IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v12y2023i9p503-d1234556.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Algorithmic Discriminations and New Forms of Protections: An Analysis of the Italian Case

Author

Listed:
  • Marina De Angelis

    (Struttura Mercato del Lavoro, Istituto Nazionale per l’Analisi delle Politiche Pubbliche (INAPP), Corso d’Italia 33, 00198 Roma, Italy)

  • Silvia Donà

    (Struttura Mercato del Lavoro, Istituto Nazionale per l’Analisi delle Politiche Pubbliche (INAPP), Corso d’Italia 33, 00198 Roma, Italy)

  • Francesca Bergamante

    (Struttura Mercato del Lavoro, Istituto Nazionale per l’Analisi delle Politiche Pubbliche (INAPP), Corso d’Italia 33, 00198 Roma, Italy)

Abstract

This research aims to investigate how to protect workers from discrimination dictated by an algorithm in the contractual conditions. Article 15 of the Italian Workers’ Statute declares invalid any agreement or act aimed at: dismissing a worker, discriminating him in the assignment of qualifications or tasks, transfers, disciplinary measures, or otherwise prejudicing him because of his affiliation or union activity, or his participation in a strike. These provisions shall also apply to pacts or acts for the purposes of political, religious, racial, language, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, or belief. Our work intends to explore the risk of gender or age discrimination in the contractual terms for platform workers in Italy. How can workers’ protections be preserved when decisions are made by an algorithm? The research is conducted with a multidisciplinary methodology. We first analyze both national and international literature and jurisprudence. Then, by means of probit models on INAPP PLUS 2021 survey data, we analyze contract characteristics, in particular the written form of the contract and the hourly minimum wage. Controlling for individual and job characteristics, we find evidence of discrimination according to gender and age of workers. We conclude with policy recommendations.

Suggested Citation

  • Marina De Angelis & Silvia Donà & Francesca Bergamante, 2023. "Algorithmic Discriminations and New Forms of Protections: An Analysis of the Italian Case," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:12:y:2023:i:9:p:503-:d:1234556
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/9/503/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/9/503/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher T. Stanton & Catherine Thomas, 2016. "Landing the First Job: The Value of Intermediaries in Online Hiring," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 83(2), pages 810-854.
    2. Amanda Pallais, 2014. "Inefficient Hiring in Entry-Level Labor Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(11), pages 3565-3599, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rachel Scarfe & Carl Singleton & Adesola Sunmoni & Paul Telemo, 2024. "The age‐wage‐productivity puzzle: Evidence from the careers of top earners," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(2), pages 584-606, April.
    2. Arimoto, Yutaka & Machikita, Tomohiro & Tsubota, Kenmei, 2018. "Broker versus social networks in adverse working conditions: cross-sectional evidence from Cambodian migrants in Thailand," IDE Discussion Papers 686, Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization(JETRO).
    3. Bayrak, Halil İbrahim & Dalkıran, Nuh Aygün, 2022. "Nonexclusive competition for a freelancer under adverse selection," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    4. Mingfeng Lin & Yong Liu & Siva Viswanathan, 2018. "Effectiveness of Reputation in Contracting for Customized Production: Evidence from Online Labor Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 345-359, January.
    5. Jie Bai & Maggie Chen & Daniel Xu, 2018. "Search and Information Frictions on Global E-Commerce Platforms: Evidence from Aliexpress," Working Papers 18-17, NET Institute.
    6. Thomas (T.L.P.R.) Peeters & Stefan Szymanski & Marko Terviö, 2017. "The inefficient advantage of experience in the market for football managers," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-116/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Maier, Michael F. & Viete, Steffen & Ody, Margard, 2017. "Plattformbasierte Erwerbsarbeit: Stand der empirischen Forschung," IZA Research Reports 81, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Laurel Wheeler & Robert Garlick & Eric Johnson & Patrick Shaw & Marissa Gargano, 2022. "LinkedIn(to) Job Opportunities: Experimental Evidence from Job Readiness Training," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(2), pages 101-125, April.
    9. Pajarinen, Mika & Rouvinen, Petri & Claussen, Jörg & Hakanen, Jari & Kovalainen, Anne & Kretschmer, Tobias & Poutanen, Seppo & Seifried, Mareike & Seppänen, Laura, 2018. "Upworkers in Finland: Survey Results," ETLA Reports 85, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    10. Christopher T. Stanton & Catherine Thomas, 2020. "The Gig Economy Beyond Local Services and Transportation," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 21(03), pages 21-26, September.
    11. Surajeet Chakravarty & Todd R. Kaplan & Luke Lindsay, 2020. "Increasing Employment Through the Partial Release of Information," Discussion Papers 2001, University of Exeter, Department of Economics, revised 2023.
    12. Amanda Pallais & Emily Glassberg Sands, 2015. "Why the Referential Treatment: Evidence from Field Experiments on Referrals," NBER Working Papers 21357, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Braesemann, Fabian & Stephany, Fabian & Teutloff, Ole & Kässi, Otto & Graham, Mark & Lehdonvirta, Vili, 2021. "The polarisation of remote work," SocArXiv q8a96, Center for Open Science.
    14. Kazakova, E. & Sandomirskaia, M. & Suvorov, A. & Khazhgerieva, A. & Shavshin, R., 2023. "Platforms, online labor markets, and crowdsourcing. Part 1. Traditional online labor market," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 60(3), pages 120-148.
    15. John Horton, 2017. "Price Floors and Employer Preferences: Evidence from a Minimum Wage Experiment," CESifo Working Paper Series 6548, CESifo.
    16. John Horton, 2021. "The Ruble Collapse in an Online Marketplace: Some Lessons for Market Designers," Papers 2104.06170, arXiv.org.
    17. Ashley C. Craig, 2023. "Optimal Income Taxation with Spillovers from Employer Learning," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 82-125, May.
    18. John J. Horton, 2019. "Buyer Uncertainty About Seller Capacity: Causes, Consequences, and a Partial Solution," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(8), pages 3518-3540, August.
    19. Claussen, Jörg & Kretschmer, Tobias & Khashabi, Pooyan & Seifried, Mareike, 2020. "Two to tango? Psychological contract breach in online labor markets," ZEW Discussion Papers 20-078, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    20. Seifried, Mareike, 2021. "Transitions from offline to online labor markets: The relationship between freelancers' prior offline and online work experience," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-101, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:12:y:2023:i:9:p:503-:d:1234556. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.