• The digital transition involves far-reaching changes to economic processes, production models and work organisation. The most recent techniques, including those of artificial intelligence, are part of a process of continuous of digital deployment for decades.

• What is different from the earlier phases of mechanics and machinism is the qualitative leap of the digital transition, i.e. the transfer to machines and the automation of intellectual, cognitive and calculation operations. In this context, the essential thing is " interaction between the information gathered and decision-making, i.e. the machine's ability to react to changes in its environment. "

• The argument often put forward points to the fact that digital technologies and, more specifically, artificial intelligence (AI) are no longer technologies that can be "mastered" by humans, as they are marked by a strong autonomisation of technology. However, at the current stage of AI development, there is no risk of autonomous decision-making.

• Work and technology are ambivalent realities. Work is seen as a factor of production, the essence of man, and the linchpin of the system for distributing income, rights and protection. " These dimensions are mutually contradictory and form the basis of a plurality of interpretations. "

• Isolating the technical factor as a factor in the transformation of social relationships is a tricky, if not impossible, business. Every human society is founded on a technical system, and the cohesion of any society over time will depend on the way in which the technical system (and the innovations that make it evolve) is coherently articulated with the social systems and its institutions. The change in the technical system we are facing is occurring without being able to link it to a coherent narrative and appropriate institutions and rules.

•  The link between the digital transition and its effects on the volume of work remains controversial, and predictions in this area are unreliable. Agreed estimates place 'technological' unemployment at between 9 and 15 % of the employed population in the EU by 2025-2030. With an estimated 235 million people in work in the EU, several million jobs will disappear.

• While it should be noted that the digital sector is growing rapidly, the volume of corresponding jobs is still marginal. While the long-term potential for direct and indirect job creation linked to this digital transition will be significant, one of the difficulties in grasping the field of possibilities and making a prediction is linked to the specific nature of the digital transition, where innovations are interdependent.

• On the other hand, all the analyses converge in stressing that a qualitative aspectimportant aspect of the digital transition: the fact that the content of tasks - and therefore of skills - will eventually change significantly in one job in two.

• In conjunction with other factors, it is the spatial and temporal framework of work that is being disrupted. Several underlying trends are contributing to this: automation, the connectivity of automatic systems, the platform company, the segmentation of work and the evolution of the traditional relationship of subordination. One of the major effects is a marked change in the content of tasks and a strong polarisation in the structure of jobs, benefiting highly-skilled occupations. Low-skilled or unskilled occupations, with manual and routine tasks, will be affected. This polarisation could be the source of a widening social divide, deepening inequalities.

• The digital transition is an integral part of the evolution of work and jobs, but above all a factor accelerating the segmentation of work, its intensification and the emergence of new forms of work and work organisation in a network economy.

• A key element of current developments is the way in which digital technology will promote the connectivity of automatic systems. All the tasks, all the players, all the processes can now be linked together, on multiple geographical scales, creating in the process huge masses of data that are the raw material for new value chains. The digital revolution in industry is not about robots replacing people. It's about intelligent networking between machines, between machines and people, and between people and people."

• The questions raised by automation are legitimate. One of the tricky answers will be the collective capacity of the EU and its Member States to put in place sound management of these changes. This means the collective capacity to take control - without stifling innovation - of the distribution of productivity gains, the way in which these gains are distributed and how their distribution would reduce inequalities.

• The platform company intensifies the polarisation of work, by placing activity outside the traditional time and place of the company.

• The digital transition is accelerating the segmentation of work, accentuating flexibility and the way in which tasks are redistributed. This has a number of consequences: the first is the intensification of work, particularly networking. The 2^rd As a result, several links in the production chain, and therefore the associated work, are outsourced, depending on the case, with the presence of different professional statuses, mobilising forms of work that are neither salaried nor traditionally self-employed, and sometimes dividing work into individualised services. The 3^rdThe consequence is that this segmentation will change the position of jobs in value chains.

• The traditional relationship of subordination, characteristic of the "Fordist" model, is undergoing profound change. It is at the heart of a sensitive debate on extending the scope of labour law, by replacing traditional legal subordination with the criterion of economic dependence. This criterion should be the source of social protection and form the basis of labour law covering the whole range of professional situations, from the directly subordinate worker to the most economically independent.

• A crucial aspect of this debate at EU level is the central issue of social protection. Any debate on the future of work and on new forms of work will have to take account of the need to maintain the cohesion of the various professional statuses, the two sides of the same coin being labour law and social security law.

•  The question of how to move from an institutional framework - the welfare state - that has undergone profound change, to a new framework, raises the question of the cohesion of our societies and the way in which the government of mankind is conceived.

• Hence the growing awareness of having to deal with "governance gaps" at several levels - local, national, European and global - and the need to identify new mechanisms for protecting and strengthening rights. In particular, the regulation of new forms of work is becoming a central issue for the EU and its Member States.

• The shift from the notion of "government" of men (rule of law) to that of "governance", which emerged in the 1980s, is taking place in the vocabulary and practice of the EU institutions.

• While taking laws into account, the legitimacy of "governance" rests on the capacity of institutions and people to adapt their behaviour to changes in their environment and on the place that new players take in this framework.

• Governance by numbers changes the original use of quantification to adopt an opposite logic, in which the setting of quantified targets becomes common practice. It has spread from the corporate world to the national civil service and the EU. Data and statistical conventions are no longer a prerequisite for decision-making. Governance by numbers determines the actions of national and EU administrations and institutions through performance criteria that become objectives to be achieved in a scorecard to which all players must adhere.

• With the digital transition and Artificial Intelligence (AI), a new stage has been reached through the " Algorithmic Government (AG) ". This mode of government combines two main elements: on the one hand, the digital traces (the massive raw data) that we leave in our digital traffic and, on the other, new statistical practices and algorithms that use this data to predict behaviour.

• The major ethical risks of deploying this AI in our societies can easily be transposed to the world of work, of the company, of the autonomy of players, trade unions and employers, of social dialogue. From the moment when data is traceable and under control, AI removes the shared representations of the players, in order to say and impose what is real and objective. This AI, within the company, would no longer allow criticism and could totally call into question the exercise of social democracy.

• In addition to the issue of the fundamental rules of labour protection for all and that of guaranteeing the function of labour law as an essential element of social cohesion, the governance of social democracy by numbers thus becomes one of the central elements of any EU-wide reflection on the issue of changes in the world of work.

•  Exploring avenues and effective responses to the risks posed by transformations in work and employment means taking into account the limits of prediction and a number of realities: the current institutional framework of the EU and the division of competences between the EU and the Member States; the initiatives undertaken with a view to the Digital Single Market (DSM) and the data economy; the measures taken to adapt and protect workers within the EU and to protect data; finally, the exercise of powers and the balance of power between the intergovernmental and Community approaches.

• The 16 MUN proposals cover a wide and coherent range of measures. Some important ones, such as the abolition of roaming charges and the General Data Protection Regulation, have already been the subject of European legal provisions and have entered their application phase. Others are in the launch phase.

• One initiative which, surprisingly, is not included in the MUN deserves a special mention. This is a European digital platform project,  linked to the defence of the EU's shared values.

• It has to be said that, with the exception of the subject of education and digital skills with a view to avoiding new inequalities at the outset, the social dimension of the MUN does not give rise to a coherent and precise set of projects that would highlight the added value of Community action in this area.

• The mid-term evaluation of the MUN and the European AI initiative confirm this observation.

• The reason given for this is the division of competences between the EU and the Member States, which clearly states that the EU institutions only intervene to support the efforts of the Member States, who are responsible for education and labour market policies.

• Reflecting on the social dimension of the Single Market and the MUN and on lines of action means taking a very pragmatic approach to two key issues.

• The first is to go back to the foundations of social Europe and try to determine whether it would be possible to forwardtaking advantage of the impact of the digital transition, to change the logic that has prevailed since the Treaty of Rome. A logic that dissociates the economic and the social, economic efficiency and social justice.

• The 2^rd The question is whether, within the current legal framework of the Treaties, the EU could add value by taking action on projects that would require Community action.

• The legitimacy of the EU's values and the social objectives set out in the Lisbon Treaty cannot be disputed, but can the fundamental social rights of workers [1] can be invoked in law on an equal footing with economic freedoms?

• In the short term, such a paradigm shift is unrealistic. It is certainly desirable, but there are many reasons why the European social model should remain as it is.

• The first has to do with the exercise of power and the asymmetry in the balance of power between the intergovernmental approach and the Community approach. The second reason is that it is hardly conceivable that the EU Member States could accept short-term to transfer new powers to the EU, with a view to placing fundamental social rights and respect for environmental criteria as legitimate constraints on economic activity and on the same footing as economic freedoms.

• This logic of the primacy of economic freedoms has always prevailed, despite the significant advances made by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in terms of political freedoms and European citizenship.

• The 'social' record of the EU and its Member States since the 2008 crisis is largely mixed, but two aspects of the EU's recent social agenda stand out: the European set of social rights and the plan to create a European Labour Authority.

• The aim of the Base and its 20 principles is to ensure that labour markets and social systems are fair and function properly. They include a number of social rights from the 2000 Charter of Fundamental Rights.

• Its content would suggest that the logic of dissociation between the economic and the social would be altered.

• This is not the case at this stage, insofar as the joint proclamation of this foundation by the three European institutions does not give it any binding legal value and, moreover, it respects the legal limits imposed by the Treaties, in particular article 153 of the TFEU.

• The social rights base is first and foremost a political document. It does, however, open up prospects for reflection and significant action on the risks associated with changes in the workplace, based on several of the 20 principles:

• By the effective implementation of these 20 principles under the impetus of the European Commission with the support of the European Parliament and Council. Its value will therefore depend on the follow-up given to it from 2019 onwards.

• Several of these principles have been incorporated into various legal instruments, including the revision of directives such as the one on working time, but also through new mechanisms such as the proposed creation of a European labour authority, which would in effect become a European agency.

• Through the action of the European Court of Justice, which could refer to this foundation in its work of interpretation, insofar as it translates many of the principles of the 2000 Charter, incorporated into the Treaties.

• Another significant challenge will be that of financing such a European set of social rights.

• Given that it is unlikely that the future European budget (post-BREXIT) will increase significantly, one of the key ideas supported by several AEPL members would be to making the granting of structural and investment funds conditional on social and environmental criteria. At the same time, three measures will be taken in the EU's next multiannual financial framework (MFF): the resources of the Funds will be increased, the Funds will be grouped together, and their scope of action will be revised to allow for specific targeting.

• The conditionality mechanism should, as a matter of priority, provide an incentive for upward social convergence, be gradual and, above all, be linked to the setting of realistic social objectives for each country, which the EU could define on the basis of the scoreboard designed as a mechanism for monitoring the social rights base.

• The project European Works Council (EWC) could be a decisive relay for the principles of the European set of social rights. Three tasks for this Authority are under discussion: a simple information and support function for the Member States, an operational function and a function involving binding measures. In the short and medium term, the hope would be to define the operational role more clearly in order to reach a consensus and carefully delimit the areas of constraint that would be acceptable, along the lines of the binding effect that other agencies, such as EUROJUST, can have.

• In the longer term, one approach, admittedly utopian, which can only be envisaged on the basis of a new legal framework, would consist, as advocated by the AEPL, in establishing a European Labour Court, coupled with a mechanism for EU coordination and support for the operation of national labour inspectorates.

• This last proposal is based on the argument underlying this document, namely a new social contract for a Europe that would give fundamental social rights and respect for environmental criteria a legal force equivalent to that of fundamental economic freedoms.                                             

•  The social agenda is at the heart of all EU policy and once again raises the question of a truly humane work regime. It must reappropriate the "Spirit of Philadelphia" and the preamble to the ILO Constitution, of which the 28 ILO Member States are members:

• " The failure of any nation to adopt a truly humane system of labour impedes the efforts of other nations to improve the lot of workers in their own countries. "

• Labour law in the 28 Member States focuses on the conditions under which work is performed in the face of economic, scientific or technical imperatives, rather than on the work itself. It reinforces, including in EU law, the flexibility of the labour market as one of the parameters of economic growth, notably via Articles 145 and 146 of the TFEU, where the coordinated employment strategy commits the Member States to prepare and adapt a skilled workforce in a manner compatible with economic policies.

• Any overhaul of Member States' labour law and EU law in this area, which seeks to take account of new forms of work and work organisation as well as the principles governing truly human or living work, will have to change the prevailing logic of subordinating social and environmental concerns to the criteria of fundamental economic freedoms.

• In its analysis, AEPL has already suggested several avenues and initiatives on a European scale. Other avenues, based on the work of Alain Supiot, would strengthen the proposed systems, in particular :

• The procedures which, in the context of social dialogue, would make it possible to engage in negotiation on the content and meaning of work, by making the design and organisation of work a "priority" for all employees. the subject of collective bargaining and individual warnings".

• Collective bargaining should take place at relevant levels, not just at branch or company level, and specifically at the "national" level. the relevant levels of supply and production chains and networks, and that of territories. "

• Reduce the opacity of legal and economic responsibilities in supply and production chains and business networks, " by indexing the responsibility of each member of these networks to the actual degree of autonomy he or she enjoys ";

• To give social and environmental standards the same legal force as the standards governing the fundamental economic freedoms within the EU for the exchange of goods, services and capital. This presupposes the establishment of a European dispute settlement body, with the power to authorise countries that comply with the standards to close their markets to products manufactured under conditions that do not comply with them.

• In a reform of labour law, " take account of non-market work [...] which is as vital to society as it is ignored by economic indicators "

Driving forward a different logic and approach to those that have dominated social Europe

Give social and environmental standards the same legal force as economic freedoms.

The legitimacy of the EU values and social objectives defined by the Lisbon Treaty (TEU and TFEU) and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights form an indisputable foundation.

Based on an analysis of the foreseeable impact of the digital transition on work and employment ;

Having noted that it is unrealistic to envisage, short-termAn effective Europe-wide transfer of Member States' powers in the social field;

AEPL is aware that the responses in the medium and long term will imply a different logic from that which has dominated social Europe since the Treaty of Rome. At the various levels of governance (local, national, European), respect for fundamental social rights and compliance with environmental criteria must be seen as legitimate constraints on economic activity, and placed on the same level as economic freedoms.

Set up a European tripartite initiative to discuss the social and economic impact of digital technologies

Relying on national mechanisms for social consultation,

In a similar way, the European Commission and the European Council could launch a European tripartite consultation initiative (social players and governments), the aim of which would be to anticipate impacts and identify measures that would offer undeniable added value at European level, complementing measures taken at local and national level.

In this respect, a European digital platform could stimulate and organise dialogue between national and European players.

Effective implementation of the European set of social rights, in particular 5 of the principles on the 20, which enable action to be taken on the social and economic impacts of the digital transition.

Making the granting of structural and investment funds conditional on social and environmental criteria, while taking three measures in the next multiannual financial framework (MFF): increasing resources, grouping the Funds together, and revising their scope of action so as to allow specific targeting of the impacts identified in connection with the deployment of digital technologies.

Giving substance, in the next multiannual financial framework (MFF), to the European Labour Authority (ELA) project.

In the longer term, establish aEuropean Labour Court, couple to aEuropean coordination mechanism and EU support for the smooth operation of national labour inspectorates

In the medium term, two strands of the EU's recent social agenda, the she European social rights cycle and the plan to create a European Labour Authorityrepresent a window of opportunity to influence the responses to the transformations of work and employment in the digital age.

Even if the joint proclamation of this foundation by three European institutions does not give it any binding legal valueAEPL recommends and supports the effective implementation of the 20 principles it contains.

The implementation of these principles opens up new avenues through the possibility of linking several of these principles to existing legal instruments, including the revision of directives, such as the one on working time, but also through new mechanisms, such as the draft directive on the organisation of working time. creation of a European labour authority

Among these 20 principles,  on which the CJEU could rely in relation to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, for our subject, in particular, the one on :

Employment contracts and the proposed directive on transparent and predictable working conditions

Work-life balance and the proposed directive

The right to a fair wage allowing a decent standard of living

A healthy, safe and well-adapted working environment and data protection

vAccess to social protection

With regard to the conditionality of granting funds, it will be necessary to avoid arousing suspicion among beneficiary states that resources are being blocked upstream. The mechanism should therefore provide an incentive for upward social convergence, be gradual, and above all be linked to the setting of realistic social objectives that the EU could define on the basis of the monitoring of the social rights base.

AEPL recommends adoption of the project European Labour Authoritymake it a European agency, taking particular care to give it an operational role and negotiating its binding legal role on the basis of the 20 principles of the European Social Charter, within the legal limits imposed by the Treaties, in particular Article 153 of the TFEU.

In the longer termIn order to achieve this, we need to take a step - albeit a utopian one that can only be envisaged on the basis of a new European legal framework - which would consist of establishing a European Labour Courtcoupled with a European coordination and support mechanism for the operation of national labour inspectorates.

The legal basis for such a tribunal would be the ILO's international labour conventions ratified by the 28 EU Member States, the case law of the ILO's Committee of Experts and the European set of social rights, several principles of which are in fact the direct expression of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The handling of cases by the tribunal could be based, on a tripartite basis, on the mechanisms and procedures implemented by the ILO.

An appeal to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) could be considered.

Launch a European initiative to secure career paths

On the basis of the European set of social rights, encourage Member States to give legal force to "social drawing rights".[2] "

Equipping the new skills strategy for Europe^[3] and the coalition for digital skills and jobs^[4] significant resources

Include programmes relating to these two strategies in the EU's solidarity mechanisms and pooled structural funds

In the context of the planned reforms and regrouping of the Structural Funds, AEPL supports the new skills strategy for Europe which defines the digital skills that should be considered as part of the essential skills base for the future, an aspect highlighted in Part I of the European set of social and cultural rights. the coalition for digital skills and jobs

Any overhaul of labour law in the EU that places truly human or living work at the centre of the social policy debate must include all forms of activity. 

Other avenues, highlighted by the work of Alain Supiot, would strengthen the proposed systems, in particular:

Enable negotiations on the content and meaning of work, by making the design and organisation of work a "priority". the subject of collective bargaining and individual warnings".

Bring collective bargaining to relevant levels, not just the branch or company level, and, specifically, ".  the relevant levels of production and supply chains and networks, and the regional level. "

Reducing the opacity of legal and economic responsibilities in supply and production chains and company networks, " by indexing the responsibility of each member of these networks to the actual degree of autonomy he or she enjoys "

In a reform of labour law, " take account of non-market work [...] which is as vital to society as it is ignored by economic indicators "