Primum non nocere
In medicine, and particularly in the field of medical pharmacology, the principle “primum non nocere” has been known since the times of the Ancient Romans. The Latin phrase literally means “first, do no harm”, and summarizes a concept expressed over the centuries by doctors, philosophers and scholars. According to some authors, the original motto dates even back to Hippocrates, considered the inventor of medicine itself, and reads “primum non nocere, secundum cavere, tertium sanare”.
According to the Hippocratic tradition, in fact, not only the doctor, first and foremost, must not do harm, but secondly, he must be “cautious” in assessing exactly what is happening to her patient, and only at the end, when possible (thirdly), “cure”. The precautionary principle that is expressed by this aphorism must be considered as the ethical and moral imperative to prevent the onset of iatrogenic effects, refraining from unnecessary or harmful interventions.
Are gig workers the ‘sick men’ in our labour markets? Maybe, maybe not. Still, even if it was, medicine has much to teach to politics when it comes to principles; and that of Primum non nocere should be definitely included in the study plan.
The workplace that politics is regulating today is not the same as twenty or thirty years ago. This is why it is not enough to extend the rights of twenty or thirty years ago to today’s workers: because lifestyles, needs, problems and ambitions have changed.
Technology has turned work upside down and change is still underway; and the most important consequence, for many gig workers, is a flexibility that was unthinkable a few years ago. To be clear: flexibility does not mean, and must not mean, the absence of other rights. But for many people (students, workers who want to supplement their salary, people looking for a more stable job) is a great opportunity, and a very important right to safeguard. Figures speak for themselves: In Italy, just food delivery creates direct supplementary income for around 25.000 people, and without taking into consideration all the satellite activities involved.
Today, the gig economy maintains itself in a precarious balance. Profit margins are made narrow by low barriers to entry, seasonality, and a very fast evolution of business and consumption models. For this reason, a generalized stiffening of the gig economy would be the worst solution for everyone: for gig workers themselves, who would suffer a reduced demand for labor and non-monetary benefits in terms of freedom and self-organization of their work; for companies, that would need to give up working on more efficient organizational and production processes; and for consumers, who would invariably see prices increasing, and available products and services decreasing at the same time. Flexibility, willingly or unwillingly, is indeed a key asset not only for platforms, but for workers and consumers as well.
Companies that are part of the gig economy must do their part, opening up to institutions and society to direct change on a positive track for all. Politics, for its part, must adopt the principle Primum non nocere: regulating new phenomena after having really understood them, in a light, gradual and innovative way. This is the only method politics should use when intervening in the gig economy, trying to cure its sicknesses without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Constructive and effective solution for the sector do exist, and concern mainly portable benefits for the workers involved. Developing them, however, requires cooperation between government and businesses. One more reason to lay down the swords and start working together, in the interest of workers themselves.
