Decide whether a worker is an employee or an independent business by how the work is really done, not by the name of the contract
Steps to make it happen
- Lawmakers make sure that a contract line saying "we do not employ this person" cannot settle the question alone.
- The law sets clear points to check, such as whether workers can choose their own hours and places of work.
- Workers who are told in detail how to do their jobs are protected as employees.
- When the answer is unclear, people are treated as employees first.
- The company that says it does not employ someone must show its reasons itself.
- Workers can get free advice that helps them check what their status is.
- People who truly work at their own pace stay free to work as they do now.
- Whatever the form of the contract, people who should be protected are protected as a matter of course.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal changes the rules for judging whether the relationship between the person who asks for work and the person who does it is legally employment or a deal with an independent business. It covers every kind of work where the name of the contract and the real way of working easily drift apart, such as delivery and rides arranged through apps, work done at home, long-running contracts for services, and temp agency or contracted work. The yardsticks are the facts of the work: whether workers can decide their own hours and places, whether they can negotiate their own pay, whether they are free of close control through detailed instructions and ratings, whether they can freely have other clients, and whether they pay for their own tools and costs. The title or label on a contract is not decisive. If the party asking for the work is found to control strongly on several of these points, the relationship is presumed to be employment, and protections such as the minimum wage, time off, compensation for injury and illness, and social insurance apply. The side that wants to overturn this presumption bears the duty to present materials showing independence. A review can begin when a worker asks for it or when a public body that watches over labor investigates, and the result is applied through the same system to all the workers in the same arrangement. The proposal also states clearly that skilled professionals and self-employed people who set their own prices and have many customers are not covered.
BenefitsFewer people left unprotected behind a contract's form
The biggest effect is that it becomes easier to help people who actually work under a company's orders but are placed outside protection. Because the yardsticks become clear and the burden of proof moves to the party asking for the work, workers do not have to carry a long dispute alone. The risk that life collapses all at once with injury, illness, or job loss goes down, and savings through insurance for old age are less likely to be interrupted. Changing only the name of a contract to avoid the cost of employment also becomes harder to get away with, which creates a fair footing for competition in which companies that properly employ people do not lose out. More people paying into social insurance can also be expected to stabilize the funding of social security. Because the result reaches all workers in the same arrangement, each person does not have to sue separately. Moreover, since people who truly work at their own pace are clearly left out, the proposal does not deny free ways of working itself but redraws the line between freedom and protection to fit reality.
DrawbacksRisk of fewer flexible ways of working and fewer jobs
The concern raised most strongly by opponents is that the flexibility workers themselves like and choose would be lost. If people are presumed to be employees, those asking for work may start to manage working hours and demand fixed shifts, and working a little at whatever time one likes may become harder. If costs such as insurance premiums rise, companies may reduce the number of people or move work to machines or overseas, and chances to work may fall instead. Prices paid by users would rise, and in some areas the service itself might no longer be viable. The yardstick items also leave room for interpretation, so there is worry that judgments will differ from one official to another, or that disputes will even increase. It takes people and money for public bodies to investigate the facts, and in a society with weak oversight the rules could become a pie in the sky. It has also been pointed out that in regions where formal employment is already scarce, the stricter the rules, the more work may slip away into areas where it leaves no record. The question is how to balance widening protection with keeping chances to work.
Learn the background
In many parts of the world, more and more people work as "contractors" or "sole proprietors" without an employment contract. The spread of work taken through smartphone apps has sped this up. Freedom to work as one likes is a good side of it. But in many places it has become a problem that the party asking for the work decides almost alone on assignments, pay, and ratings, yet the worker is treated on paper as an independent business and is left out of the minimum wage, time off, compensation for injury, and pension and health insurance. For workers to argue that they should be protected, they have to spend time and money on a dispute, and the weaker the person, the more likely they are to give up. It has also been pointed out that competition becomes unfair between companies that choose a contract form to avoid the cost of employment and companies that employ people honestly. Courts and legislatures in some countries and regions have begun to adopt the idea of judging by the facts, but the yardsticks vary. As ways of working spread across borders, a shared way of thinking that any society can use is needed.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes