Il presente saggio è in corso di pubblicazione sulla rivista Lavoro e previdenza oggi

The Jobs Act legislator used workplace and working time modalities as the criterion to identify new types of working relationships - eternal-organised collaborations and smart working - and, furthermore, to distinguish self-employment and wage labour within the traditional categories. On this basis, authoritative doctrine retained that it was possible to confirm the definitive exceedance of the clear-cut alternative in order to extend the protections of this kind beyond the area of wage labour, to gather the instances of protection derived from new forms of work, in particular, generated by the sharing economy, which is not reducible to that alternative. However, it is a position that cannot be accepted since, on the one hand, it loses sight of the social specificity of the labour law to demote it to a generic and extreme instrument of defence from poverty into which work has fallen without regard. On the other hand, because, while taking account of the criterion used by the legislator, it reintroduces, on the basis of the reading of such doctrine operated in the new legislation, the argument founded on the diversity of the creditor's powers of performance in various relationships, that only in the rigid scheme of the new regulatory framework seems to assume an apparent validity. In fact, if you extend your gaze to the doctrinal reflection which has been developed over time on the topic, you realise how that this argument has long since been refuted, since, conversely, it refers to the original criterion of the object of performance, within the meaning, attributed by a dated interpretative orientation and advanced over time and still current, of a relationship of usefulness corresponding to the interest of the creditor deduced in obligation; criteria by which the overall regulatory framework, in the regard dictated by the Jobs Act, demonstrates its regulatory inefficiency.