Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The representative supports the pro-labor rights direction regarding the Platform Work Directive, emphasizing social guarantees (such as health insurance) and ensuring workers are not treated as "slaves." At the same time, he/she is strongly critical of Bolt’s lobbying efforts and the coalition partners of Eesti 200, stressing the necessity of transparency and the avoidance of conflicts of interest. The representative demands answers and explanations from the ministers and the ministry. His/her approach is seen as value- and procedure-based, focusing on enhancing rights and improving governance, rather than merely engaging in technical debate.

He/She demonstrates knowledge of the European Union's regulations concerning platform work and workers' social guarantees (e.g., health insurance). He/She refers to specific procedures (EU Commission sessions, closed-door meetings, voting) and pressing issues regarding lobbying transparency and conflicts of interest, thereby showing analytical attention to the general regulatory context. Additionally, he/she separately raises questions about the terms and conditions of Sandra Särav's Options, emphasizing the absent control mechanisms and the independence of decision-making.

The style of address is direct and critical, yet it maintains formal legal language. It employs direct questions and exclamations ("could you...?"), blending emotional rhetoric with fact-based criticism; the tone is often consistently demanding and non-conciliatory, but not overwhelmingly vivid.

Initiated Inquiry No. 629 and delivered three addresses during the same day (2024-06-03), focusing on the Platform Work Directive, transparency, and conflict of interest issues. The text refers to earlier sessions and protocols, as well as a European Union Commission meeting where the topics raised were aimed at disclosing the content of documents and meetings. This demonstrates consistent parliamentary oversight and a demand for answers.

He/She is critical of Bolt's lobbying efforts and the politicians of Eesti 200, as well as the way their government and commissions operated when they obstructed the discussion and adoption of the directive. He/She stresses that backroom deals and closed doors are problematic, demanding answers and procedural changes. Furthermore, he/she demonstrates sharp opposition concerning the conflict between national interests and the commercial interests of private enterprises.

The views point to the need for greater transparency and cooperation within Parliament, but also reflect concern over internal coalition disagreements. He/She stresses that consensus and open discussions must be achieved, and calls for mutual dialogue and collaboration through the public disclosure of documents. At times, he/she expresses a critical attitude toward the partners' decisions, but cooperation is necessary to identify mutually agreed-upon responses.

Attention is focused at the national and European Union level; there are no specific impacts or projects concerning local areas or regions. Communication and the submission of questions are directed toward the national and EU level.

It supports social guarantees for the transitional period of platform work, which affect tens of thousands of Estonian residents, and views this as being in the interest of labor organization and market stability. It criticizes Bolt’s lobbying efforts and the influence of private companies on decision-making processes, emphasizing the need to keep private interests in check and ensure decisions are made independently. There is also concern regarding the balance between the interests of employers and employees, but it does not broadly put forward specific tax or dividend schemes.

The core focus of the discussions is the social rights and dignified treatment of workers in the context of platform work, including health insurance and not being treated like "slaves." He/She stresses that the directorate should offer greater protection and stability to workers and promote the establishment of social justice, and condemns hidden agreements that might restrict these rights.

The main emphasis is placed on the transparency surrounding the discussion of the Platform Work Directive, the procedures used by the ministry and their lobbying activities, and the prevention of conflicts of interest. He/She initiated the inquiry, requesting detailed explanations regarding the context of the first vote. He/She is asking the ministers and the ministry for answers and documentation necessary to establish a transparent regulatory framework. He/She references the review of the outcomes and protocols of the work conducted by the Committee on European Union Affairs, and stresses the necessity of improving these procedures.