COLLECTIVE ALGORITHMIC RIGHTS: A NEW RIGHTS ARCHITECTURE FOR GLOBAL DIGITAL WORK REGIMES

The reorganization of working relationships on a global scale through algorithmic governance under a data-driven, predictive, and dynamic authority architecture is creating structural transformations that exceed the institutional capacity of the existing individual rights paradigm. This article systematically constructs the concept of Collective Algorithmic Rights (CAR) with the aim of developing a comprehensive theoretical framework capable of capturing the collective outcomes of this transformation. The study examines the regime variations of algorithmic governance across five dimensions by combining a conceptual model development approach with a normative comparative analysis method covering the European Union, the United States, Latin America, Asia, and Türkiye.The findings of the analysis show that individual-centered regulatory frameworks (GDPR, AI Act, CCPA, LGPD, etc.) are limited in their understanding of the collective operating logic of algorithmic governance; in contrast, it reveals that the five-dimensional CAR model, consisting of collective data access, algorithmic transparency, collective algorithmic oversight committees, algorithmic collective bargaining agreement (CBA) clauses, and Collective Algorithmic Impact Assessment (CAIA), can reestablish accountability and the institutional power of collective bargaining in digital work regimes. Regime positioning reveals that despite the EU's partial regulatory capacity, it cannot fully close the collective rights gap; that collective asymmetry has deepened in the market- and state-centered models of the US and Asia; and that Türkiye is one of the most fragile regimes due to its weak regulatory capacity, high algorithmic discipline, and lack of transparency.In this context, the study offers a new perspective on theoretical debates regarding the protection of labor in the digital age, proposing the CAR model as a collective rights architecture that is applicable at both the normative and political-legal levels.