Fortifying the algorithmic management provisions in the proposed Platform Work Directive

The European Commission proposed a Directive on Platform Work at the end of 2021. While much attention has been placed on its effort to address misclassification of the employed as self-employed, it also contains ambitious provisions for the regulation of the algorithmic management prevalent on these platforms. Overall, these provisions are well-drafted, yet they require extra scrutiny in light of the fierce lobbying and resistance they will likely encounter in the legislative process, in implementation and in enforcement. In this article, we place the proposal in its sociotechnical context, drawing upon wide cross-disciplinary scholarship to identify a range of tensions, potential misinterpretations, and perversions that should be pre-empted and guarded against at the earliest possible stage. These include improvements to ex ante and ex post algorithmic transparency; identifying and strengthening the standard against which human reviewers of algorithmic decisions review; anticipating challenges of representation and organising in complex platform contexts; creating realistic ambitions for digital worker communication channels; and accountably monitoring and evaluating impacts on workers while limiting data collection. We encourage legislators and regulators at both European and national levels to act to fortify these provisions in the negotiation of the Directive, its potential transposition, and in its enforcement

Fortifying the Algorithmic Management Provisions in the Proposed Platform Work Directive

The European Commission proposed a Directive on Platform Work at the end of 2021. While much attention has been placed on its effort to address misclassification of the employed as self-employed, it also contains ambitious provisions for the regulation of the algorithmic management prevalent on these platforms. Overall, these provisions are well-drafted, yet they require extra scrutiny in light of the fierce lobbying and resistance they will likely encounter in the legislative process, in implementation and in enforcement. In this article, we place the proposal in its sociotechnical context, drawing upon wide cross-disciplinary scholarship to identify a range of tensions, potential misinterpretations, and perversions that should be pre-empted and guarded against at the earliest possible stage. These include improvements to ex ante and ex post algorithmic transparency; identifying and strengthening the standard against which human reviewers of algorithmic decisions review; anticipating challenges of representation and organising in complex platform contexts; creating realistic ambitions for digital worker communication channels; and accountably monitoring and evaluating impacts on workers while limiting data collection. We encourage legislators and regulators at both European and national levels to act to fortify these provisions in the negotiation of the Directive, its potential transposition, and in its enforcement

Measuring People Power In 2020+

How do you measure gifts of time, expertise and leadership? What indicators can you use to assess grassroots power building, organising and volunteer initiatives?To answer these questions, MobLab and 13 other organisations embarked on research, consultations and a global survey to learn how social change practitioners and leaders across the globe currently grapple with these questions. In this report, we have surfaced the key trends and learnings emerging from our scan of existing research and the inputs of 500 respondents from around the world

Content marketplaces as digital labour platforms: towards accountable algorithmic management and decent work for content creators

YouTube is probably the world’s largest digital labour platform. YouTube creators report similar decent work deficits as other platform workers: economic and psychosocial impacts from opaque, error-prone algorithmic management; no collective bargaining; and possible employment misclassification. In December 2021, the European Commission announced a new proposal for a Directive ‘on improving working conditions in platform work’ (the ‘Platform Work Directive’). However, the definition of ‘platform work’ in the proposed Directive may exclude YouTube. Commercial laws, however, may apply. In the US state of California, for example, Civil Code §1749.7 (previously AB 1790 [2019]) governs the relationship between ‘marketplaces’ and ‘marketplace sellers.’ In the European Union, Regulation 2019/1150 (the ‘Platform-to-Business Regulation’) similarly provides protections to ‘business users of online intermediation services.’ While the protections provided by these ‘marketplace laws’ are less comprehensive than those provided by the proposed Platform Work Directive, they might address some of the decent work deficits experienced by workers on content marketplaces, especially those arising from opaque and error-prone algorithmic management practices. Yet they have gone relatively underexamined in policy discussions on improving working conditions in platform work. Additionally, to our knowledge they have not been used or referred to in any legal action or public dispute against YouTube or any other digital labour platform. This paper uses the case of YouTube to consider the regulatory situation of ‘content marketplaces,’ a category of labour platform defined in the literature on working conditions in platform work but underdiscussed in policy research and proposals on platform work regulation—at least compared to location-based, microtask, and freelance platforms. The paper makes four contributions. First, it summarizes the literature on YouTube creators’ working conditions and collective action efforts, highlighting that creators on YouTube and other content marketplaces face similar challenges to other platform workers. Second, it considers the definition of ‘digital labour platform’ in the proposed EU Platform Work Directive and notes that YouTube and other content marketplaces may be excluded, despite their relevance. Third, it compares the California and EU ‘marketplace laws’ to the proposed Platform Work Directive, concluding that the marketplace laws, while valuable, do not fully address the decent work deficits experienced by content marketplace creators. Fourth, it presents policy options for addressing these deficits from the perspective of international labour standards

Guest Editorial: regulating algorithmic management

This special issue of the European Labour Law Journal, edited by Jeremias Adams-Prassl, Halefom Abraha, Aislinn Kelly-Lyth, Sangh Rakshita and Michael ‘Six’ Silberman, explores the regulation of Algorithmic Management in the European Union and beyond. In our guest editorial, we set out the background to the project, introduce the reader to the key themes and highlights of the papers to follow, and acknowledge the support that the project has enjoyed

Regulating algorithmic management: A blueprint

The promise—and perils—of algorithmic management are increasingly recognised in the literature. How should regulators respond to the automation of the full range of traditional employer functions, from hiring workers through to firing them? This article identifies two key regulatory gaps—an exacerbation of privacy harms and information asymmetries, and a loss of human agency—and sets out a series of policy options designed to address these novel harms. Redlines (prohibitions), purpose limitations, and individual as well as collective information rights are designed to protect against harmfully invasive data practices; provisions for human involvement ‘in the loop’ (banning fully automated terminations), ‘after the loop’ (a right to meaningful review), ‘before the loop’ (information and consultation rights) and ‘above the loop’ (impact assessments) aim to restore human agency in the deployment and governance of algorithmic management systems

‘Your duties are to sweep a floor remotely’: low information quality in job advertisements is a barrier to low-income job-seekers’ successful use of digital platforms

Digital platforms have become central in job search. Job-seekers’ experiences with these platforms, however, is a relatively new research area. This paper presents findings from 27 interviews with US low-income job-seekers. Job-seekers encountered many job ads with low information quality on the platforms they used in their searches. These included ads where important information, such as job pay, duration, hours, location, or requirements were missing, unclear, contradictory, or misleading; ads for unethical or illegal work; and ads that did not correspond to paying work but were designed to lure job-seekers into performing free labor or into scams. While job-seekers developed heuristics to navigate low quality ads, these did not always work, and may have caused job-seekers to miss relevant job opportunities. This paper helps answer an open question in HCI research about barriers to low-income job-seekers’ successful use of digital platforms: one barrier is low information quality job ads

The lived experience of clinical instructors as simulated patients: a qualitative study

Purpose: Simulated patients (SPs) during simulated learning experiences (SLEs) are typically played by a trained actor, potentially requiring significant training time and cost. The participating university’s physical therapist (PT) education program recruits clinical instructors (CIs) to play the SP role during SLEs that represent various learning environments (in and out patient). As there is limited literature exploring the SP experience, especially from a clinician perspective, the purpose of this qualitative inquiry was to describe the lived experience of CIs as SPs. Methods: This qualitative inquiry used an inductive approach to identify the experiences of CIs as SPs. Eight CIs participated in an individual semi-structured interview to gather their perspectives about their experiences playing the SP role during SLEs. A constant-comparative approach was used to develop codes, which were further collapsed into categories and main themes. Member checks and peer review were conducted to establish trustworthiness of the findings. Results: Qualitative analysis revealed four main themes: (1) Becoming the Patient, (2) A Window into the Student Experience, (3) We See It Every Day: Using Experience to Guide Performance, and (4) Giving Back Through Teaching. Conclusion: Being an SP was an enjoyable experience that allowed CIs to participate in teaching and give back to their profession. Empathy gained for both patients and students through the SP experience influenced the CIs’ own clinical practice and may enhance CIs’ preparation for student clinical experiences and improve CI mentoring skills

Prozone Masks Elevated Sars-Cov-2 Antibody Level Measurements

We report a prozone effect in measurement of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibody levels from an antibody surveillance program. Briefly, the prozone effect occurs in immunoassays when excessively high antibody concentration disrupts the immune complex formation, resulting in a spuriously low reported result. Following participant inquiries, we observed anomalously low measurement of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibody levels using the Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay from participants in the Texas Coronavirus Antibody Research survey (Texas CARES), an ongoing prospective, longitudinal antibody surveillance program. In July, 2022, samples were collected from ten participants with anomalously low results for serial dilution studies, and a prozone effect was confirmed. From October, 2022 to March, 2023, serial dilution of samples detected 74 additional cases of prozone out of 1,720 participants\u27 samples. Prozone effect may affect clinical management of at-risk populations repeatedly exposed to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein through multiple immunizations or serial infections, making awareness and mitigation of this issue paramount