In July 2017, the Taylor Review on 'Modern Working Practices' was published. Led by Matthew Taylor, the Review aimed to consider the implications of new emerging business models for both worker rights and employer obligations. Its recommendations seem illinformed, methodologically unsound and, ultimately, unlikely to address the widespread deprivation of workers' rights within the 'gig' economy and contemporary workplace. We shape our critique of the Taylor approach by reference to the constructions of 'choice' used in the Review and the limited scope permitted for worker 'voice'. In particular, we observe an evasion of international labour standards relevant to 'decent work' and a lack of attention n to fundamental human rights. Identifying methodological flaws in the Report and focusing on three central areas of reform: employment status; zero hours contracts; and workers' voice and representation, this article critically analyses a number of the proposals put forwards, concluding that many of the Taylor Review recommendations are not only problematic, but dangerous, with potentially serious deregulatory repercussions for UK workers if actioned upon and implemented by the current Government.

Sustainability objectives have been recognized by the ILO primarily in terms of the impact of environmental protection in the form of “just transition” and “green job” initiatives. Arguably, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) now offer richer scope for ILO engagement with social sustainability. This can be attributed to the prominent recognition of “decent work” in SDG 8 and the need for “responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision‐making at all levels” in SDG target 16.7. This article examines how the ILO could further promote collective worker voice in the context of debates over a sustainable “future of work”, particularly considering to whom voice is given and how it is exercised.

No abstract

The 2018 Amending Directive is the most recent response to the failings of the European Union (EU) legal framework for the posting of workers. This article uses an original case study of workers posted from Serbia via Hungary to Slovakia as a basis on which to assess the practical impact of this latest Directive. We recognize the capacity for EU Member States to do more to protect posted workers than was possible previously. However, we also note significant regulatory omissions relating, in particular, to the manufactured uncertainty of employment and immigration status, limited supply chain regulation and obstacles to trade union representation. We identify the need to address in greater detail the complex operations of transnational temporary work agencies involving third country nationals which can produce legal uncertainty and foster unfree labour relations.