I know some software consultants that have one major client but appreciate the work mobility and forcing them to get into a full employment contract would restrict their opportunities and payment. Forget definitions, why should we outlaw this?

For exactly the reason, the parent post said, it makes all worker protection and benefits laws meaningless, and most people think these laws are a good thing.

If this was possible then every company would say:

"We don't want to have to bother to pay your vacation days, sick leave(for as long as you are sick), maternity/paternity leave(up to 12 months in most European countries), or to have to give you a permanent contract with limited termination grounds, so 'choose' to become Freelancer that works 40 hours a week for us or we will fire you".

It's true there are some people who like to work as you describe, I know some myself, but experienced software developers are a outlier case who are in an extremely fortunate position, not something the law should be optimised for at the expense of the majority.

All those things should actually be under the purview of the government, rather than businesses.

But that would increase government expenses because many more people would become eligible for the benefits. Using businesses as a proxy lets society implicitly restrict the quantity and quality of those benefits to certain people.

>All those things should actually be under the purview of the government, rather than businesses.

you know the reason these things are payed for by bussiness right?

most social welfare programs are created after world war 2, because the alternative was the workers simply seizing the wealth of their former bosses by force.

OP seems to greatly understimate how close most countries in europe came to a mass revolt of civil war after world war 1 and world war 2. (1848 revolutions are also an important time in history for civil rights).

the dutch for instance, have a constitution thanks to the threat of revolution in 1848. The alternative was the threat of revolution and the violent end of the monarchy.

The same is basically true for labour rights. In most european countries these got implemented after world war 1 and during the great depression, a time in which a lot of people got destitute and had acces to weaponry.(World war 1 also left a massive social trauma in many nations, leading to revolutions because of its effects on society).

"All those things should actually be under the purview of the government, rather than businesses."

How does this make sence - are we meant to move you on government payroll for the 1 week you have the flu and can't work? Should the government pay for your annual leave?

Sort of, although the most efficient and effective implementation in my opinion would basically result in a universal basic income.

Even with a real UBI system, having random fluctuations in earnings when you get a cold or break a leg is not reasonable.

Additionally, this idea will incentivise employers to destroy human capital - like an employer could drive their employees to burnout and then discard them because they bear no consequences.

This is already happening to a large extent thanks to gig economy- Uk employers have cut their investments in staff training by 2.4 billion since 2011.

> Even with a real UBI system, having random fluctuations in earnings when you get a cold or break a leg is not reasonable.

You should have enough savings set aside that going without a paycheck for at least a week or two won't put you in dire straits—the official recommendation is actually several months. Anyone who is self-employed is already managing their own (unpaid) vacation time and medical leave. It is the expectation that income is guaranteed even when you aren't working—that you can safely live paycheck-to-paycheck without planning for the future—which is unreasonable.

UBI doesn't really count as "planning for the future" unless it's somehow contractually guaranteed for life and not subject to being curtailed as a result of shifting politics. A social program instituted with the passing of a bill can be limited or revoked in the same way at any time. If the goal is to ensure a predictable income stream then a fully-funded, non-revocable trust or annuity for the benefit of a specific person is a much more stable option.

> … like an employer could drive their employees to burnout and then discard them because they bear no consequences.

Just assume that an employer will take whatever an employee is willing to give regardless. It's the employees' responsibility to push back and manage their own work-life balance. It would be unreasonable (as in: an obvious conflict-of-interest) to expect employers to prioritize employees' welfare over their own.

"Just assume that an employer will take whatever an employee is willing to give regardless. It's the employees' responsibility to push back and manage their own work-life balance."

We have tried 'maximum capitalism' experiment in the 1800's: it gave us children in coal mines working 10 hours a day and dying of blacklung. It gave us people in workhouses losing their hands because the steam press malfunctioned and then starving to death because they have no way to support themselves.

Do you want goid old days back, or do you have good reason to believe it will be different this time?

You are describing corporatism, not capitalism. It is not "maximum capitalism" to always side with the employer in any dispute, ignoring the natural rights of the employee. If the employer causes harm to an employee, deliberately or through negligence, then the employer must make the victim whole. Non-aggression and strict liability for any harm done to others are integral aspects of a capitalist society. Employees have their own responsibilities, of course. If they knowingly take risks in pursuit of better pay then they ought to bear the consequences—the employer is not always at fault. This is a natural consequence of having the freedom to make your own choices.

Why would they be able to drive the employee to burnout if the employee can quit since they have UBI?

Most places they don't prevent what you describe. There are usually just some extra hoops to jump through and/or some tax implications.

E.g. I'm in the UK. I've been a contractor with multiple contracts as well as with a single employer both in situations where they are obviously acting as an employer, and in situations where they were genuinely not.

Here there's specific legislation to handle this now - "IR35", which ensures that if your contract is equivalent to employment you'll be taxed accordingly, with an "umbrella company" acting as an employer on behalf of the company that you're contracting with if that is the case to prevent there from being a tax advantage from pretending to be freelance if you're in effect an employee. It doesn't stop you from doing it - it just takes away the tax advantage and creates some bureaucratic hurdles.

But it's easy to avoid as long as you're not trying to avoid taxes, by setting terms that ensures it doesn't match the criteria. Employers are often keen to do this, and it gives you extra negotiating power.

E.g. when I was doing this, key points involved the fact I had a small marketing budget to bring in additional work, I didn't usually work out of their office, I controlled my own hours, I determined how to carry out the work, I negotiated my day rate, the contract had a defined end-date (we could renew, but there are pitfalls there), and so on. Another strong sign you're genuinely not an employee is a right to substitution (e.g. if you can provide someone else to do the work, when you're not available and that right is genuine). UK tax authorities (HMRC) has a checklist as to what they consider "deemed employment" and or that falls under IR35 (it's not an absolute set of criteria, but basically the more you look like a business, the more likely you are to be considered one).

So for high earners like software consultants with an actual reasonable power balance vs. the other side, this is rarely a problem. It cost me a tiny proportion of my revenues to make sure that I met more than enough criteria to be able to do as I pleased.

But most of the people these regulations are there for are in a substantially weaker position. If you're a low enough earner to not be in a position to work around this, then you're not likely to have the power to genuinely negotiate either.

Who is "we" in this situation? For this specific case, it seems different countries have different opinions about what is the right tradeoff between allowing freelancers with leverage to enjoy their situation, and protecting workers with less bargaining power from being locked out of worker protection systems.

It's unavoidable, since different countries have different worker protection systems. For instance, some of these countries have to pick up the tab when employers cheat their way out of paying their dues.