COLLECTIVE ALGORITHMIC RIGHTS: A NEW RIGHTS ARCHITECTURE FOR GLOBAL DIGITAL WORK REGIMES

Abstract

The reorganization of working relationships on a global scale through algorithmic governance under a data-driven, predictive, and dynamic authority architecture is creating structural transformations that exceed the institutional capacity of the existing individual rights paradigm. This article systematically constructs the concept of Collective Algorithmic Rights (CAR) with the aim of developing a comprehensive theoretical framework capable of capturing the collective outcomes of this transformation. The study examines the regime variations of algorithmic governance across five dimensions by combining a conceptual model development approach with a normative comparative analysis method covering the European Union, the United States, Latin America, Asia, and Türkiye. The findings of the analysis show that individual-centered regulatory frameworks (GDPR, AI Act, CCPA, LGPD, etc.) are limited in their understanding of the collective operating logic of algorithmic governance; in contrast, it reveals that the five-dimensional CAR model, consisting of collective data access, algorithmic transparency, collective algorithmic oversight committees, algorithmic collective bargaining agreement (CBA) clauses, and Collective Algorithmic Impact Assessment (CAIA), can reestablish accountability and the institutional power of collective bargaining in digital work regimes. Regime positioning reveals that despite the EU's partial regulatory capacity, it cannot fully close the collective rights gap; that collective asymmetry has deepened in the market- and state-centered models of the US and Asia; and that Türkiye is one of the most fragile regimes due to its weak regulatory capacity, high algorithmic discipline, and lack of transparency. In this context, the study offers a new perspective on theoretical debates regarding the protection of labor in the digital age, proposing the CAR model as a collective rights architecture that is applicable at both the normative and political-legal levels.

Keywords

• Algorithmic Management
• Collective Algorithmic Rights
• Platform Work

Supporting Institution

This study received no support or funding from any institution, organization, or funding agency.

Ethical Statement

This study does not involve human participants, animal subjects, clinical procedures, personal data collection, or any form of experimental intervention. The article is entirely based on publicly available sources, secondary literature, and the reinterpretation of existing theoretical frameworks. Therefore, no procedure, observation, or experimental activity requiring ethics committee approval was conducted during the research process. Accordingly, in line with international publishing standards, institutional ethics guidelines, and relevant national regulations, this research falls under the category of studies that do not require ethics committee approval. For these reasons, no ethics committee approval was obtained for this study.

COLLECTIVE ALGORITHMIC RIGHTS: A NEW RIGHTS ARCHITECTURE FOR GLOBAL DIGITAL WORK REGIMES

Abstract

Algoritmik yönetimin küresel ölçekte çalışma ilişkilerini veri-temelli, öngörüsel ve dinamik bir otorite mimarisi altında yeniden düzenlemesi, mevcut bireysel hak paradigmasının kurumsal kapasitesini aşan yapısal dönüşümler yaratmaktadır. Bu makale, söz konusu dönüşümün kolektif nitelikte ürettiği sonuçları yakalayabilecek bütüncül bir kuramsal çerçeve geliştirmek amacıyla Kolektif Algoritmik Haklar (KAH) kavramını sistematik biçimde inşa etmektedir. Çalışma, kavramsal model geliştirme yaklaşımını, Avrupa Birliği, ABD, Latin Amerika, Asya ve Türkiye’yi kapsayan normatif karşılaştırmalı analiz yöntemi ile birleştirerek algoritmik yönetimin rejimsel varyasyonlarını beş boyut üzerinden incelemektedir. Analiz bulguları, birey-merkezli düzenleyici çerçevelerin (GDPR, AI Act, CCPA, LGPD vb.) algoritmik yönetimin kolektif işleyiş mantığını kavramada sınırlı kaldığını; buna karşılık kolektif veri erişimi, algoritmik şeffaflık, kolektif algoritmik denetim komiteleri, algoritmik TİS maddeleri ve Kolektif Algoritmik Etki Değerlendirmesi (CAIA) unsurlarından oluşan beş boyutlu KAH modelinin, dijital çalışma rejimlerinde hesap verebilirliği ve toplu pazarlığın kurumsal gücünü yeniden tesis edebildiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Rejimsel konumlandırma, AB’nin kısmi düzenleyici kapasitesine rağmen kolektif hak boşluğunu tam olarak kapatamadığını; ABD ve Asya’nın piyasa ve devlet merkezli modellerinde kolektif asimetri derinleştiğini; Türkiye’nin ise zayıf düzenleme kapasitesi, yüksek algoritmik disiplin ve şeffaflık yokluğu nedeniyle en kırılgan rejimlerden biri olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çerçevede ilgili çlışma, dijital çağda emeğin korunmasına yönelik kuramsal tartışmalara yeni bir perspektif sunarak, KAH modelini hem normatif hem de politik-hukuki düzeyde uygulanabilir bir kolektif hak mimarisi olarak önermektedir.

Keywords

• Algoritmik Yönetim
• Kolektif Algoritmik Haklar
• Platform Çalışma

Supporting Institution

Bu çalışma herhangi bir kurum, kuruluş veya fon tarafından desteklenmemiştir.

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma, herhangi bir insan katılımcı, hayvan deneyi, klinik uygulama, kişisel veri işleme faaliyeti veya deneysel müdahale içermemektedir. Makale tamamen kamuya açık kaynaklardan elde edilen literatür verilerine, ikincil nitelikte akademik çalışmalara ve mevcut kuramsal çerçevelerin değerlendirilmesine dayanmaktadır. Bu nedenle araştırma sürecinde etik kurul onayı gerektiren bir uygulama, gözlem ya da deneysel çalışma bulunmamaktadır. Dolayısıyla, 5624 sayılı Kanun, Yükseköğretim Kurumları Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiği Yönergesi, ilgili üniversitelerin etik kurulları ve uluslararası yayıncılık standartları çerçevesinde bu araştırma etik kurul izni gerektirmeyen çalışmalar kapsamındadır. Bu nedenle, söz konusu çalışma için ayrıca bir etik kurul belgesi alınmamıştır

References

1. Akcan, M. B. and Azazi, H. (2022) “İstihdam Oluşturmayan Büyümenin Sektörel Analizi: Türkiye Örneği”, Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 20(1): 227–246. https://doi.org/10.11611/yead.1037008
2. Aloisi, A. (2022) “Regulating Algorithmic Management at Work in the European Union: Data Protection, Non-Discrimination and Collective Rights”, International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 40(1): 37–70.
3. Aloisi, A. and De Stefano, V. (2021) “Essential Jobs, Remote Work and Digital Surveillance: Addressing the COVID‐19 Pandemic Panopticon”, International Labour Review, 161(2): 289-314.
4. Aloisi, A. and De Stefano, V. (2022) “Introduction-Your Boss Is an Algorithm. Artificial Intelligence, Platform Work and Labour”, Artificial Intelligence, Platform Work and Labour, Hart Publishing.
5. Amoore, L. (2020) “Cloud Ethics: Algorithms and the Attributes of Ourselves and Others”, Duke University Press. Bakın, A. (2025) “Platform Ekonomisinde Emeğin Örgütlenmesi: Hukuki Belirsizlikler, Mekânsal Dağınıklık ve Dijital Baskı Mekanizmaları”, Emek Araştırma Dergisi, 16(27): 1-24.
6. Benner, C. (2008) “Work in the New Economy: Flexible Labor Markets in Silicon Valley”, John Wiley & Sons.
7. Bietti, E. (2019) “Consent as a Free Pass: Platform Power and the Limits of the Informational Turn”, Pace L. Rev., 40: 310.
8. Bietti, E. (2020) “From Ethics Washing to Ethics Bashing: A View on Tech Ethics from Within Moral Philosophy”, Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372860

9. Braverman, H. (1974) “Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century”, New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
10. Burrell, J. (2016) “How the Machine ‘Thinks’: Understanding Opacity in Machine Learning Algorithms”, Big Data & Society, 3(1): 1–12.
11. Casilli, A. A. (2019) “En Attendant les Robots-Enquête sur le Travail du Clic”, Média Diffusion.
12. Cheng, M. M. and Hackett, R. D. (2021) “A Critical Review of Algorithms in HRM: Definition, Theory, and Practice”, Human Resource Management Review, 31(1): 100698.
13. China Briefing. (2021) “China Issues Guidelines on Algorithmic Recommendations”, https://www.china-briefing.com/
14. Curchod, C., Patriotta, G., Cohen, L., and Neysen, N. (2020) “Working for an Algorithm: Power Asymmetries and Agency in Online Work Settings”, Organization Science, 31(6): 1306–1327.
15. De Stefano, V. (2023) “Algorithmic Management and Collective Bargaining”, Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 29(1): 21–36.
16. Edwards, L. and Veale, M. (2017) “Slave to the Algorithm? Why A'right to an Explanation'is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For”, Duke L. & Tech. Rev., 16: 18.
17. Erçakar, M. E. and Çolakoğlu, H. (2019) “Bilgi Ekonomisinin Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkileri: BRICS Ülkeleri ve Türkiye İçin Bir Analiz”, Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 17(4): 248–268. https://doi.org/10.11611/yead.608595
18. European Trade Union Institute. (2020) “Rethinking Labour Law in the Digitalisation Era: Conference Report”, European Trade Union Institute.
19. Freeman, R. B. and Medoff, J. L. (1984) “What Do Unions Do?”, New York, NY: Basic Books.
20. Friedli, T. and Straw, W. (2021) “Better Work: How Platform Workers Are Organising Across Europe”, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/bruessel/19904.pd
21. Gal, M. S., Rubinfeld, D., and Salgado, P. (2020) “The Competitive Effects of Algorithmic Management”, Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 16(2): 145–177.
22. George, A. L. and Bennett, A. (2005) “Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences”, MIT Press. Goertz, G. (2006) “Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide”, Princeton University Press.
23. Goertz, G. and Mahoney, J. (2012) “A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences”, Princeton University Press.
24. Graham, M. and Anwar, M. A. (2019) “The Global Gig Economy: Towards a Planetary Labour Market?”, The Sociological Review, 67(5): 102–127.
25. Graham, M. and Joe, S. (2017) “Towards a Fairer Gig Economy”, Meatspace Press.
26. Graham, S. and Wood, D. (2003) “Digitizing Surveillance: Categorization, Space, Inequality”, Critical Social Policy, 23(2): 227–248.
27. Huws, U. (2020) “Reinventing the Welfare State: Digital Platforms and Public Policies”, London, UK: Pluto Press.
28. Hyman, R. (2001) “Understanding European Trade Unionism: Between Market, Class and Society”, London, UK: SAGE.
29. International Labour Organization. (2020) “The Future of Work in the Digital Economy”, International Labour Organization.
30. Johnston, H. and Land-Kazlauskas, C. (2019) “Organizing On-Demand: Representation, Voice, and Collective Bargaining in the Gig Economy”, ILO Employment Working Paper No. 247.
31. Karanfil, İ. and Efe, E. (2025) “Türkiye’de Esnaf Kurye Modeli ve Direniş: Trendyol’a Bağlı Kuryelerin İş Bırakma Eylemleri”, Emek Araştırma Dergisi, 16(27): 25-52.
32. Kullmann, M. (2022) “’Platformisation’ of Work: An EU Perspective on Introducing a Legal Presumption”, European Labour Law Journal, 13(1): 66-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525211063112
33. Mateescu, A. and Nguyen, A. (2019) “Algorithmic Management in the Workplace”, Data & Society Research Institute Report.
34. Moore, P. V., Akhtar, P., and Upchurch, M. (2017) “Digitalisation of Work and Resistance”, P. V. Moore, X. Whittaker, and M. Upchurch (Eds.), Humans and Machines at Work: Monitoring, Surveillance and Automation in Contemporary Capitalism, Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 17–44.
35. Nuroğlu, E. and Nuroğlu, H. H. (2018) “Endüstri 4.0’ı Türkiye’nin Dış Ticareti İçin Bir Fırsat Penceresine Dönüştürmek”, Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(Özel Sayı): 329–346. https://doi.org/10.11611/yead.458090
36. Pasquale, F. (2015) “The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information”, Harvard University Press.
37. Qiu, J. L. (2016) “Goodbye İslave: A Manifesto for Digital Abolition”, University of Illinois Press.
38. Ragin, C. C. (2009) “Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond”, University of Chicago Press.
39. Ragin, C. C. (2014) “The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies”, Univ of California Press.
40. Rawls, J. (1999) “A Theory of Justice”, Rev. ed., Harvard University Press.
41. Rosenblat, A. (2018) “Uberland: How Algorithms Are Rewriting the Rules of Work”, University of California Press.
42. Rosenblat, A. and Stark, L. (2016) “Algorithmic Labor and Information Asymmetries: The Case of Uber’s Drivers”, International Journal of Communication, 10: 3758–3784.
43. Schmalz, S. and Dörre, K. (2014) “Der Machtressourcenansatz: Ein Instrument zur Analyse Gewerkschaftlichen Handlungsvermögens”, Industrielle Beziehungen, 21(3): 217–237.
44. Scholz, T. (2017) “Uberworked and Underpaid: How Workers Are Disrupting the Digital Economy”, John Wiley & Sons.
45. Selbst, A. D. and Barocas, S. (2018) “The Intuitive Appeal of Explainable Machines”, Fordham Law Review, 87(3): 1085–1139.
46. Silver, B. J. (2003) “Forces of Labor: Workers' Movements and Globalization Since 1870”, Cambridge University Press.
47. Srnicek, N. (2017) “Platform Capitalism”, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
48. Thompson, P. and Smith, C. (2017) “Working Life: Renewing Labour Process Analysis”, Bloomsbury Publishing.
49. Todolí-Signes, A. (2021) “Spanish Riders Law and the Right to Be Informed About the Algorithm”, European Labour Law Journal, 12(3): 399–402.
50. Türkiye’de Platform Ekonomisi ve Emeği. (2024, 8 Haziran) “Konferans Programı”, Bilgi Üniversitesi – Santralistanbul.
51. Veale, M. and Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. (2021) “Demystifying the Right to Explanation”, International Data Privacy Law, 11(4): 241–252.
52. Veen, A., Barratt, T., and Goods, C. (2020) “Platform-Capital’s ‘App-Etite’ for Control: A Labour Process Analysis of Food-Delivery Work in Australia”, Work, Employment and Society, 34(3): 428–448.
53. Wachter, S. and Mittelstadt, B. (2019) “A Right to Reasonable Inferences: Re-Thinking Data Protection Law in the Age of Big Data and AI”, Columbia Business Law Review, 2019(2): 494–620.
54. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., and Russell, C. (2017) “Counterfactual Explanations Without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR”, Harv. JL & Tech., 31: 841.
55. Webster, E. and Lambert, R. (2011) “Grounding Globalization: Labour in the Age of Insecurity”, Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
56. Wood, A. J. (2021) “Algorithmic Management Consequences for Work Organisation and Worker Representation”, Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 27(1): 57–70.
57. Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., and Hjorth, I. (2019) “Good Gig, Bad Gig: Autonomy and Algorithmic Control in the Global Gig Economy”, Work, Employment and Society, 33(1): 56–75.
58. Wright, E. O. (2000) “Working-Class Power, Capitalist-Class Interests, and Class Compromise”, American Journal of Sociology, 105(4): 957–1002.
59. Zuboff, S. (2023) “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism”, Social Theory Re-Wired, Routledge, 203-213.