Legal regulation methods of non-traditional employment: ILO guidelines and experience of foreign countries

Tyumen State University Herald. Social, Economic, and Law Research


2021, Vol. 7. № 2 (26)

Legal regulation methods of non-traditional employment: ILO guidelines and experience of foreign countries

For citation: Kursova O. A. 2021. “Legal regulation methods of non-traditional employment: ILO guidelines and experience of foreign countries”. Tyumen State University Herald. Social, Economic, and Law Research, vol. 7, no. 2 (26), pp. 106-121. DOI: 10.21684/2411-7897-2021-7-2-106-121

About the author:

Oksana A. Kursova, Cand. Sci. (Jur.), Associate Professor, Department of Labor Law and Entrepreneurship, University of Tyumen;; ORCID: 0000-0001-9170-1678


The widespread prevalence of precarious employment is due to modern trends in the development of the market economy and information technology. In general, precarious work in modern literature is considered as a negative phenomenon that contributes to the precarization of employment. Precarious work is extremely heterogeneous; a single standard of legal regulation is practically not applicable to these relations, which are very different in terms of signs and characteristics. That is why only the concept transformation of labor relations in order to cover the labor law regulation sphere of various relations related to precarious employment will not improve the situation. This means that it is necessary to consider various ways of legal regulation of precarious work in order to provide all employed with the necessary level of social protection. This idea is consistently revealed in the proposed work. To substantiate this idea, this paper provides an analysis of international approaches and various domestic decisions regarding the regulation of precarious work. Various methods study of precarious employment legal regulation was carried out in order to determine various options for bringing precarious employment to a certain social standard, which presupposes the precarization prevention of employment. The main research methods are the comparative method and the method of expert assessments. As a result, it was concluded that the strategy of the International Labor Organization, the essence of which is to search for legal solutions to extend social protection to all employed without exception, is the optimal universal solution to the problem. The only question is how this discourse should be practically implemented in different legal systems.


  1. ILO. 2019. Global Commission for the Future of Labor. Work for the light of the future. Geneva: International Labor Office. 78 pp. [In Russian]

  2. Zaitseva L.V. 2019. “Economically dependent self-employed: differences national approaches to determining the legal status”. Bulletin of Tomsk State University, no. 446, pp. 212-222. [In Russian]

  3. ILO. 15-17 February 2018. The quality of the workplace in the platform economy. Analytical material on the problem was prepared for the Second meeting Global Commission on the Future of Work at the International Bureau Labor. Geneva, Switzerland. / documents / publication / wcms_618382.pdf. [In Russian]

  4. ILO. 2016. Non-standard forms of employment. Analysis of problems and prospects for solutions in different countries. Review version. Geneva: International Labor Office. 396 pp. [In Russian]

  5. Tedeev A. A. 2014. “Development of information technologies, information economy and legal regulation of remote labor in Russia (some problems)”. Russian justice, no. 6, pp. 25-29. [In Russian]

  6. Cherry M. A. 2016. “Beyond Misclassification: The Digital Transformation of Work”. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, vol. 37, iss. 3, pp. 577-602.

  7. ILO, OECD. 8 April 2020. Ensuring better social protection for self-employed workers. Paper prepared for the 2nd Meeting of the G20 Employment Working Group under Saudi Arabia’s presidency.

  8. Furfaro J. P., Kuveke Ch. A. 2015. “Independent Contractor Update: Courts, NLRB, Legislatures Weigh In.”. New York Law Journal, vol. 253, no. 63.

  9. Harris Seth D., Krueger Alan B. 2015. А Proposal for Modernizing Labor Laws for Twenty-First-Century Work: The “Independent Worker”. Washington, District of Columbia: Hamilton Project. 36 p.

  10. Perulli A. 2011. “Subordinate, Autonomous and Economically Dependent Work: A Comparative Analysis of Selected European Countries”. In: G. Casale (ed.): The Employment Relationship A Comparative Overview. Geneva: ILO. 320 pp.

  11. Prassl J., Risak M.2016. “Uber, Taskrabbit, & Co: Platforms as Employers? Rethinking the Legal Analysis of Crowdwork”. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 604-619.

  12. Radu R., Borg S. P. 3-5 July 2017. “‘Uberisation’ demystified: examining legal and regulatory responses worldwide”. Labour Organization Office. Geneva.

  13. ILO. 16-19 February 2015. Report of the Tripartite Meeting of Experts on Non-Standard Forms of Employment. Geneva.

  14. Rogers B. 2015. “Employment as a Legal Concept”. SSRN Electronic Journal. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2641305.

  15. Silberman M. Six, Irani L. 2016. “Operating an Employer Reputation System: Lessons from Turkopticon, 2008-2015”. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 472-505.

  16. Stern A., Lehrer E. 2017. “How to Modernize Labor Law”. National Affairs, vol. 39.

  17. TESTBIRDS. 2016. General Terms and Conditions of Business for Testers of Testbirds GmbH, Radlkoferstraße 2, 81373 Munich, Germany.

  18. Valerio De Stefano (ed.). 2016. “The rise of the ‘just-in-time workforce’: on-demand work, crowdwork and labour protection in the ‘gig-economy’”. International Labour Office, Inclusive Labour Markets, Labour Relations and Working Conditions Branch. Geneva: ILO. No. 71.

  19. Office for National Statistics. 7 February 2018. Trends in self-employment in the UK. Analysing the characteristics, income and wealth of the self-employed. London.

  20. Waltermann R. 2010. “Abschied vom Normalarbeitsverhaltnis? Welche arbeits- und Regelungen empfehlen sich im Hinblick auf die Zunahme neuer Beschäftigungsformen und die wachsende Diskontinuität von Erwerbsbiographien?”. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift. Beil. S. 81-85.