Suchergebnisse

Under California court decisions and then the California Legislature's 2019 AB5 bill, gig workers were poised to become employees under the law. But all that changed when in November 2020 the voters approved Proposition 22, which provides for a complicated set of new rules that gives gig workers some rights of employees, but not others, (like the right to bargain collectively). This "Dispatch" examines the events around the passage of Proposition 22 in more detail.

RésuméLes inquiétudes suscitées par le chômage technologique ne datent pas d'aujourd'hui. Dans les années 1960, les débats sur l'automatisation reflétaient aussi bien l'optimisme que les préoccupations engendr..ées par le potentiel de destruction d'emplois du progrès technique. L'étude des documents d'archives, notamment des informations réunies par le Bureau de l'automatisation du BIT, montre que nombre des propositions avancées aujourd'hui étaient déjà évoquées à l'époque au sein de l'OIT, même si elles n'ont jamais été traduites en termes réglementaires. Revenir sur le débat de cette époque peut offrir des éclairages utiles pour relever les défis actuels et nous aider à construire l'avenir du travail que nous appelons de nos vœux.

ResumenLa preocupación por el desempleo tecnológico no es nueva. Los debates que tuvieron lugar en el decenio de 1960 sobre la automatización reflejaban tanto optimismo como preocupación por la potencial destrucción de empleo causada por la tecnología. Al estudiar los archivos de la OIT, y en particular la información recopilada por su ṢOficina de Automatizaciónṣ, se observa que muchas propuestas actuales se debatieron durante aquel periodo, aunque nunca se tradujeron en políticas de reglamentación. La autora reabre este antiguo debate, como un buen punto de partida para abordar los problemas actuales en consonancia con el mundo del trabajo que aspiramos a construir.

AbstractConcerns about technological unemployment are not new. Specifically, policy debates surrounding automation processes in the 1960s reflected both optimism and concerns about the job‐destroying potential of technology. Studying the archives, and in particular the information collected by the Bureau of Automation, shows that many of today's policy proposals were originally raised at the ILO during that period, even though they were never translated into regulatory policy. This article thus suggests that reopening this past dialogue may reveal useful insights for addressing current challenges, and enable us to achieve the world of work we wish to see in the future.

Transportation network companies ("TNCs") such as Uber and Lyft manage ridesharing platforms that have increased efficiency and convenience for many passengers. These platforms, however, have also opened the door to many legal and regulatory issues pertaining to their business practices, employment structures, and transportation law and policy. This article provides a perspective on the economic, social, technical, and political aspects of TNCs in two steps, focusing on transportation and employment. First, it examines the future of TNCs in transportation, noting that TNCs could do more in terms of environmentalism to live up to the promise of the "sharing" economy. Second, the article analyzes the interaction of TNCs with labor and employment law. It proposes development of basic protections from the negative side of the TNCs management model, i.e. precarious labor and automatic management through algorithmic surveillance.

The continuing development of prediction markets is important because of their success in foretelling the future in politics, economics, and science. In this article, we identify the expressive elements inherent in prediction markets and explore how legislation such as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 might harm such predictive speech. This article is the first to explore First Amendment protections for prediction markets in such depth, and in so doing, we distinguish prediction markets from other regulated areas such as gambling and securities trading. The article's examination of prediction markets also illustrates the limitations of current commercial speech doctrine. We conclude by discussing how the executive, legislative, and judicial branches might resolve the First Amendment challenges of regulating prediction markets, and we propose a new legal test, modeled on existing free speech jurisprudence, which may assist courts in adjudicating any constitutional challenges.