by Francesca Spigarolo | May 21, 2016 | The Urban Media Lab
The image of the satisfied self-employed, able to set up his small business and to ensure in this way his financial security, is dramatically far from representing reality. As temporary and casual work, freelance work and various other atypical forms of work continue to increase in Europe, the drawbacks of self-employment, often definable as “precarious work”, begin to be of general concern.
The data are clear: as stated in the Labour market and Labour force survey (LFS) statistics, in 2014 self-employed persons accounted for 16.4 % of total EU employment, with proportions varying from more than 20% in Italy, Portugal and Greece to 10% or below in Denmark, Luxemburg and Estonia . A particular case is offered by the UK, where self employment appears to be growing at a higher rate than in other European countries, leading to the expectation that in 2018 more people will be in self employment than in public sector jobs.
But working outside the traditional employment structure means moving “in a grey zone, where freelancers work, perhaps more than full-time, but they do not qualify for workers’ protections” explains Joel Dullroy, author of “Independents Unite! Inside the Freelancers’ Rights” movement. As shown in the Not Alone Report, self employed workers do not enjoy the same degree of protection granted to other workers under European Regulations, with entitlements to sickness and holiday pay. Furthermore, they bear the extra costs of office space, equipments, insurance, pension saving and much more. To this we often have to add the psychological costs, as self-employed often experience loneliness when working alone for extended time.
The EU is aware of the need to work on the adaptation of the traditional social security systems to suit self-employed workers, as it appears from the report “On social protection for all, including the self-employed workers” of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, in which member states and the Commission are called to work towards the introduction of “adequate social protection framework provisions for the self-employed, based on reciprocity and the principle of non-discrimination”.
While at the European level a changement in the regulations begins to be envisaged, much has already been done at local level, as more and more freelances decide to join forces and build cooperatives, sharing costs and services and rediscovering solidarity.
A classical example, analyzed in the Not Alone Report (and brought to the public attention by a recent article published on The Guardian), is the Swindon Music Co-operative, which was born from the effort of 20 music teachers who chose to collectively market their services and share the burdens of administration, rather than continuing to struggle day by day to find new jobs on their own. From their successful example many others followed, and cooperatives of interpreters, musicians, graphic designers and any other profession began to develop, each one adapting to a specific context and developing the most suited features.
As the co-operative model becomes popular in the UK, it is worth giving a look to the numerous examples coming from different countries, where experimentation in this field has been going on for a longer time. In the USA the Freelancers Union has managed to attract over 280,000 members without giving up on its mutual nature, while in France a recent legislation recognizes the role of numerous cooperatives and allows their member to access benefits of conventional employees. The Self-employed Women Association was set up in India and acts as a cooperative, providing its 1.7 million members with micro-insurances while fighting for members rights in the mean time.
The co-operatives are not to be seen as a substitute to the traditional trade unions for the self employed, but instead can become a fundamental complement to the services already offered within the trade union framework, and contribute to the creation of a valid response to the transformational changes taking place in the workforce. Judging from the Report’s findings, a beneficial distribution of roles between the two would leave to the trade union the task of securing employment protection, decent labor standards and collective bargain rights, while it would count on mutual organizations for the provision of a complementary set of services, from workplace to forms of financial support.
A good starting point for the assessment of self-employed needs and rights could be the Charter of Freelance Rights, developed by the European Federation of Journalists, which could be extended to other categories of workers and could constitute the basis for the development of a self-employed workers’ charter.
Our analysis has shown that solidarity economy strategies are unequivocally on the rise but, as Pat Conaty (co-author of the Not Alone Report) rightly points out, they are still fragmented. Therefore trade union and co-operative movements need to unite their effort in the definition of a response to the workforce transformations and, by starting the process, they might trigger a snowball effect which will result in more solidarity solutions.
________________________________________
In Europa il lavoro autonomo, il lavoro temporaneo, il freelance e altre forme di lavoro atipico sono in continuo aumento, e preoccupano gli svantaggi che derivano da questa tipologia di impiego, spesso definita anche come “lavoro precario”. Come emerge dal report “Not Alone – Trade union and co-operative solutions for self-employed workers” i lavoratori autonomi si trovano in una zona grigia: non rientrando nelle categorie di lavoratori tradizionali essi non hanno accesso allo stesso livello di protezione garantito ai primi, e devono affrontare molti costi aggiuntivi.
Gli esempi di gruppi di lavoratori autonomi che costituiscono cooperative in modo da condividere spese e servizi diventano sempre più numerosi, e ci dimostrano come ancora una volta solidarietà e condivisione possano essere la risposta giusta.
by Chiara Fratalia | May 20, 2016 | The Urban Media Lab
Fulcro della sperimentazione tecnologica delle pratiche di condivisione, le città sono diventate il centro del dibattito sulle politiche pubbliche che riguardano la sharing economy. Città di tutto il mondo, come Seoul, Amsterdam e Londra, hanno cominciato a implementare programmi, legislazioni e regolamenti-quadro per supportare la sharing economy locale. Una di queste città è Milano, patria di Milan Sharing City, un progetto compreso nello Smart City Program.
Abbiamo recentemente avuto il piacere di intervistare Renato Galliano, supervisore di Milan’s Smart City e del progetto Sharing City. Gli abbiamo chiesto di parlarci delle origini di questo progetto, e ci ha anche fornito una prima valutazione dei suoi successi e dei suoi limiti, riguardanti anche argomenti di importanza fondamentale come la partecipazione e l’inclusione.
Questo articolo è il primo d una serie, co-prodotta da LabGov e Shareable, che vuole mettere in evidenza le politiche pubbliche che promuovono la sharing economy e la tutela dei beni comuni urbani.
Enjoy the interview!
“Monica Bernardi and Christian Iaione: How did Milan Sharing City begin?
Renato Galliano: The Smart City Division has always taken a keen interest in innovative processes, especially in the urban setting and, above all, in a period—like this—of economic paradigm change. We looked at the sharing economy as we [had] previously looked at other [developments], such as innovative spaces (ex. co-working) and the relationship between [startups] and traditional industry. Recognizing [the potential of the sharing economy to become] an important phenomenon from different points of view, in early 2014 we decided to accompany its development.
[At that time], there were already several groups working on the topic. Sharexpo and Sharitaly were the main ones. [Sharexpo encouraged] reflection on the potential of sharing economy to [mitigate] the extra load on the city that [Expo Milano] would bring. We engaged with all the actors involved an open and collaborative dialogue, to learn about their needs, goals and problems.
[Our] working method, based on a listening phase, followed by a participatory phase and, as a last stage, the delivery of [a public policy instrument], has been adopted also in other policy areas: in a macro way for the Smart City theme, involving big urban players such as universities, businesses and [voluntary and community organizations]; and also for specific phenomena like co-working.
[Regarding co-working], listening to the actors involved [encouraged] us to rethink our first idea of intervention. [Instead] of creating a public co-working [space, we decided to] support the existing structures, without becoming a player in opposition [to them]. We developed ad hoc public policies such as the Co-working Register and the coworking spaces’ voucher supply system.
The same path has been followed for the Sharing City. [During] the initial phases, we collaborated [with the public] on a draft document on the topic. [We brought the final document] to the City Council [pdf] for approval and published guidelines for the sharing economy [pdf], launching a series of collaborative tools. One example is the Register of the Sharing Economy’s Actors [pdf], [which includes a list of] experts and operators (to date more than 100), followed by other activities [brought to our attention] during consultation, such as: civic crowdfunding platforms; Co-HUB, a physical space to cultivate the culture of sharing and the collaborative economy; and a call from our social innovation incubator, FabriQ, for startups working in the field.
I’d like to underline that we worked on two levels: at the local level, as seen, but also on [the national and international] levels. [We liaised] with the EU Committee of the Regions, which was working on the Opinion on the Sharing Economy at the EU level. On the national level, we worked on a proposed national law on the sharing economy with, the Italian Inter-parliamentary group for innovation, Forum PA, and ANCI. [We also worked] with some international operators such as AirBnb to define specific agreements. However, I believe that public policy [should not aim] to lock the sharing economy within stringent regulatory frameworks, since it responds to a real need—social or economic—that goes beyond the policies adopted at local, national and international levels.
What unites Milan’s various sharing economy policies?
We framed the Sharing City project [within the larger] Smart City process. The latter is a transdisciplinary public policy, and the mandate is of coordination—not of realization. The topic of the smart city is [appreciated less for its] technological dimensions and more from the citizens’ perspective. Within this “human smart city”, the sharing economy represents a tool, among others, to improve the quality of life of city-dwellers and enterprises.
[It is essential that the] different divisions [working on the smart city] dialogue and work [together]. The real problem is related not to the content of the projects, but to the traditional, “siloed” approach of public administration. To overcome this attitude is not easy, but in Milan the entire smart city process has been conducted in a horizontal way, analyzing internally the city’s projects, in a multi-purpose approach and speaking with the individual directors.
What difficulties did you encounter in developing policy for the sharing economy?
The main difficulties are not related to the city itself but to the phenomenon. First of all, the issue of regulation of new unplanned activities that touch corporate interests stratified over the decades. For this reason we decided to work [beyond the] the local level, since some regulatory arrangements depend on national and EU [authorities].
Another general difficulty is connected to the extreme diversification of the sharing economy’s actors, from multinational corporations with international technological platforms to community experiences, such as Social Street, and non-economic exchange platforms of goods and services. The diverse actors hold dissimilar skills, competencies, backgrounds, and economic power, and sometimes don’t recognize themselves as part of the same phenomenon. The approach must be different [for each case], based on specific languages and features.
On the [other hand], the feedback from citizens has been excellent. The public administration’s intervention has been perceived in a positive, non-invasive way, as an accompanying relationship. The current difficulty is to switch from the city level to the metropolitan level. We would like the Register, for example, to take a metropolitan dimension to formally intercept actors and experiences outside of the city.
Which projects have been most successful?
Fifteen high-quality projects were selected through a call and incubated at FabriQ; among them, only two are experiencing some difficulties. [But keep in mind that] the municipality intervened more [at the level of] governance [than at] the projects level. We don’t [directly supervise the projects]. After [an understandably] difficult first phase, the local projects, like Social Street, are doing very well, and are involving a growing number of citizens. The big platforms, like AirBnb, could count on the flywheel effect of universal exposure and are thriving in the city. [Some projects face challenges] related to a series of obligations introduced to respond to real local needs (fees for use of public land, taxes for marketing, etc.).
In terms of projects initiated directly by the municipality, the civic crowdfunding [scheme] is receiving positive feedback. We chose the platform, Eppela, through a public call, instead of creating one by ourselves, and now we are evaluating the projects received [through it].
How would you rate Milan Sharing City’s record on participation and inclusion?
About participation: yes, our process is facilitating participation. It is a subject of interest for [those citizens working on responding to local needs]. These needs can be of an economic nature or related to community building. [In the former case, sharing projects] can produce income for someone or save them money; [regarding] the latter, [projects foster community] relations by encouraging residents’ participation. In addition, the participatory budgeting process, with one million Euros for each of the nine zones of the city, is clearly reinforcing this aspect.
[The issue of inclusion is more closely related to] the content of the projects. For some of them, the main goal is exactly the inclusion of vulnerable subjects; others have cross-cutting [goals]. In general, the topic of inclusion is defined more in terms of social innovation. Therefore, even social businesses’ projects, which aim to solve social problems and favor integration, are able to reduce social exclusion.
An example is the FabLab that will open soon in D’Azeglio Street: the project includes associations, the third sector, schools, other FabLabs, etc., in a logic of deep integration. Other projects that have a clear goal of including specific groups, such as NEET (addressed to young people not engaged in education, employment, or training), or OpenCare, can count on the active participation of FabLab.
The governance dimension is clearly crucial. What new relations and collaborations were established through the project?
The main governance tools that we use are the public calls and the Register, which are inclusive tools by design. They allow a phenomenon to emerge instead of selecting or evaluating the actors that are part of the phenomenon. For example, the Register is public and presents the description of each actor registered. We called them with specific [follow-up] questions [that helped initiate] new interconnections and relations.
In general, new relations are emerging, thanks to the call that allow us to enter into contact with subjects interested in the topic, or through the community’s projects, or in a direct way, as [with] AirBnb. The calls for the Co-HUB space, the crowdfunding platform, and the FabriQ incubator are all important governance tools that are opening new sets of relations.
Are any key actors missing from the Milan Sharing City process as it currently operates?
The entire traditional financial world is still not involved in this discourse. The reason, [I imagine], is that their internal rules do not allow financial institutions to [respond] quickly [to new economic phenomena]. This [affects] not only the sharing economy, but also the smart city discussion as a whole: banks are not able to finance smart city projects, unless they [fall into very specific categories], such as energy projects. In some cases, banks are unable to evaluate the market value of the new platforms, [especially] if they generate a low economic return (as with the platforms for the exchange of goods).
Paradoxically, the stock market [should be] able to assess the value of these platforms, since it doesn’t value only the [projects’] budgets, but also their potential for development, the involvement of other actors, and so on. At some point, the involvement of the financial world will become necessary; otherwise [these initiatives will suffer from a lack of funding].
What will happen to Milan Sharing City in the future, especially in view of the coming elections?
The phenomenon has started, and in my opinion it cannot be stopped. The future is uncertain; [soon we will hold] elections, and a lot will depend on the political approach of the new city government. But even if [the new government is] completely against the sharing economy, the phenomenon will keep going, since it responds to authentic needs. I hope the new City Council will add value to [what we’ve] built [over the past] five years. There are unequivocal figures about the position of Milan in terms of our focus on the smart city, the sharing economy, and social innovation, with awards and recognitions at national and European levels. It would be such a waste not to enhance this legacy and thus lose our competitiveness.
What are the next steps in the Milan Sharing City process?
After working on the emergence of the phenomenon and on the dialogue and agreements with new actors, the goal of the next five years, in my opinion, should be the setting-up of concrete but flexible structures through which the administration can directly dialogue with other stakeholders. Milan should adopt a kind of innovation agency to create new relations and partnerships, and [to address the city’s international standing].
[On the metropolitan level, it would be interesting to see emerge an authority who could] partner with the different municipalities, the chambers of commerce, the universities, and so on, aggregating all the different actors [in order] to promote innovation at all levels.”
Originally published by Shareable, here.
