Interview: Why care platforms are becoming increasingly important & what challenges they pose for trade unions?

A German version of the interview is available  here.

FES Future of Work and EPSU conducted a study on care platforms and impacts and challenges from a trade union perspective. The report, written by Caroline Murphy, Tish Gibbons and Ivana Pais was recently launched and is now available. We asked one of the study's authors, Caroline Murphy from the University of Limerick, why care platforms are increasingly relevant and what challenges they present for trade unions.

Caroline, your recent study, examines care platforms and their impacts and challenges from a trade union perspective. Why was it important to conduct this study on care platforms?

The focus of this study was important for a number of reasons. Firstly, in terms of the sector and the nature of the work. Care is a social good that impacts everyone in society. At some point in our lives we will all either receive or provide/coordinate caregiving. The particular segment of care which we examined relates to domiciliary care in the private home setting. This is crucial to supporting ageing in place policies, and preferences of a growing population of older people, and those with long term care needs.

Secondly, home care and domestic work represent a growing segment of the labour market, as does platform work. The workforce is predominantly female, and a high level of migrant labour. Finally, much of the research on platform work to date has focused on sectors like transport/delivery, and to a lesser extent domestic services. Therefore, for unions an understanding of how challenges for organising, representing and bargaining for workers in this sector differs is important, and furthermore how union practices applied in other areas of platform work can be adapted to the care sector.

What were the three most surprising findings of your study?

The range of different platform models that exists within the care sector was surprising. While its common to associate platform work with an “uberisation” type of model, in care a variety of models exist. These include platforms which operate as intermediaries through a digital placement agency model and which encourage longer term relations between clients and carers, but also on demand type models where the approach is more short term in focus.  

The level of variation not only in operational models but in the ownership and development of care platforms was also surprising. We see large international platforms offering care as well as wider domestic services, but also national and local level providers emerging. Some platforms were established as such, while others have transitioned from a traditional agency style model towards a platform approach. We also see a crossover of platform and cooperative based models.

Finally, it was surprising to note that different debate exist in care in relation to the role of platforms and informality of work. Much of the literature on the gig economy points to the role of platform in increasing the casualisation of work and informality, while in care the debate is more nuanced and platforms are also presented as an alternative to the informal economy, offering a mechanism through which families and workers can formalise the care relationship.
 

The study addresses the impacts and challenges of care platforms from a trade union perspective. What do you see as the key challenges for trade unions, and could you share an example of a strategy that trade unions could adopt to address these challenges?

The overarching challenge for unions, and indeed for all actors involved in caregiving, is the systemic under valuation of care work in society. The lack of affordable, publicly funded and provided care fuels the development of new models of care provision. The European Care Strategy has emphasised the importance of high quality, affordable care, choice for those in need of care, and improved terms and conditions for workers. For unions, its vital to continue to exercise political pressure and lobbying to ensure that a national level the funding of care is prioritised and managed in a way which reflects the aims of the European Care Strategy, including collective bargaining and social dialogue to improve wages and working conditions in care.

Previous research from the European Trade Union Institute has shown that smaller platforms are more willing to engage in social dialogue, while larger players are more likely to have an attitude of avoidance when it comes to collective bargaining. Therefore, in contexts where platforms are still only emerging, a concerted effort to achieve collective agreements before platforms scale may be advantageous. In relation to organising and representing workers, the biggest challenge for unions relates to the ‘invisibility’ of the home-care workforce owing to the work taking place in the sphere of the private home.

However, while home-care workers lack visibility in the physical realm, the growth of platforms and digital networks mean that many workers are very active in the digital sphere. Therefore, unions need to include a digital organising strategy in their approach, ensuring care workers are aware of unions existing involvement in the care sector. Demonstrating the value of unions to platform workers is crucial, and this may mean adopting new approaches. For example, in 2019 in Belgium, the Algemeen Christelijk Vakverbond (ACV)/ Confédération des syndicats chrétiens (CSC) established the United Freelancers organisation to support platform workers. Members pay the same membership fees as employees, but for services tailored to platform workers’ needs, including assistance in the interpretation of the platform’s terms and conditions and provision of legal support in some cases. Likewise, in Austria, the union Vida focused on extending membership to freelancers through their Vidaflex initiative.

The study highlights examples from Italy and Ireland. What makes these two countries particularly interesting in the context of care platforms?

Both countries share similarities in the approach to home care provision, namely a decline publicly provided care and increased privatisation. However, while in the Irish context care is still predominantly delivered by private agencies (often linked with large international chains), in Italy platforms are increasingly a more visible feature of the home care economy. This may reflect the pace of demographic change in Italy compared with Ireland where the challenges posed by ageing population are still emerging. It also reflects differences in the funding approach in both countries. In Ireland, no statutory entitlement to receive formal homecare or home support exists, though plans are advancing to place home care on the same statutory footing as residential based care. As a result, families may rely on a mix of public and privately funded care, with platforms more likely involved in the latter. A further feature of the Italian system is the growth in platform cooperatives, while in Ireland, only one worker cooperative has been established in the care sector. Our findings point towards a convergence of terms and conditions of employment between countries and indeed models in the sector.

Looking ahead, what are aspects of care platforms will be crucial in the future and deserve further research.

The extent to which some platforms offer a mix of both care and domestic services, while others are predominantly providing care (with some limited household tasks) is worthy of further examination in terms of how this impacts workers identity and understanding of their role. There is a lack of nuance in the terminology surrounding care which can limit efforts to professionalise the work or creation more specialised roles. Greater differentiation is required to recognise the breadth of skills and variation of care provided. In other allied health professions, skills are developed and tailored to needs. Support for a broader range of job titles and grades should be considered so that care roles have clear progression paths. Even within the context of platforms, clearer titles and qualification could allow workers to differentiate themselves and offer care more tailored to client needs e.g specialised dementia care. The creation of a register of care workers, introduction of a protected title or assignment of home care to a professional accrediting body could provide opportunities to increase recognition of the skills involved in care work. However, for workers interventions need to be accompanied by tangible improvement in terms and conditions. The extent to which platforms are providing a mechanism through which workers can enhance their terms and conditions by differentiation of their skills targeted at specific clients should be examined further in the future.