> The current employee model as codified in our tax and legal system definitely has lots of assumptions around only having a single W2 employer.
No, it doesn't; multiple W-2 employees is a common thing and the law has no assumptions that conflict with it.
(Multiple full-time W-2 employers, maybe, are something of an issue, but not merely multiple W-2 employers.)
> "Flexible" employee, where the employee has full control over their hours and availability, and to work for multiple employers, but doesn't have control over rates or how the work is done.
This seems like regular on-demand temp work, where pretty much every feature of that is routine, and has always been W-2. Sure, technology including platforms like Uber, et al., make it practical to have more rapid offer/accept cycles and finer-grained work assignments, but they don't fundamentally change the nature of on-demand temp work in a way which requires any different treatment legally than such work has historically been given.
No, it doesn't; multiple W-2 employees is a common thing and the law has no assumptions that conflict with it.
(Multiple full-time W-2 employers, maybe, are something of an issue, but not merely multiple W-2 employers.)
> "Flexible" employee, where the employee has full control over their hours and availability, and to work for multiple employers, but doesn't have control over rates or how the work is done.
This seems like regular on-demand temp work, where pretty much every feature of that is routine, and has always been W-2. Sure, technology including platforms like Uber, et al., make it practical to have more rapid offer/accept cycles and finer-grained work assignments, but they don't fundamentally change the nature of on-demand temp work in a way which requires any different treatment legally than such work has historically been given.