/nginx/o/2023/08/14/15522093t1hd0e4.jpg)
The protection of Estonian companies must be transparent and must not depend on donations made to a political party, Andrei Korobeinik (Center Party) writes.
The situation surrounding the platform work directive raised quite a few legitimate questions and discussing these questions would make perfect sense in terms of the future. Journalist Mikk Salu writes in his opinion piece that the Estonian government has no choice but to blindly support Bolt's views.
This is an Estonian company, they are protecting their profitability, and the government's task is to support local companies. Indeed, business diplomacy has never been the strongest point of the Estonian state apparatus, and the state must support Estonian companies more, but not blindly.
Does a platform worker need rest?
It is worth remembering what the platform work directive is actually about. According to it, platform workers, such as Bolt taxi drivers or Wolt food couriers, could be subject to the rights that apply to people working under an employment contract. For example, going on "sick leave" or the justification of immediate dismissal.
It would be more correct to say that some rights must apply to some platform workers, since the existence of their employment relationship is determined by separate rules, which, in addition to everything, each country must decide for itself. A proper debate awaits us in the Riigikogu upon the transposition and conceptualization of this directive.
According to very conservative estimates, there are about six million platform workers in the European Union. There are most likely more as the smaller platforms slip under the radar. In Estonia, we can therefore talk about tens of thousands of people who may be affected by this directive.
The number of these people is increasing every day and the attitude towards them varies immensely. In Estonia, too, employment contracts have been concluded with Wolt couriers, for example, while Bolt taxi drivers are self-employed persons or private limited companies, which offer social guarantees to themselves (in other words, they are generally deprived of such guarantees). By the way, Wolt is a Finnish company, which was already more expensive at the time of its sale (in 2021) than Bolt is now, but the northern neighbors were in favor of the platform work directive from the start, and no one is accusing the politicians there of ignoring the interests of local companies.
Yes, indeed, if Bolt has to offer Health Insurance Fund insurance and vacation days to taxi drivers or couriers, it is a cost for the company. This could result in a decrease in the value of Bolt and a slight increase in the price of their services. The prohibition of slavery in the US, for example, was undoubtedly a very painful blow to many companies and, let’s be honest, also to consumers. The price of sugar rose, cloth became more expensive, and so on – but is that why the ban on slavery was wrong? No, I'm not saying that a taxi driver who works 20-hour days, has no health insurance, no days off, and can be fired immediately without reason is a slave. But it seems to me that he could have more rights.
A mysterious vote
Now, let's take a closer look at how exactly Bolt's interests were protected. Nowhere did it appear that Estonia did not support the platform work directive in the first vote in the Council of the European Union on February 16, the officials dealing with the issue did not see any concern for Estonia in it. At that time, I knew nothing about Bolt's lobbying and I was very surprised when Estonia did not take part in the vote along with France, Germany and Greece.
I then sent a written inquiry to Minister of Economic Affairs and Information Technology Tiit Riisalo on February 21, to which I received a reply on March 4, unfortunately from Minister of Foreign Affairs Margus Tsahkna. From the answer, I learned that "in our opinion, the text of the agreement still needed additional work", and that "the regulation of the legal presumption in the directive would be legally clear and unambiguously understandable" and so on. The leader of Estonia 200 did not point out any specific problems with the directive in his reply. Except perhaps the fact that termination of cooperation with a platform employee (taxi driver, food courier, etc.) could still be automatic, since justifying it would be too great a burden for the platform operator in the minister's opinion.
Four more days went by and the platform work directive reached the second round of the Riigikogu's European Union affairs committee. Liisa-Ly Pakosta, Estonia 200 member and chairperson of the committee, decided that the state's position regarding this directive is not within the competence of her committee, let the government decide what happens next. The head of the committee interrupted the discussion, but there were already so many red flags that not only the representative of the Center Party, but also the partners of Estonia 200 in the coalition had questions. At the second vote in the Council of the European Union, the representative of Estonia decided to support the directive.
Employee welfare versus company profit
Events surrounding the platform work directive indicate that the politicians of Estonia 200 knew very well that they were not pursuing a completely transparent policy. Two of the ministers of Estonia 200 were responsible for the first non-supportive decision in the EU Council, and this decision also came as a surprise to officials handling the directive.
In the European Union affairs committee in the Riigikogu, the Estonia 200 chairperson tried to evade discussion, and they might even have succeeded, but by then we already had too many suspicions, and Liisa-Ly's behavior only confirmed them. After that, a number of details came to light, among them the lobbying of Bolt, whose leaders are major supporters of Estonia 200, in the framework of which the recording of meetings was “forgotten”, and the Bolt options held by a ministry official.
Instead of the shady business that took place in the back room of Estonia 200, a constructive debate could have taken place both in the ministries and in the Riigikogu. I believe that, as a result, Estonia would be able to make the directive better. Now, however, we are indeed in a situation where Estonian politics has received another blow to its image for nothing. Of course, no one is taking responsibility for such a policy and Estonia 200 will continue to protect the interests of supporters at the national level. If they learn anything, it is only that connections need to be hidden more skillfully.
Once again, I agree with the author of the opinion piece that the Estonian state must be more engaged in business diplomacy, but the protection of Estonian companies must be transparent and must not depend on donations made to a specific political party. And it cannot be done "blindly". For example, in this case, the choice was between the profitability of an Estonian company and the welfare of the employees. Personally, I see no reason why this choice must automatically fall in favor of the company's interests. But fortunately, Estonia voted in favor of the platform work directive, even if on the second attempt. Good enough.
/nginx/o/2023/03/24/15218812t1h9062.jpg)