Well to me the obvious answer is that those "benefits" shouldn't be coming from the employer in the first place, especially medical.
And if you eliminate that and things like 401k, what else are you asking the employer to provide that you couldn't get for yourself with your money you earned?
But let's assume that universal medical and retirement are off the table. Why should the employee pony up for that stuff when you're only committing to a dozen hours a week with them, instead of 40? In other words, why should the company commit more than the employee does?
The article seems to be saying that the company should commit proportionally to the work from the employee. Well, isn't that what a paycheck is already? If paying them the agreed wages is "letting them fend for themselves", then the solution is obvious: Pay them properly instead, so that they can help themselves.
And what about all the people who already work 3 part-time jobs to get by. How is that any different, and why weren't we previously worried about that, but we are for "gig workers"?
And if you eliminate that and things like 401k, what else are you asking the employer to provide that you couldn't get for yourself with your money you earned?
But let's assume that universal medical and retirement are off the table. Why should the employee pony up for that stuff when you're only committing to a dozen hours a week with them, instead of 40? In other words, why should the company commit more than the employee does?
The article seems to be saying that the company should commit proportionally to the work from the employee. Well, isn't that what a paycheck is already? If paying them the agreed wages is "letting them fend for themselves", then the solution is obvious: Pay them properly instead, so that they can help themselves.
And what about all the people who already work 3 part-time jobs to get by. How is that any different, and why weren't we previously worried about that, but we are for "gig workers"?