Forcing companies to give worker’s rights to gig economy workers is actually huge, so expect Google to fight tooth and nail to block it. Could make for a big change in all the hoops they make YouTubers jump through if it does eventually stick though.
The lawsuit seeks to demonstrate an employment relationship between Jota, a creator of political satire content whose real name has not been disclosed, and Alphabet’s YouTube
Yeah, I don’t think they have to fight very hard here. This lawsuit has a snowball’s chance in hell.
Do you have experience with Spanish employment law?
This would be an absolutely insane precedent that would just result in further gate-keeping the ability to earn revenue on YouTube.
He doesn’t even deserve to get to preliminary motions, and his attorney should be disciplined for wasting the court’s time.
This would be an absolutely insane precedent that would just result in further gate-keeping the ability to earn revenue on YouTube.
Exactly. If YouTube was forced to treat every monetized creator on the platform as an employee, this will end up hurting smaller creators who can’t meet the requirements for an actual employment (those with smaller followings or irregular upload schedules), and many who were previously monetized will suddenly lose it.
I can sympathize with the argument on gig work for hire like Uber. I’m not sure any of the frameworks we have work that well, but there’s merit to at least some of the protections of employment law being in play.
But YouTube isn’t employing anyone.
Hope he wins Google’s gone full evil lately and isn’t even trying to hide it.
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
The lawsuit seeks to demonstrate an employment relationship between Jota, a creator of political satire content whose real name has not been disclosed, and Alphabet’s YouTube because he regularly provided his services and received remuneration derived from advertising revenue, UGT said.
Google Spain blocked Jota’s YouTube channel “Último Bastión” (Last Stronghold) from earning advertising revenue in August.
He said they had called on the court to classify Jota and YouTube’s a labour relationship and his effective dismissal as “wrongful”.
Google says that content creators are not employees and that in this particular case Jota’s channel did not comply with YouTube monetisation policies.
Spain became a pioneer in Europe in gig-economy workers’ rights when it forced food delivery companies to hire as staff their riders in 2021.
The UGT said it was committed to fighting false self-employment and precarious labour conditions it says tech giants seek to impose.
Saved 64% of original text.
“He says that the company withdrew money that was already in his YouTube payments account.” this is the huge part not included in this summary. I don’t think an employer can withdraw money from an employee’s account. At least not in the EU.
But I’m not a lawyer.
I don’t think an employer can withdraw money from an employee’s account. At least not in the EU.
It is very illegal in the EU. It requires quite a lot of burocracy to even start the procedure to do so legally if for example part of the money was given by mistake.
But you cannot just remove an entire salary, not even if they start a procedure to so. That is just asking for a fun session in court.
IIRC the test for being an employee, is having the employer at least controlling the employee’s schedule, if not providing all the resources to realize the work.
Not sure about their exact contract with YouTube, but I don’t think it might be applicable to a media producer publishing at their own pace by whichever own means they want.
IIRC the test for being an employee, is having the employer at least controlling the employee’s schedule
No that’s “a” test, it’s not “the” test. And you don’t have to pass all of the tests.
A perfect example is the CEO of a company. They control their own schedule. They are still employees… and in most of the world you need a reason to fire them.
A CEO’s schedule is controlled by the board, that’s why they’re an employee.
It often happens that a CEO is also the chair of the board, so they can control the CEO (themself) themselves, but legally those are separate functions.
Google does put pressure on delivery though, it sends notifications like oh you haven’t posted today, that’s not good and might mean you show up lower on searches.
I don’t think it’s enough myself but they are extremely controlling and I can see someone could want to argue it out.
Unless he has anything resembling an employment contract (which I’m doubting is the case, as I don’t think YouTube has ever offered such contracts to creators outside of the now-defunct YouTube Red productions), I don’t see this working out in his favor.
