| Summary: | After a preliminary description of the activity carried out by the digital platforms, now increasingly able to “photograph” and satisfy the choices of the consumers, the Author reconstructs the open debate animating both the tenet and the law. The Author believes that the problem of what legal protections are appointed to the digital provider has to be took on by means of the analysis of the relationship instituting between the worker and the user of the platforms. In other words, it depends on the role assumed by the digital platform, because the article 2094 of the Civil Code can be interpreted in elastic way, but it is not possible to attribute the quality of the employer to who, in the facts, does not practice any power with respect to the work provider. In practice, the objective condition of economic dependence by a platform cannot automatically translate in technical-functional subordination to an employer. Therefore, in light of the intervention of the legislator who has extended to the autonomous workers the typical institutions of the dependent work, it is possible to suggest a different interpretation. It emerges that the very maintenance of the notion of subordination as an efficient factor in theselection of protections is failing; therefore, in all likelihood, overcoming the dichotomy dependent/autonomous work, without resorting to intermediate categories, can represent the more advisable and coherent way to the planning of our Constitutional Chart. Considering the continue evolution of the work organization systems, starting from the identification of a focal point of the fundamental legal protections common to all workers, it could be useful to think over a labor law without adjectives and to grade the legal protections by considering both the economic dependence degree and the different subjugation to the entrepreneur’s power.
|
|---|
