self-employed and platform workers in the EU Member States and the steps taken at EU level to enforce the protection offered at national level. Traditionally, social security systems have been designed for standard employment relationships, leaving a typical workers and the self-employed inadequately protected. The European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR), adopted in 2017, and the subsequent 2019 Recommendation on access to social protection have marked a shift towards more inclusive social security frameworks. However, significant gaps in coverage remain, in particular with regard to unemployment protection for the self-employed and platform workers. The special issue is divided into three parts: national perspectives, comparative studies and EU-level discussions.

The aim of this paper is to examine if and how the reclassification of platform workers from self-employment status to employment status can provide them with adequate social security protection. Little is known about how this transition would guarantee platform workers adequate social protection within the social protection scheme for employees. National social security schemes, in particular income replacement benefit schemes, often (still) depart from the standard employment relationship, leading to lower protection for atypical work forms. Platform workers combine several of the characteristics of atypical forms of work, such as low earnings, irregular working patterns and working. Integrating platform workers into employee social security schemes faces additional challenges due to the online nature of their work, algorithmic management, high levels of unpaid labor, and employer identification difficulties. This paper focuses on unemployment protection, as EU Member States struggle to provide adequate protection for workers with irregular work patterns and income fluctuations, in the case of (short term) income replacement benefits. By constructing nine ideal work patterns reflective of diverse nature of platform work and current practices among platform work, we analyse how different types of 'employed' platform workers may fare within the legislation of three EU countries (Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands). This approach allows us to assess the applicability of unemployment protection to different working patterns among 'employed' platform workers, considering formal, effective, and adequate access to unemployment schemes as outlined in the Council Recommendation on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed (2019).