Care, equality and the economy are intrinsically linked in the European Union, but the imperative of the market has always hold sway. The EU has adopted a sophisticated legal framework designed to enable workers to reconcile their paid work with caring responsibilities. The principle of gender equality has taken centre stage under this legal framework. However, in practice—and until recently—work-life balance policies primarily focused on enabling mothers to join and remain in the workforce, primarily to drive economic growth.

The 2019 Work-Life Balance Directive is presented as a departure from this approach. It claims to redefine care in two significant ways: (1) by expanding its scope beyond the narrow confines of childcare and (2) by challenging traditional gender norms. This paper critically examines these claims, asserting that the EU continues to reinforce women’s caregiving roles, perpetuating their placement in precarious and low-paying jobs. Furthermore, it argues that the framework neglects to recognize care as a multifaceted relationship, involving not only gender dynamics but also love—a form of value beyond traditional economic measures. Consequently, the trajectory of care within the EU remains heavily shaped by economic imperatives.

The close links between precarious work and socio-economic inequality are recognised at EU level (Parliament 2015, 2017; Commission 2017, 2022; EESC 2018). Focusing on the legal treatment of archetypical figures of precarious workers under EU law, this paper discusses how EU law acts with respect to this root cause of socio-economic inequality. The traditional EU approach towards the classic figures of precarious workers, namely non-standard workers, was to secure their equal treatment with standard workers regarding working conditions. This approach does not shield precarious workers against the risks of underemployment and in-work poverty, which are conducive to socio-economic inequality. Recently, the EU legislator adopted the Adequate Minimum Wages Directive to counter wage inequality, without however taking decisive steps to tackle or reduce modern forms of precarious employment. Considering that precarious employment concerns predominantly groups facing structural disadvantage and inequality in society (migrants, racial and ethnic minorities’ members, low education and skills level workers), the EU precarious work regulation does not sufficiently pave the way towards diminishing socio-economic inequalities. Against these regulatory developments, the Court’s challenge of national regimes excluding domestic workers from unemployment protection and employers' working time recording obligations based on EU law offers a glimmer of hope. It shows how EU law can be used to address risks associated with a model of precarious employment in which a group of structurally disadvantaged workers, i.e., migrant or of migrant background women, is overrepresented and how it can also reduce their bargaining power inequality, thereby soothing socio-economic inequalities. The paper calls for a holistic examination of the interactions between precarious workers and EU law to better understand how EU law may contribute to a more equal society in substantive terms.