Guardians of autonomy: A comparative analysis of safeguarding independent self-employed workers in Indonesia and Europe

Abstract

This article aimed to understand better the emergence of dependent self-employment and the implications this trend may have for workers’ rights and protection in the modern era of the gig economy, particularly in Europe and Indonesia. In addition, this research aims to describe the idea of workers’ protection for dependent self-employment in the modern era of the gig economy. According to the information presented in this article, the ‘gig economy and the new type of employees known as development-dependent self-employed individuals are strongly connected. Nevertheless, dependent self-employment is incorrectly categorised due to its position ambiguity. As a result of the error in classification, dependent self-employed people have less access to social and health protection. They are more likely to be subjected to a variety of precarious working conditions compared to other dependent self-employed people who have dependent employment.

Keywords:

• dependent self-employed
• worker’s protection
• gig economy
• Indonesia
• Europe

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Self-employed employees contribute to industry growth and the global economy by providing essential goods and services. Nonetheless, these workers often confront obstacles and risks, including employment insecurity, limited benefits and protections, and difficulty negotiating fair wages. A comparative analysis of Indonesian and European laws, regulations, and practises protecting independent self-employed workers helps illuminate their protection. This research can uncover gaps in laws and policies and suggest ways to protect independent self-employed workers in these regions. We can create a more equitable and sustainable economy for all by preserving the rights and interests of independent self-employed workers. To fulfil these workers’ demands, research and meaningful discussions are needed.

1. Introduction

The new sector is trending toward more short-term work contracts, which are frequently carried out through online work platforms that do away with a significant number of the geographical constraints that were formerly associated with particular tasks (Djankov & Saliola, 2018). The so-called “gig economy” makes certain types of work more available more flexibly; yet, such work often does not come with the traditional social safeguards associated with employment (Webster, 2016). The so-called “gig economy,” which is anticipated to bring about changes in the temporal and spatial organisation of employment as well as new obstacles, Gig work, can also be considered as a new variety of sending out feelers and subcontracting, with the drawbacks of having no job stability and having employment and wages that are unpredictable (Stanford, 2017). Because of the nature of gig employment, it is not only challenging to measure, but it is also challenging to control. Being employed as a gig worker means you are primarily not afforded the protections or rights typically associated with employment. As a result, regulation needs to be implemented so that adverse effects and labour exploitation do not start to occur (Bieber & Moggia, 2021).

In particular, this circumstance has fostered an increase in the number of work relationships in which the worker is nominally self-employed, but the terms of work are comparable to those of employees. Workers are neither clearly isolated from the company they contract with nor integrated into it, even though they work entirely (or primarily) for a particular company (i.e. the corporation that outsources the labour). These working arrangements are not governed by employment contracts but rather by private contracts negotiated between a self-employed person and the outsourcing company. This new information has two critical repercussions. The line separating employment and self-employment is becoming increasingly difficult to delineate. Second, this form of working connection gives rise to the concept of dependent self-employment (Muehlberger, 2007).

In recent years, this occupational category has garnered the attention of scholars and decision-makers in government policy. This is because some businesses are currently misclassifying their employees as independent contractors in order to get around collective bargaining agreements and labour regulations concerning the minimum wage, working time legislation, and protection in the event of redundancy in order to reduce their obligations regarding the payment of labour taxes, among other things (Gialis et al., 2017; Navajas-Romero et al., 2019). In addition, the organisation enjoys greater flexibility in various respects thanks to the utilisation of dependent self-employment. Because these working relationships are based on individual or private contracts rather than employment contracts, fewer rules restrict the contractual structure. This makes it possible for contracts to be modified to meet the specific requirements of the companies involved (Davidescu et al., 2020).

The increase of labour arranged through online platforms and applications for mobile devices is a contemporary illustration of the reliant self-employment model that may be seen (apps). One such company is Indonesia’s Gojek, for illustration purposes. In Indonesia, the pre-existing norms and policies did not cover much of the business structure Gojek had developed. For instance, the relationship between Gojek as a corporation and the driving partners is not entirely obvious. Driver-partners are third-party service providers who have agreed to work with Gojek as part of a partnership arrangement. Driver-partners are not considered Gojek’s employees, agents, or representatives. As a result, the relationship between Gojek and its partner drivers is one of cooperation rather than employment (Kamim & Khandiq, 2019).

Nevertheless, even though it is presented as a partnership programme, the driver-partner is highly dependent on Gojek. For instance, the contract is typically written unilaterally. The driver-partner is pressured to comply with the conditions of the contract. Then, the driver-partner cannot continue with the registration procedure if the driver-partner does not agree with the contract. Because of this, the contract has the potential to govern the driving partner as an employee of Gojek. In addition, the contract does not distinctly regulate employment security aspects, such as minimum salaries, work hour control, social security, and union rights. Due to these factors, the driver-partner is forced into the role of an independent contractor (Harsyahwardhana et al., 2019).

The case demonstrates that dependent self-employed workers face several challenges, ultimately resulting in opportunities for their employers or organisations. Even while the employers or enterprises have ownership over the asset, they are not required to keep it in good condition. In addition, they are not responsible for the payment of social security payments or any other benefits, nor do they face financial risk if the self-employed workers experience difficulties or, worst case scenario, are injured. Another advantage for employers and companies is that there are fewer legal limits on employment, which may be even more crucial. In a nutshell, most regulations about employee protection are not relevant to such individual or private partnerships. Therefore, dependent self-employment undermines the effectiveness of regulations intended to safeguard workers.

Because of this, the advent of gig work and dependent self-employment demands a reorientation of labour laws and employment rules that were formed in the context of the different industrial ages and with a different vision of work, employment, and the workplace. To put it another way, legislators must comprehensively analyse the current legal framework and revise it to accommodate society’s evolving requirements. The prospect of constructing an inclusive and equitable labour market, which is already hampered by the prevalence of precarious employment forms, will be set back even further if labour regulations and safety nets are not modified and strengthened to reflect the new practises of gig work. If the excellent potential represented in new digital technologies is going to be realised in improvements in human welfare, then active, innovative techniques of labour regulation are necessary (Stewart & Stanford, 2017).

Given the above information, we must broaden our understanding of and awareness of dependent self-employment. The purpose of this research is to better understand the evolution of dependent self-employment and its ramifications in the worker’s rights or protection, with a particular focus on Europe and Indonesia. We have decided to focus on Europe because it is the most advanced continent in research, legal policy, regulations, and institutions governing dependent self-employment. Indonesia was selected as a case study because it exemplifies a developing nation with a sizable labour force and various occupations. In addition, the implementation of dependent self-employed workers in the legal systems of Europe and Indonesia will be compared and contrasted in this research using a comparative, systemic, and holistic analysis lens.

2. The development concept of dependent self-employment in the recent gig economy era

It has been acknowledged up until today that the standard employment relationship’ (SER) of formal, full-time, and permanent waged employment is becoming the norm ever less formal relationship (Vlachos & Bitzenis, 2019). The International Labor Organization (ILO) defines a “standard employment relationship” (SER) as an employment arrangement that is full-time, open-ended, and founded on a direct subordinate and bilateral employment relationship between an employee and an employer. This has been the case up until the present day (Schoukens & Barrio, 2017).

Over several decades, SER has evolved into a standard and essential vehicle for rights and social protection distribution. Despite this, SER is increasingly being ignored as a reference when talking about established relationships (Titmuss, 2018). The decrease in the SER can be attributed to the growth of non-standard employment (NSE) forms, such as part-time, fixed-term, and agency employees, and the growth in participation in undeclared work self-employment. The umbrella of protective rights typically covers neither these two types of work for the worker nor responsibilities for the employer. This has led to a decline in the SER (Duke, 2022).

NSE is impacted by recent technological breakthrough developments and the advent of the so-called “gig economy,” which refers to labour facilitated by online platforms or applications. Due to its repercussions, the NSE poses a considerable risk to employees, companies, labour markets, and society. Consequently, the manifestations of NSE become more widespread and might take the form of various jobs (Calvão & Thara, 2019). Notwithstanding this, workers in NSE have generally been afforded fewer rights and benefits, whether measured in terms of the presence or duration of a contract, the number of working hours, or the type of employer. As a result, it is reasonable to assume that online workers’ platforms can also be classified as NSE. This would imply that not all workers have adequate protective rights like joint employment in SER, particularly in contexts where worker protection is not extended to these groups of the employed.

Because of the ambiguity surrounding their roles, the newly emerging class of NSE employees, particularly those involved in the so-called “gig” economy or those who work on internet platforms, are being incorrectly categorised. This misclassification occurs in several circumstances to evade collective agreements, labour laws (for instance, minimum wage legislation, working time legislation, and protection in the event of redundancy), employment tax, and other employer liabilities implied in the standard contract of employment. It is common practice in many nations to apply labour law to dependent employment, whereas civic law governs self-employment and other forms of independent employment (Horodnic & Williams, 2020). A dualistic picture, or a binary division, does not reflect the whole range of employment, from genuine self-employment at one end of the spectrum to dependent employment at the other (Williams & Horodnic, 2019). However, in actuality, an employment relationship is neither dependent on employment nor self-employment. As a result, it will become fair-minded if the classification of new types of workers is occasionally caught in dualism. On the other hand, there is a possibility that new kinds of employees could be classified in a way that is independent of dualisms (Dieuaide & Azaïs, 2020).

The employment relationship is positioned in the “grey region” in the middle ground between being dependently employed and being self-employed due to the classification being stuck in dualism. On the one hand, the term “grey zone” is used to describe the types of work that do not fit neatly into either the category of “pure dependent employment” or “genuine self-employment.” This is because these types of work possess some characteristics of both types of work: some characteristics of dependent employment and some characteristics of self-employment. Perulli (2003) provides support for this viewpoint as well. He suggested that the term “grey zone” is also used to characterise situations in which a worker is technically registered as self-employed, but, in reality, the worker is involved in dependent employment. This condition occurs when a worker is engaged in dependent employment.

Dependent self-employment can be defined as an employment relationship where workers are likely self-employed but have an employment relationship shown from their contract or agreement; they only work for one employer, should comply with employer standards and qualifications, and do not have the authority to hire staff, and do not have the authority to Dependent self-employment can be defined as an employment relationship where workers are likely self-employed but have employment relationship shown from their contract or agreement, they only work for one employer, should comply with employer standard and qualification, The term “dependant” raises questions about its meaning within the context of this definition (Williams & Horodnic, 2018). According to Muehlberger (2007), economic dependence is present when the worker generates their income from one or mainly from one employer, whereas personal dependence refers to subordination and a lack of authority on working methods, the content of the worker’s work, and the time and place of the worker’s work. As a result, this definition considers the two most common types of dependence, namely economic dependence and personal dependence.

If we take Europe as a whole, many countries stand out as particularly significant examples. Among these are the United Kingdom, Spain, and Italy. First, research conducted in the United Kingdom using data from the British Quarterly Labour Force Survey between 1999 and 2005 revealed that only a tiny percentage of workers depend on their self-employment income (1.5% of all workers) (Böheim & Mühlberger, 2009). In this case, the status of dependent self-employment was determined by determining whether or not the worker was engaged in a self-employment arrangement that did not involve any workers and had only one client. According to the survey results, it is possible to conclude that the examination method is relatively straightforward. In addition, there is a lack of assurance with this method because the number of staff and customers is constantly changing. It has the potential to classify certain people who are genuinely independent contractors as dependent contractors instead, and vice versa.

Second, the status of economically dependent self-employment has been regulated in Spain since 2007, and as a result, official data exist on this form of employment. According to this regulation, the primary criterion for ascribing to a self-employed person the status of economically dependent self-employment is economic dependency. Specifically, the income from a single client has to exceed 75% of the individual’s total income for this to be the case. As a result of this discovery, it is possible to point out that the term “dependent” in dependent self-employment is still only used to refer to economically dependent individuals in Spain and does not encompass personally dependent individuals. However, it is essential to remember that Spain highlighted that dependent self-employed individuals should only have one customer, and they should be able to verify that this customer accounts for more than 75% of their overall revenue.

In conclusion, “self-employed” refers to workers in Italy who are legally independent but economically dependent. These workers, collectively referred to as “collaborator coordinate e continuative” or “co.co.co,” meaning coordinated and continuous assistants, number approximately 1.5 million people and represent a large share of those in self-employment. For instance, the percentage of self-employed workers is 17 per cent. It is clear that just one form of dependence has been discovered: economic dependence. Regrettably, there is no additional information available regarding being legally independent. On the other hand, it is reasonable to believe that each worker operates independently.

On the other hand, Indonesia has not yet acknowledged the existence of dependent self-employed individuals. According to the Indonesia Jobs Outlook 2017, Indonesia utilises the phrase “non-traditional forms of employment” to designate a type of jobs that fall outside of the realm of regular labour arrangements. This paper describes non-traditional forms of employment that have already been mapped in Indonesia. These non-traditional forms of employment include self-employed workers, employees who work remotely, and foreign migrant workers. The publication “Indonesia Jobs Outlook 2017” unfortunately lacks any explanations or definitions about foreign migrant workers, independent workers, or employees working remotely. However, this paper states that the non-traditional types of employment include contingent self-employment, temporary agency or dispatched work, part-time work, and temporary contracts with specified terms. Again, it is terrible that these terms do not have a single explanation that covers all of them. Because of this, the term “dependent self-employment” might be somewhat misleading.

When discussing independent contractors and freelancing employees, another nebulous classification comes up. According to the study titled Indonesia Jobs Outlook 2017, contract work and freelancing are considered to be non-traditional kinds of employment. It suggests that freelancing could be seen in the same light as temporary work. Therefore, because they share comparable qualities, it is possible to classify freelancing as NSE. On the other hand, the classification of freelance work is handled very differently under Indonesian law. According to Indonesian labour law, workers who engage in freelancing activities may have an “employee agreement for a specific time”. Because of these criteria, freelancing might be implicitly characterised as traditional, dependent, or standard labour. Therefore, as of right now in Indonesia, it is impossible to draw any conclusions regarding the classification of dependent self-employment as either a new and dependent term of work status or as falling into the category of non-traditional forms of employment.

Eurofound found that the estimates vary considerably after analysing many studies regarding the workforce involved in platform work in Europe. This is partly because different definitions, methodologies, and regions are used in the various studies. According to the findings of other studies, platform work makes up a relatively insignificant portion of the global labour force; nevertheless, researchers anticipate that this proportion will significantly expand in the following years. It is essential to remember that platform work is related not just to NSE, such as freelancing and self-employment (including dependent self-employment), but also to informal labour; as a result, the estimates may represent estimates from the lower bound of the distribution.

On the other hand, the labour market in Indonesia is seeing an increase in the prevalence of non-traditional forms of work that involve either functional or geographical mobility. The conclusions drawn from Indonesia Jobs Outlook 2017 paint a picture of businesses having a more positive outlook on technological advancement. Interestingly, a more significant percentage of these businesses anticipate a rise in the total number of employees. Manufacturing companies are more likely to employ the three non-traditional workers than service businesses. Other research has unfortunately shown that Indonesian businesses favour hiring non-traditional types rather than regular employment. This is because these workers are either transitory, poorly paid, poorly skilled or need minimal accountability on their part.

Based on the findings from European countries and Indonesia, it is possible to assume that there has been an increase in jobs in this grey area. This is possible for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is more cost-effective for employers to hire dependent self-employed workers than it is to hire genuine dependent workers. This scenario lends credence to the newly-emerging claim that dependent self-employment in the grey area is becoming increasingly prevalent and is expanding at a breakneck pace. On the other hand, employers and businesses are abusing the surge in hiring-dependent self-employment in recent years. They have a pattern of avoiding obligations such as the payment of the minimum wage, compensation in the event of termination, higher earnings based on seniority, holiday payments, and an employee’s right to be paid if they are unwell and unable to work. This employer activity sidesteps collective agreements, labour laws, employment tax, and other employer liabilities that would otherwise apply in ordinary events.

One last prevalent depiction of the expansion of dependent self-employment is that it is especially prevalent in businesses and economic activities associated with online platforms and mobile device applications. This is one of the dominant depictions regarding the growth of dependent self-employment. A research project that covered eight countries (including Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Romania, and the United Kingdom) concluded that the growth of the gig economy represents a driver for dependent self-employment in there out of the eight countries, specifically Greece, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) defines “online platform work” as including the following: Any labour that is provided through, on or mediated by online platforms and features a wide variety of working arrangements or relationships, such as (versions of) everyday work, dependent self-employment, informal work, piecework, homework, and “crowd work” in a wide variety of industries (Garben, 2019). Depending on the particular circumstances, the actual work that is performed may be automated or completed by hand; it may be performed in-house or by a third party; it may require a high level of expertise or a low level of expertise; it may be performed locally or remotely; it may be on a large or a small scale, and it may be permanent or temporary.

According to a survey conducted by Eurofound in 2016, the economic activities that have been identified as being associated with the introduction of online platforms and applications for mobile devices include the rental of short-term accommodations and transport services, as well as domestic services, virtual crowd working and freelancer services, such as administration, consultancy, accountancy, and translation. This definition makes it evident that platform work and dependent forms of self-employment are closely related. A study by Heyes and Hastings (2017) came to the same conclusion: dependent self-employment has extended from manual jobs to non-manual occupations as a direct result of the growth of technology and communications.

This proposal is made to improve the understanding of dependent self-employment. Workers who have contractual arrangements of a commercial nature to provide goods or services for or on behalf of another economic unit are not employees of that economic unit, but are dependent on that unit for organisation and execution of the work or access to the market, are referred to as “dependent contractors” by the International Labor Organization (ILO). The ILO suggests that the dependent self-employed should be labelled as “dependent contractors.”

The inclusion of dependent contractors in the classification of employment status produces two distinct hierarchies, namely: one based on the type of authority, in which workers are classified as either independent workers or dependent workers; and one based on the type of economic risk, in which workers are classified as either worker in employment for profit or workers in employment for pay. Both of these hierarchies are the result of the introduction of dependent contractors.

The International Labor Organization (ILO) provides an expanded definition of dependent contractors. This proposed measurement approach is to be used when collecting data, examples of categories of workers that fall under this category, guidelines on who does not fall under the dependent contractor status, as well as a range of characteristics for identifying dependent contractors (Bozzon & Murgia, 2022). These provisions are made to facilitate the correct classification of dependent contractors. Dependent contractors have the following characteristics:

• Their work is organised or supervised by another economic unit as a client or entity that mediates clients’ access.

• The mode of payment is by way of a commercial transaction.

• The client or an intermediary determines the price paid for the goods or services.

• The client or an intermediary controls access to raw materials, equipment or capital items.

• The client or an intermediary determines their actual work.

• Their actual work.

According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), this proposed concept makes it possible to establish clear boundaries between dependent contractors, dependent employees, and self-employed persons. These clear boundaries are relevant to analysing the labour market and general social policies. In addition to bringing clarity to the situation, the suggested idea sheds light on the proper standing of the “grey zone,” which was once known as dependent self-employed.

Protective rights for dependent contractors, also known as dependent self-employment, are the next most critical problem that needs to be solved in the future. Despite this, the newly proposed idea has just resolved the issues around the uncertain situation of dependent self-employed workers. When addressing the difficulties associated with dependent self-employment, there is still a lack of discussion regarding what is effective and what is not. This is the most pressing problem that should be addressed. Because of this, the OECD contends that studies are required to evaluate the effects of lowering the tax gap between dependent employment and self-employment, as well as increasing the social security coverage for self-employment as opposed to lowering the social security coverage for dependent employment.

In a nutshell, the strategies used up to this point in various nations to address the issue of the incorrect classification of work status may differ. Because of the traditional dichotomy between work and self-employment, the definition of “dependent self-employed” can often be challenging. Even though there is a proposed concept that can be described and categorised as dependent self-employed, it is possible that addressing dependent self-employment will merely shift decent work shortages from one type of employment connection to another. For this reason, it is essential to tackle the more general problem of social protection across the board in all employment situations and to guarantee decent work conditions regardless of the type of employment (Aranguiz & Bednarowicz, 2018).

3. Conceptualising worker’s protection for dependent self-employment in the recent gig economy era

3.1. The contemporary challenges from the concept of dependent self-employed

The reliant self-employed take on more risk and responsibility for changes in the market since they have less control over their employment. Additionally, these individuals do not benefit from the independence that comes with being an entrepreneur while taking on that risk. According to research conducted by Eurofound in the European Union, workers classified as dependent self-employed are subjected to less favourable social environments than other categories of workers. These other categories include short-term and long-term temporary workers, independent self-employed, employer or self-employed with employees, and permanent workers. However, dependent self-employed workers benefit from a lower work intensity. The study concluded that both genuine and dependent self-employed people have a lower job intensity and higher scores in skills and discretion but lower quality working time and fewer favourable social situations. In addition, it has been discovered that dependent self-employed people are more likely to be asked to work irregular hours and receive less training, but they face fewer obstacles when taking time off and are subjected to fewer pressures at work compared to those who are employed in permanent positions (Nikolova et al., 2022).

On the other hand, Indonesia takes a different approach to examining the difficulties associated with dependent self-employment. This circumstance arises due to Indonesia’s ambiguous definition of dependent self-employment, contributing to the condition. Nevertheless, one can utilise a variety of data to analyse the difficulties associated with dependent self-employment. Between 2006 and 2016, the employment situation improved in terms of jobs added to the economy and the quality of work, as shown by the ILO staff calculations using Sakernas 2006 & 2016. The percentage of workers and employers who are aided by permanent or paid staff has increased, whereas the percentage of employers whom temporary workers assist, casual employees in agriculture, and family members or unpaid labour has fallen.

The findings suggest, in a roundabout way, that there was a growth in the amount of worker protection afforded in the field of SER over time. Permanent or compensated workers here might represent the SER because the characteristics are satisfied. On the other hand, employees who were provided with a lower level of protection are probably not eligible for SER. It does not matter if it will be classified as NSE or even dependent self-employed; either way, it is irrelevant. The main result here is that the workers outside the realm of SER, notably reliant self-employed, are likely to face weaker protection.

In addition, because of the uncertainty in Indonesia’s conception of dependent self-employment, workers in the country are automatically assumed to be engaged in dependent self-employment, which means they are not eligible for employment social security schemes. Social security schemes, on the other hand, allows workers who are not formal or excluded from the Indonesian Labour Law (SER). The Indonesian Ministry of Manpower Regulation No. 1 of 2016 Regarding Procedures for Implementing Work Accident Insurance, Death Security, and Old Age Security Programs, for Participants who do not Receive Wages, regulated that individuals who carry out business activities independently to earn income are eligible to apply for the social security schemes. This regulation was issued to protect workers who do not receive wages. This rule indicates, either explicitly or indirectly, that the types of work exempt from the Indonesian Labor Law (SER) are eligible to participate in the social security schemes voluntarily.

A condition similar to this can be encountered by workers who depend on self-employment in the gig economy. They are not afforded protection concerning wages, working hours, occupational safety and health, representation, or social protection. They are dissatisfied with the income, the amount of work available, and the lack of attention from the platforms they work on, even though they love the freedom and the ability to work from home. It would appear that those who work in independent self-employment and are engaged in the gig economy do not typically have access to social and health protections. When looking at the working circumstances that platform workers are currently subjected to, the Eurofound study comes to a similar conclusion. Eurofound has concluded that there is not much research exploring this subject, and even those studies investigating it tends to concentrate on a relatively small number of the many aspects of working conditions.

The conclusions about dependent self-employed employees in the gig economy are considerably different, according to the paper Indonesia Jobs Outlook 2017, released in 2017. One more time, this is because Indonesia does not yet have a specific policy that may transparently define the term dependent self-employed. The method that Indonesia employs is still general. The government of Indonesia has acknowledged that the gig economy brings about significant changes to the production and distribution of products and services. These changes are a direct result of the liberating effects of technological advancements. These breakthroughs are influencing the industries and employment opportunities of the future. In the past, technology has frequently led the way for the development of new jobs and markets, even though its first impact was unquestionably disruptive. In developing countries, where there is a relatively more extensive supply of (unskilled) labour, businesses frequently discover that it is cheaper to employ additional labour than to use sophisticated technology to replace humans in their workforce.

Regarding the risk posed by the gig economy or online platforms, Drahokoupil and Fabo (2017) suggest that platforms may contribute to the growing precarity of labour because, in many instances, the workers are viewed as self-employed when, in reality, they are dependent on self-employed persons. Moisander added that in many cases, using platform workers is a strategy that corporations employ to shift the employment cost and economic risk onto the employee and that this leads to the creation of a new class of exploited workers who are forced to accept the status of dependent self-employed or platform workers. He said this shifts the burden of responsibility from the employer to the employee. The platform work has contributed to a change toward more flexible working arrangements, which may be potentially more precarious due to their unpredictability. This point can be agreed with, and it can also be stated that this transition has contributed to an increase in employment insecurity.

In conclusion, this research has shown that dependent self-employed people do not have access to social and health protection and suffer from unpredictable working conditions compared to other employment partnerships, particularly SER. Similar findings have been discovered about gig economy platform work, which is typically connected with dependent self-employment. Dependent self-employed people do not simply have unstable employment. It is contingent on their particular industries and contracts. Regarding certain aspects of the job, dependent self-employed people have exceptional working circumstances compared to those of dependent workers (for example, the possibility of arranging work hours based on personal matters and interests).

3.2. Conceptualising dependent self-employed social protection

It is not sufficient to concentrate solely on the erroneous designation of the worker’s status when discussing dependent self-employed individuals. The requirement to reclassify those who are dependently self-employed as independent contractors are insufficient to alleviate the broader problem that employees face. This is because certain workers’ protective rights are subject to various challenges. They are typically not covered or have insufficient coverage under the current social security systems, or they may be covered by the law but not eligible for specific benefits due to not meeting the qualifying criteria. Alternatively, they may have inadequate coverage under existing social security systems. Therefore, supplying sufficient protection to dependent self-employed is crucial, besides concentrating on how classed dependent self-employed (Rolf et al., 2022; Wouters, 2019).

To summarise, the topic at hand is not how to make all work conform to a specific set of standards and fit into a particular classification; instead, the focus is on making all work “decent.” In order to address issues relating to decent work across the entire spectrum of employment relationships, including the realm of dependent self-employment, there is a need for an improved social protection system (Seubert et al., 2021). This is necessary to guarantee that all workers receive benefits and are treated decently. Put it another way, and there is a need to conceive of securing good jobs for dependent self-employed individuals. A work ethic worthy of respect can be shown in many different forms. As the ILO has already agreed, decent work can be created by producing and delivering an adequate income, ensuring security in the workplace and social protection, improving the prospects for personal development and social integration, allowing people the freedom to voice their concerns, organising and participating in the decisions that affect their lives, and providing equality of opportunity and treatment for all women and men. All of these things are necessary to create decent work (Bletsas & Charlesworth, 2013; Rantanen, 2008; Shields, 2011).

Then, remember that the social security coverage for dependent self-employment is tied to how the workers are classified rather than the existence of dependent self-employment in the labour legislation. This is the case regardless of whether or not the law recognises dependent self-employment. In light of this, a more condensed version of Eichhorst’s thesis suggests that at least three primary possibilities can be identified to safeguard dependent self-employment (Reuschke & Zhang, 2022). First, in the extremely few instances in which dependent self-employed individuals are determined to be dependent workers, the dependent self-employed individuals are afforded the same comprehensive protection as workers in the SER (Wynn, 2016). Second, applying the social protection that is in place for self-employed people in those instances where dependent self-employed people are classified as regular self-employed people who are eligible for such protection. Third, offering specific social protection for dependent self-employed individuals in nations where hybrid working relationships are prevalent. This type of protection typically entails a higher level of coverage than that of self-employed individuals but a lower level than those in the SER (Kösters & Smits, 2022).

In actuality, the second choice, which entails extending the same social protections to the dependents of self-employed people as are extended to the self-employed themselves, is the one that is most frequently implemented. Similarly, the International Labor Organization concludes that dependent self-employed individuals are only eligible for social security if those in self-employment are covered or if a country has appropriate safeguards to prevent job misclassification. Therefore, the social protection coverage for the dependent self-employed can be the same as, or only slightly different from, the coverage already in place for dependent employment (that is, universal). Alternatively, it can be the same as the coverage already in place for self-employment, or it can have specific regulations for the dependent self-employed.

For instance, the practice in Denmark demonstrates that they provide universal social protection coverage, regardless of an individual’s employment status. On the other hand, countries such as the United Kingdom and Slovakia provide the dependent self-employed with the same social protection as self-employment. The fact that self-employed women do not receive the same level of social protection as women who are independent employment, including maternity leave benefits, raises questions about the application of the principle of equity among working women in a number of the member states’ attempts to ensure equal treatment of the dependent self-employed women. To ensure that unpaid workers are treated equally with waged employees, countries like Austria, Germany, and Italy have been working on expanding access to social security and other forms of protection. In the meantime, Italy came up with establishing a separate social security fund for people dependent on their self-employment income. The goal behind this move was to make it more difficult for people to use this type of contractual arrangement as an excuse to avoid complying with regulations regarding the payment of social security contributions (Jerg et al., 2021; Koch & Fritz, 2013; Schmid, 2011).

People who are dependently self-employed and work in nations where a hybrid form of employment exists receive higher levels of social protection than people who work independently. Several different situations demonstrate this. In Germany, for instance, the only self-employed individuals required to have pension coverage are those who work on their accounts and are dependent on a single client. This is in contrast to other types of self-employed individuals. In Italy and Portugal, those who are dependently self-employed are eligible for unemployment benefits, and in Spain, dependently self-employed people are required to be covered by occupational and work injury protection programmes (Beusch & van Soest, 2020).

Even in nations where this hybrid type of employment is not recognised, those who engage in dependent forms of self-employment are afforded more excellent social protection. For instance, in the Netherlands, the only self-employed workers eligible for mandatory coverage on occupational and work injuries insurance schemes are those who carry out activities that are deemed to be carried out at the premises or under the supervision of an employer. On the other hand, in Romania, self-employed workers who have only one client (considered dependent self-employed) are required to pay compulsory pension and health insurance at the level of a dependent employee. This is not the case for self-employed individuals who carry out activities that are (Riesco-Sanz, 2019).

However, it is vital to remember that in those numerous cases, not all the dependent self-employed are found within the distinct group. It is also important to highlight that the social protection offered to people who are self-employed and dependently self-employed, as well as those who engage in non-standard types of labour and those who are dependently employed, varies significantly from one country to the next. There are instances in which dependent self-employed people are still categorised as ordinary self-employed people. As a result, the dependent self-employment status might not be able to meet the requirements for improved social protection (Razavi, 2022).

This paragraph will discuss the policy activities taken about expanding social security coverage for self-employed individuals. Spasova et al. (2017) differentiate between two distinct types of reforms:

• “parametric reforms” include the measures that aim to change specific parameters of a scheme, such as changing the calculation base, changing the eligibility criteria, or harmonising the contribution rates, but without changing the institutional system.

• “paradigmatic reforms,” which include the measures that aim at an extensive integration into social security schemes for those who are self-employed, such as by creating a national insurance number for self- Indeed, the need to address the gaps between the statutory and adequate social protection of self-employed persons have begun to be increasingly recognised by policymakers. A significant step in the right direction was taken in 2018 when the European Commission proposed to the Council a recommendation on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed. This recommendation would address the gaps between the statutory and the adequate social protection of self-employed persons.

The objective of the initiative known as “Access to social protection for workers and the self-employed” is to assist anyone who is self-employed or works in a non-standard capacity and who, as a result of the nature of their contract or their position on the labour market, does not receive adequate protection from social protection programmes in the areas of unemployment, illness, maternity or paternity leave, accidents on the job and occupational diseases, incapacity, and old age. This recommendation is for workers as well as those who are self-employed. It also applies to people transitioning between either status or who have both statuses. Additionally, it applies to people whose work is interrupted as a result of the occurrence of one of the risks that are covered by social protection (Spasova et al., 2021).

The idea of rigid covers three effective forms of protection. First, states ought to guarantee that workers have access to social protection by making proper coverage a compulsory component of employment for all workers, irrespective of the nature of the employment relationship in which they are engaged. Second, states need to ensure that all workers, regardless of the nature of their employment relationship, and those who are self-employed, are effectively covered by the system while simultaneously ensuring the system’s long-term viability and putting safeguards to prevent abuse (Schoukens, 2020). Third, when a risk insured by social protection schemes for workers and the self-employed occurs, states should ensure that the schemes provide adequate protection to the members of those schemes. This means that the protection should be sufficient and timely to maintain the standard of living, provide appropriate income replacement, and permanently prevent those members from falling into poverty (Frenda et al., 2021).

4. Conclusion

Innovative technologies are the driving force behind forming a new category of employees classified as having Non-Standard Employment (NSE). This has resulted in a significant increase in the total number of people working in this industry. Regarding the employment status of NSE workers, particularly those operating in the “gig” economy or on internet platforms, the classification of these workers is fraught with ambiguities. Diverse approaches should be taken by governments around the world, particularly in Europe and Indonesia, in order to address this problem.

The International Labor Organization (ILO) suggests that referring people who are dependently self-employed as “dependent contractors” is a viable solution to this problem. Workers dependent on their own self-employment face a number of difficulties, including a lack of proper social and health protection and unpredictability in their working conditions, despite enjoying certain perks, such as flexible work hours.

It is of the utmost importance to offer sufficient security for workers dependent on their earnings from self-employment and to emphasize policies that cover all workers, irrespective of the type of their employment relationship. At the national level, states should increase data collection on labour status and access to social protection in order to inform policymaking on social protection for new types of work.

In light of the proposal made by the International Labor Organization (ILO), the states should reexamine and amend particular rules and regulations relevant to the classification of employees’ connections. This involves adopting the idea of “dependent contractors” to provide further context for the concept of dependent self-employment.

In order to improve protections for workers, individual states’ national labour laws will need to be revised. This amended legislation should establish new categories for dependent and independent forms of self-employment, each with clear definitions of the rights, responsibilities, and interactions between employers and employees. In addition, companies should be forced to give social insurance to self-employed people dependent on their income. In addition, the authorities are obligated to ensure that all workers, regardless of their employment arrangement, have universal access to social protection.

Governments should establish a safer and more equitable environment for the expanding population of workers in the NSE sector by implementing these policies. This will ensure that these workers receive the necessary assistance and protection they deserve.

Declaration of conflicting interest

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by Universitas Pembangunan Nasional “Veteran” Jawa Timur, to which we express our gratitude.

Notes on contributors

Eka Nanda Ravizki

Eka Nanda Ravizki is a lecturer from the Faculty of Law, UPN ”Veteran” Jawa Timur, Indonesia. He actively researches Law and Technology and Cyber Crime.

Nazma Swastika Aries Purnami

Nazma Seastika Aries Purnami is a Legal Practitioner specializing in Industrial Relations and focuses on pursuing labor law and its application in the field.