What the Bundesrat actually asked for
On 25 September 2026, at its 1068th session, the Bundesrat adopted a non-binding resolution titled "for fair working conditions in platform work" (Drucksache 399/26 (Beschluss)). The hook for this story describes the resolution as an October event. The Bundesrat's own document dates it to September.
The resolution does three things. It finds "urgent need for action" on bogus self-employment, social protection and opaque work organisation. It says the Federal Ministry of Labour's stakeholder dialogue is not enough. It also calls on the federal government to table a draft bill (Referentenentwurf) that secures implementation of the EU platform work directive and "anchors by law a direct-employment requirement" (Direktanstellungsgebot) for platform workers in food delivery. The stated reason is that delivery services "increasingly use complex structures of subcontractors," which the Bundesrat says makes fair employment relationships harder to create. Point 4 also asks the government to examine whether rules from the Paketbotenschutzgesetz, Germany's parcel-courier protection law, could be extended to food-delivery workers.
The resolution does not bind the government. It also shows that, as of 25 September, the Bundesrat was still asking for a draft, not reviewing one.
The strongest case for the mandate
The case for acting is serious, and it should be stated fairly. The directive is meant to help the more than 28 million people who work through digital labour platforms in the EU, according to the Council of the EU, a figure repeated in a February 2026 analysis in Internet Policy Review. The Bundesrat's explanatory statement says conditions for food-delivery couriers are "systematically atypical or precarious," marked by fixed-term contracts, low pay and heavy dependence on the platform.
Subcontracting makes the problem harder to address. When a fleet operator sits between the platform and the courier, there is no single obvious employer to hold to account for wages, working time or safety. In Germany, direct employment is the simplest way to close that gap. The Paketbotenschutzgesetz is a real precedent. Germany has already decided that one sector with a subcontracting problem needed a sector-specific fix.
Why the directive's tool is narrower, and better
The directive's central legal innovation is a rebuttable presumption of employment where a platform exercises control over the worker, according to the same analysis. It also adds transparency duties for algorithmic management and requires that decisions with major consequences are taken or reviewed by humans. The deadline for member states to transpose it is 2 December 2026. The same analysis notes that the final text "leaves key implementation choices to the Member States."
A presumption is a proportionate instrument. It shifts the burden of proof, so a platform that really runs an independent business can show that and keep operating. A worker who is in fact controlled gets employee status without a lawsuit. It also targets the harm. If a courier is directed, scheduled and disciplined through an app, the label on the contract matters less, whether it was issued by the platform or by a fleet operator.
A blanket Direktanstellungsgebot works differently. It bans an organisational model by statute instead of testing whether a given relationship is genuine. That matters because subcontracting is not always a sham. Regional fleet operators can add local capacity, offer shift flexibility and give small restaurant platforms a way to expand into new cities without building a full employment apparatus. A sector-wide ban removes those options along with the abusive arrangements. The Bundesrat's resolution cites no data on how widespread abusive subcontracting is in German delivery. It states the problem as a general finding.
The design risk is cost. If every courier must be a direct employee, platforms may respond by cutting coverage in low-density areas, tightening courier numbers and shifting toward automated or customer-pickup models. The people most exposed are the part-time couriers who currently choose flexible hours. They can be the first to lose work when a platform has to carry a full employer burden for each of them. None of this proves a direct-employment rule would fail. It means the burden of proof should sit with its advocates, and the resolution does not meet it.
A narrower path for Berlin
Germany has a short window and a real choice. Under the directive, the national law must set up the presumption and the algorithmic-management rules by 2 December 2026. A government that implements those carefully will already change the balance of power in delivery work. Courier fleets that control scheduling, pay and discipline would face the presumption whether or not they sit between the platform and the courier.
A proportionate version of the Bundesrat's goal would follow this order:
- Transpose the presumption and the algorithmic-management rules first, on time and without gold-plating.
- Add joint-liability provisions that make a platform answerable for wage and social-security violations by its subcontracted fleets. This answers the enforcement problem without prohibiting the structure.
- Require the sector to report subcontracting data, then legislate a direct-employment rule only if the evidence shows the presumption and liability rules are failing.
This route respects the legitimate worry in the Bundesrat's text, which is that fragmented responsibility lets bad employers hide. It also keeps the effect of the reform measurable. A hiring mandate imposed before the data exists would be hard to unwind if it shrinks delivery work instead of improving it.
What to watch
The resolution is a political signal, not a legal change. The decisive document is the government's draft bill, which, per the resolution itself, had not been tabled by 25 September. If it contains a direct-employment rule, the debate shifts from a non-binding wish to a statute that goes further than the directive requires. If it relies on the presumption, Germany will have done what the EU asked and kept room to adjust once real evidence arrives.