Nov 24, 2019 12:10
4 yrs ago
4 viewers *
Spanish term
un servicio dependiente y por cuenta ajena
Spanish to English
Social Sciences
Economics
This is from an ILO report on the effect of the digital economy on labor relationships and arrangements:
Es por ello que, en el marco de una relación bilateral por definición, donde una de sus partes –el trabajador– está obligado a la prestación personal de un servicio dependiente y por cuenta ajena
From what I am seeing on the internet, "por cuenta ajena" seems to be as an employee...Colloquially, in Argentina at least, "una relación de dependencia" is also as an employee.. Do both these expressions mean the same thing?
Thanks!!
Es por ello que, en el marco de una relación bilateral por definición, donde una de sus partes –el trabajador– está obligado a la prestación personal de un servicio dependiente y por cuenta ajena
From what I am seeing on the internet, "por cuenta ajena" seems to be as an employee...Colloquially, in Argentina at least, "una relación de dependencia" is also as an employee.. Do both these expressions mean the same thing?
Thanks!!
Proposed translations
(English)
Proposed translations
+1
1 hr
Selected
as an employee
It literally means "as an employee and for someone else", and you're right, it's redundant in English. It's the opposite of self-employed.
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "thanks"
2 hrs
a dependent service for hire or reward
It means a service that can be employed, can be delivered in exchange of payment. Thus, for hire.
7 hrs
a service under supervision and somebody else's ownership
dependiente = you are under control
por cuenta ajena = somebody else owns the service you produce
por cuenta ajena = somebody else owns the service you produce
-1
8 hrs
independent service paid by a third party
an option
Peer comment(s):
disagree |
Robert Carter
: No, that's precisely what it's not. Providing an "independent service" is equivalent to freelancing.
18 hrs
|
1 day 4 hrs
a dependent service for others
As opposed to an "independent service". As I understand it, the context here relates to the idea of false self-employment, so simply using "employee" here is insufficient because the term "employment" is broad enough to include both those employed by others, those who are correctly identified as "self-employed" and those who who fall somehow in between those two concepts, whether by accident or by design.
Economically dependent worker
11 June 2007Observatory: EurWORK
The concept of ‘economically dependent worker’ falls between the two established concepts of employment and self-employment. It refers to those workers who do not correspond to the traditional definition of employee because they do not have an employment contract as dependent employees. However, although formally ‘self-employed’, they are economically dependent on a single employer for their source of income.
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/indust...
Key differentiators here seem to be the concept of dependence or subordination, and whether or not the worker is free to use the methods they wish to achieve the outcome desired by the "employer". It's a complicated subject made more complex by employers' seeking to evade their responsibilities as such under
the various labour laws in place around the world, and I presume that's what the asker's text is about, i.e., precisely defining these circumstances in terms that are more precise than simply "employee".
Economically dependent worker
11 June 2007Observatory: EurWORK
The concept of ‘economically dependent worker’ falls between the two established concepts of employment and self-employment. It refers to those workers who do not correspond to the traditional definition of employee because they do not have an employment contract as dependent employees. However, although formally ‘self-employed’, they are economically dependent on a single employer for their source of income.
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/indust...
Key differentiators here seem to be the concept of dependence or subordination, and whether or not the worker is free to use the methods they wish to achieve the outcome desired by the "employer". It's a complicated subject made more complex by employers' seeking to evade their responsibilities as such under
the various labour laws in place around the world, and I presume that's what the asker's text is about, i.e., precisely defining these circumstances in terms that are more precise than simply "employee".
Something went wrong...