디지털일자리에 대한 노동법적 관점에서의 정책적 대응 (Political responses to digital jobs in the state of labor law)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국노동법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 노동법학 / 66호 / 133 ~ 190페이지
· 저자명 : 박은정, 김근주

초록

One of the biggest difficulties arising from the jobs created in new forms is to verify the relations surrounding those jobs. It is not easy to find the answer to the question of who is to be classified as an employee in conjunction with the diversification of forms and the structures of jobs in juxtaposition with new jobs being created over the years.
It is possible to identify the employee and the employer by defining who the parties are in the employment contract, since the employment contract forms the basis of the labor relation. However, to make judgments on whether the contract is an employment contract, whether a contracting party is an employee or whether the parties to the contract are in a labor relation doesn't always come easy. These judgments must be clarified from the practical nature of the contract. Accordingly, the question of who is to be classified as an employee starts from identifying the employment contract and whether one can be classified as an employee when he is under instructions and/or directions even if his contract takes a different form from an employment contract. The problem is the difficulty of making those decisions when it comes to the new jobs in the digital era. For this reason, legislators intend to categorize the person as an employee by law who is currently in a grey area between the employee and the self-employed but has a high possibility of being accepted as an employee. More to the point of such legislative efforts, however, is to define the employer. An attempt to consider a platform as an employer in platform works came from the understanding of the limitations of providing legal protection by categorizing the person as an employee. In this regard, it is to expand the range of legal protection by defining the employer.
Meanwhile, most of the legislative policies concerning platform works have focused on a measure to cover the person who is in a grey area between the employee and the self-employed in legal terms. In other words, the main theme of the study was to sort out the question whether to classify the person as an outright employee protected by labor laws or to treat him as a so-called ‘quasi-employee’ who at least gets the minimum protection stipulated in labor laws by accepting the intermediate concept or to consider him as a subject of social rights which he deserves for his service in the labor market though he's not a wageworker. Above and beyond that, new attempts to clarify duty and responsibility of the intermediary in platform labor relations are underway. This kind of approach, however, is only practical when the target of employment agency business is based on the presumption that the applicant and the recruiter are the ‘service users’. Given the fact that the status of one's employment isn't taken into account when adopting this approach, it requires additional research hereafter.

영어초록

One of the biggest difficulties arising from the jobs created in new forms is to verify the relations surrounding those jobs. It is not easy to find the answer to the question of who is to be classified as an employee in conjunction with the diversification of forms and the structures of jobs in juxtaposition with new jobs being created over the years.
It is possible to identify the employee and the employer by defining who the parties are in the employment contract, since the employment contract forms the basis of the labor relation. However, to make judgments on whether the contract is an employment contract, whether a contracting party is an employee or whether the parties to the contract are in a labor relation doesn't always come easy. These judgments must be clarified from the practical nature of the contract. Accordingly, the question of who is to be classified as an employee starts from identifying the employment contract and whether one can be classified as an employee when he is under instructions and/or directions even if his contract takes a different form from an employment contract. The problem is the difficulty of making those decisions when it comes to the new jobs in the digital era. For this reason, legislators intend to categorize the person as an employee by law who is currently in a grey area between the employee and the self-employed but has a high possibility of being accepted as an employee. More to the point of such legislative efforts, however, is to define the employer. An attempt to consider a platform as an employer in platform works came from the understanding of the limitations of providing legal protection by categorizing the person as an employee. In this regard, it is to expand the range of legal protection by defining the employer.
Meanwhile, most of the legislative policies concerning platform works have focused on a measure to cover the person who is in a grey area between the employee and the self-employed in legal terms. In other words, the main theme of the study was to sort out the question whether to classify the person as an outright employee protected by labor laws or to treat him as a so-called ‘quasi-employee’ who at least gets the minimum protection stipulated in labor laws by accepting the intermediate concept or to consider him as a subject of social rights which he deserves for his service in the labor market though he's not a wageworker. Above and beyond that, new attempts to clarify duty and responsibility of the intermediary in platform labor relations are underway. This kind of approach, however, is only practical when the target of employment agency business is based on the presumption that the applicant and the recruiter are the ‘service users’. Given the fact that the status of one's employment isn't taken into account when adopting this approach, it requires additional research hereafter.

참고자료

· 없음