World

The EU law on platform workers is hanging by a thread. Here's why.

Published

2 years ago

January 18, 2024

The EU law on platform workers is hanging by a thread. Here's why.

Two years ago, Brussels unveiled ambitious legislation to improve the conditions of those who work for digital platforms such as Uber, Deliveroo and Glovo. Today, the law is scrambling to survive.

The Platform Workers Directive (PWD) was supposed to be a turning point in the so-called Gig Economy as millions of self-employed people who work through platforms across the bloc would be re-classified as employees and benefit from basic rights such as minimum salary, healthcare, accident insurance and paid leave.

But after going through six rounds of negotiations between the European Parliament and member states, the directive was stopped dead in its tracks, right when it was about to reach the finish line.

A meeting in late December, mere hours before Brussels grounded to a halt for the winter break, revealed a larger-than-expected group of countries opposed the draft law that had emerged from the talks.

France, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Greece and the Baltic countries were among those making it clear they could not support the text on the table, spearheaded by the left-wing government of Spain as holder of the Council’s rotating presidency.

“When you move towards (rules) that would allow massive reclassifications, including self-employed workers who value their self-employed status, we cannot support it,” Olivier Dussopt, then-French minister of labour, said in December.

The co-legislators are expected to honour the deal hashed out in negotiations and push it forward to the final votes so the last-minute resistance, paired with its seize, sent alarm bells ringing.

Another bruising round of negotiations is now all but guaranteed, although no date has yet been selected.

The situation is particularly precarious as the June elections to the European Parliament impose a deadline for concluding interinstitutional talks by mid-February.

A question of presumption

The objections voiced by the no-go coalition all coincide in one critical point: the legal presumption of employment foreseen by the directive. This is the core pillar of the proposed law, without which the PWD would be effectively bereft of its raison d’être.

The legal presumption is the system under which a digital platform would be considered an employer, rather than just an intermediate, and the worker would be considered an employee, rather than a self-employed person.

Under the original proposal by the European Commission, the re-classification would happen if two out of five conditions are met in practice:

The platform determines the level of remuneration or sets upper limits.
The platform electronically oversees the performance of workers.
The platform restricts the ability of workers to choose their working hours, refuse tasks or use subcontractors.
The platform imposes mandatory rules of appearance, conduct and performance.
The platform limits the ability to build a client base or to work for a competitor.

According to the Commission’s estimates, about 5.5 million of the 28 million platform workers active across the bloc are currently misclassified and would therefore fall under the legal presumption. Doing so would make them entitled to rights like minimum wage, collective bargaining, work-time limits, health insurance, sick leave, unemployment benefits and retirement pensions – on par with any other regular worker.

The re-classification could be challenged, or rebutted, by either the company or the workers themselves. The burden of proof would fall on the platform to demonstrate the relation of employer-employee does not correspond with reality.

‘Pretty delicate’

From the very start, the directive proved contentious among member states, which are traditionally protective of their labour policies and welfare systems.

Before heading into talks with the Parliament, the 27 countries agreed on a common position that made considerable alterations to the legal presumption, expanding the criteria to seven and adding a vague provision to bypass the system in certain cases.

Meanwhile, MEPs opted instead for a general presumption clause that would apply, in principle, to all platform workers. The criteria to re-classify as employees would only kick in during the rebuttal phase, making it harder for companies to circumvent the system. Lawmakers also strengthened the transparency requirements on algorithms and turned up the heat on penalties for non-compliant firms.

The gap between the Council and the Parliament slowed down the negotiations, known as trilogue, with six rounds needed to reach a deal, a particular high number.

But while MEPs cheered on the breakthrough, a rebellion erupted in the Council.

The resistance stems from the legal presumption of employment, which the trilogue reverted to the original 2/5 criteria, the balance between full-time and part-time workers, the administrative burden placed on private companies and the potential adverse effects on the digital economy as a whole.

“All in all, the issue is that the text doesn’t provide legal clarity and is not in line with the Council’s agreement,” said one diplomat from the group of countries that oppose the deal under condition of anonymity. “Protecting workers, yes, but competitiveness should remain.”

Another diplomat said the position struck in the Council was “pretty delicate” and left minimum space for concessions. “It’s difficult. It’s not an easy file,” the official noted.

From Spain to Belgium

As of today, the trilogue deal decisively falls short of the necessary qualified majority to move forward. Adding an extra twist, Germany, the bloc’s largest country, has so far kept silent, which has been interpreted as the prelude to an abstention. If Berlin sits out the vote, the path to a qualified majority becomes even steeper.

Coincidentally, some of the reluctant countries are home to some of the most prominent digital platforms in Europe: Bolt (Estonia), Wolt (Finland), Free Now and Delivery Hero (Germany). These firms, together with Glovo (Spain), Uber (US) and Deliveroo (UK), have set up industry associations in Brussels and boosted their lobbying spending to defend their corporate interests and influence the draft law.

One of these associations, Move EU, publicly celebrated the December rejection and called the directive “not fit for purpose.” The statement sharply criticised the legal presumption, arguing it would “overwhelm national courts and undo positive reforms.”

By contrast, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) said the proposed law was being “held up for no good reason” and called on the institutions to wrap up the file. “The agreement found in trilogues was far from ideal but finally brought some basic standards to the sector,” the confederation said.

The political hot potato is now in the hands of Belgium, which took over the Council’s presidency on 1 January. Belgium intends to come up with a new common position and head into a seventh round of negotiations with MEPs.

“We’re very determined to reach an agreement, but not at any price. Because, of course, we have to maintain the initial ambition” set by the Commission’s proposal, Pierre-Yves Dermagne, Belgian’s minister for the economy and labour, said last week.

“We know the timing is quite tight. We’re talking a matter of weeks, really.”

But the road ahead is ridden with obstacles. A fresh push in the Council to satisfy the demands of the blocking coalition may trigger the backlash of left-wing governments. France, in particular, is seen as adamantly opposed to the directive.

And even if the Council manages to somehow overcome the odds and overhaul its common position, there is no guarantee that MEPs will be willing to give in and water down the December deal. If the text fails to complete the trilogue phase by mid-February, the cut-off date imposed by the elections, it will be plunged into legislative limbo.

“We are now in a stalemate, with the Belgian Presidency faced with the task of reconciling such opposing positions that the outcome risks being a very weak regulation,” said Agnieszka Piasna, a senior researcher at the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI).

“If the Council doesn’t change its position, we could see a directive that sets the minimum floor so low that conditions for platform workers in some countries could actually worsen, and even obstruct the legal route – which, despite being incredibly costly and cumbersome, has so far been an effective way for workers to defend their rights.”

Related Topics:Council of the European Union Deliveroo European Union Featured Gig Economy online internet platforms Uber

Click to comment

World

Trump says he is directing federal agencies to cease use of Anthropic technology

Published

9 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

Trump says he is directing federal agencies to cease use of Anthropic technology

U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday said he was directing every federal agency to immediately cease all use of Anthropic’s technology, adding there would be a six-month phase out for agencies such as the Defense Department who use the company’s products.

World

UN Human Rights Council chief cuts off speaker criticizing US-sanctioned official

Published

10 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

UN Human Rights Council chief cuts off speaker criticizing US-sanctioned official

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) abruptly cut off a video statement after the speaker began criticizing several United Nations officials, including one who has been sanctioned by the Trump administration. The video message was being played during a U.N. session in Geneva, Switzerland, Friday morning.

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the and president of Human Rights, called out several U.N. officials in her message, including U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk and special rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who is the subject of U.S. sanctions.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sanctions against Albanese July 9, 2025, saying that she “has spewed unabashed antisemitism, expressed support for terrorism and open contempt for the United States, Israel and the West.”

“That bias has been apparent across the span of her career, including recommending that the ICC, without a legitimate basis, issue arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant,” Rubio added.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Francesca Albanese (Getty Images)

“I was the only American U.N.-accredited NGO with a speaking slot, and I wasn’t allowed even to conclude my 90 seconds of allotted time. Free speech is non-existent at the U.N. so-called ‘Human Rights Council,’” Bayefsky told Fox News Digital.

Bayefsky noted the irony of the council cutting off her video in a proceeding that was said to be an “interactive dialogue,” an event during which experts are allowed to speak to the council about human rights issues.

“I was cut off after naming Francesca Albanese, Navi Pillay and Chris Sidoti for covering up Palestinian use of rape as a weapon of war and trafficking in blatant antisemitism. I named the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, who is facing disturbing sexual assault allegations but still unaccountable almost two years later. Those are the people and the facts that the United Nations wants to protect and hide,” Bayefsky told Fox News Digital.

“It is an outrage that I am silenced and singled out for criticism on the basis of naming names.”

Bayefsky’s statement was cut off as she accused Albanese and Navi Pillay, the former chair of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and Chris Sidoti, a commissioner of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. She also slammed Khan, who has faced rape allegations. Khan has denied the sexual misconduct allegations against him.

Had her video message been played in full, Bayefsky would have gone on to criticize Türk’s recent report for not demanding accountability for the “Palestinian policy to pay to kill Jews, including Hamas terror boss Yahya Sinwar who got half a million dollars in blood money.”

When the video was cut short, Human Rights Council President Ambassador Sidharto Reza Suryodipuro characterized Bayefsky’s remarks as “derogatory, insulting and inflammatory” and said that they were “not acceptable.”

“The language used by the speaker cannot be allowed as it has exceeded the limits of tolerance and respect within the framework of the council which we all in this room hold to,” Suryodipuro said.

The Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, Feb. 26, 2025. (Denis Balibouse/Reuters)

MELANIA TRUMP TO TAKE THE GAVEL AT UN SECURITY COUNCIL IN HISTORIC FIRST

In response to Fox News Digital’s request for comment, Human Rights Council Media Officer Pascal Sim said the council has had long-established rules on what it considers to be acceptable language.

“Rulings regarding the form and language of interventions in the Human Rights Council are established practices that have been in place throughout the existence of the council and used by all council presidents when it comes to ensuring respect, tolerance and dignity inherent to the discussion of human rights issues,” Sim told Fox News Digital.

When asked if the video had been reviewed ahead of time, Sim said it was assessed for length and audio quality to allow for interpretation, but that the speakers are ultimately “responsible for the content of their statement.”

“The video statement by the NGO ‘Touro Law Center, The Institute on Human Rights and The Holocaust’ was interrupted when it was deemed that the language exceeded the limits of tolerance and respect within the framework of the council and could not be tolerated,” Sim said.

“As the presiding officer explained at the time, all speakers are to remain within the appropriate framework and terminology used in the council’s work, which is well known by speakers who routinely participate in council proceedings. Following that ruling, none of the member states of the council have objected to it.”

Flag alley at the United Nations’ European headquarters during the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, Sept. 11, 2023. (Denis Balibouse/File Photo/Reuters)

UNRWA OFFICIALS LOBBY CONGRESSIONAL STAFFERS AGAINST TRUMP TERRORIST DESIGNATION THREAT

While Bayefsky’s statement was cut off, other statements accusing Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing were allowed to be played and read in full.

This is not the first time that Bayefsky was interrupted. Exactly one year ago, on Feb. 27, 2025, her video was cut off when she mentioned the fate of Ariel and Kfir Bibas. Jürg Lauber, president of the U.N. Human Rights Council at the time, stopped the video and declared that Bayefsky had used inappropriate language.

Bayefsky began the speech by saying, “The world now knows Palestinian savages murdered 9-month-old baby Kfir,” and she ws almost immediately cut off by Lauber.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Sorry, I have to interrupt,” Lauber abruptly said as the video of Bayefsky was paused. Lauber briefly objected to the “language” used in the video, but then allowed it to continue. After a few more seconds, the video was shut off entirely.

Lauber reiterated that “the language that’s used by the speaker cannot be tolerated,” adding that it “exceeds clearly the limits of tolerance and respect.”

Last year, when the previous incident occurred, Bayefsky said she believed the whole thing was “stage-managed,” as the council had advanced access to her video and a transcript and knew what she would say.

Rachel Wolf is a breaking news writer for Fox News Digital and FOX Business.

World

Did the EU bypass Hungary’s veto on Ukraine’s €90 billion loan?

Published

11 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

Did the EU bypass Hungary’s veto on Ukraine’s €90 billion loan?

A post on X by European Parliament President Roberta Metsola has triggered a wave of misinformation linked to the EU’s €90 billion support loan to Ukraine, which is designed to help Kyiv meet its general budget and defence needs amid Russia’s ongoing invasion.

Hungary said earlier this week that it would block both the loan — agreed by EU leaders in December — and a new EU sanctions package against Moscow amid a dispute over oil supplies.

Shortly afterwards, Metsola posted on X that she had signed the Ukraine support loan on behalf of the parliament.

She said the funds would be used to maintain essential public services, support Ukraine’s defence, protect shared European security, and anchor Ukraine’s future within Europe.

The announcement triggered a wave of reactions online, with some claiming Hungary’s veto had been ignored, but this is incorrect.

Metsola did sign the loan on behalf of the European Parliament, but that’s only one step in the EU’s legislative process. Her signature does not mean the loan has been definitively implemented.

How the process works

In December, after failing to reach an agreement on using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort, the European Council agreed in principle to provide €90 billion to help Kyiv meet its budgetary and military needs over the next two years.

On 14 January, the European Commission put forward a package of legislative proposals to ensure continued financial support for Ukraine in 2026 and 2027.

These included a proposal to establish a €90 billion Ukraine support loan, amendments to the Ukraine Facility — the EU instrument used to deliver budgetary assistance — and changes to the EU’s multiannual financial framework so the loan could be backed by any unused budgetary “headroom”.

Under EU law, these proposals must be adopted by both the European Parliament and the European Council. Because the loan requires amendments to EU budgetary rules, it ultimately needs unanimous approval from all member states.

Metsola’s signature therefore does not amount to a final decision, nor does it override Hungary’s veto.

The oil dispute behind Hungary’s opposition

Budapest says its objections are linked to a dispute over the Druzhba pipeline, a Soviet-era route that carries Russian oil via Ukraine to Hungary and Slovakia.

According to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), Hungary and Slovakia imported an estimated €137 million worth of Russian crude through the pipeline in January alone, under a temporary EU exemption.

Oil flows reportedly stopped in late January after a Russian air strike that Kyiv says damaged the pipeline’s southern branch in western Ukraine. Hungary disputes this, with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán accusing Ukraine of blocking it from being used.

Speaking in Kyiv alongside European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the pipeline had been damaged by Russia, not Kyiv.

He added that repairs were dangerous and could not be carried out quickly without putting Ukrainian servicemen in danger.

Tensions escalated further after reports that Ukraine struck a Russian pumping station serving the pipeline. Orbán responded by ordering increased security at critical infrastructure sites, claiming Kyiv was attempting to disrupt Hungary’s energy system.