[ad_1]
The words with which we allude to the social is undoubtedly a very precious objective for many groups with multiple interests, who try to populate this collective space by introducing euphemisms, neologisms, Anglicisms and various types of linguistic makeup.
Thus, some words are shown as “current” or “modern” and others are loaded with negative or outdated connotations. For example, in the aforementioned socio-labor environment, today there is a tendency to substitute “people” by “citizenship”, “working class” by “middle class”, “firing” by “disengaging”, “labor” by “human resources “, etc.
The digital platforms have also contributed a linguistic fiction, opportunely detected and refuted in recent days by the Labor Court of Concepción, which resolved on an essential controversy between distributors and companies of “delivery“, by agreeing with the delivery men and rejecting that they are “partners” of the business, and recognizing them instead as workers, with a subordinate and dependent employment relationship and all the rights stipulated in the Labor Code.
Despite the company’s appeal announcement Orders Now, the resolution is categorical in stating that, regardless of the fantasy language used to refer to the delivery men, it is up to the Justice to analyze “what is real” in accordance with the legal classification.
The issue of setting the working day is critical, since compliance with schedules is not manifested conventionally, with the setting of a previously determined one, but covered up through the pressure exerted on the worker by non-neutral algorithms
– Giorgio Marino
Another 20 lawsuits are being processed against OrdersYa, 8 against Uber, 7 against Cornershop, 4 against Rappi and 1 against Justo. However, this is not an exclusively Chilean controversy. Most of the 12 applications present in the country are transnational, and the courts of various countries have so far been inclined to resolve in the same direction, as evidenced in final judgments of recent weeks in the Supreme Court of Spain against Glovo , the National Labor Court of Argentina against Rappi, and the Labor Appeals Court of 1st Shift of Uruguay against Uber.
Fundamentally, it has been established that the distributors are not “free” to connect and disconnect at ease from the applications, but that this decision is intervened and directed by the employer.
The issue of setting the working day is critical, as compliance with schedules is not manifested conventionally, with the setting of a previously determined one, but is concealed through the pressure exerted on the worker by non-neutral algorithms.
Thus, these companies require the fulfillment of predefined continuous shifts that can be 4, 8 and 12 hours, although those of less time are hardly profitable. If the shift is breached or the delivery person disconnects earlier (for example, to rest, attend to an unforeseen event, etc.), they are penalized with a lower rating, withdrawal of priority shifts, delivery of less convenient shifts, in distant communes or dangerous sectors or low demand.
In the worst case, the delivery man “deactivates” the account (unjustified dismissal). In addition, on average each delivery person pays $ 60 thousand pesos for clothing and accessories with advertising badges of each company, which they must acquire and use on a mandatory basis.
It is foreseeable and desirable that in these cases the doctrine of the Supreme Court is imposed, which has indicated that the relationship of subordination and dependency is not expressed in the name that the company uses for the employment relationship, but is manifested by objective external signs , as power of command and supervision of the employer, obligation of the worker to comply with instructions, attendance at the workplace, among other characteristics.
Giorgio Marino
Labor lawyer
Executive Director of SoyTrabajador.cl
[ad_2]
