Maybe the Gig Economy Isn’t Reshaping Work After All

The business does hiring many times, so they reap the efficiencies of scale and get increasingly adept over time at hiding the risks they offload onto the contractors.

To balance the information asymmetry, the contractors would need to pool their efforts similarly, and improve their ability to discover the true compensation. In other words, collective bargaining, with specialists who understand the full terms of the contract including all that's hidden in the fine print.

All those government officials who pass laws crippling unions should stop treating business owners like idiots who need "protecting".

Increasing unionizion has many side effects on the wider economy, and it's not my purpose to flog them. Instead, I'm merely trying to illustrate that each individual contractor is at a significant disadvantage when negotiating.

For any unionized category/shop there should be a grouping of unions (adding a new union to that group should require a simple majority among a voting quorum of all active employees) which could thus collectively bargain between a large business and/or group of businesses and the workers that make that possible.

I also like the idea that unions on strike (in this case, groups of them; they'd agree to go out on strike together and vote together for it) don't disrupt business, but rather nullify profits. Maybe they agree that during "strikes" all compensation gets divided by charity/etc. This goes for the workers AND the businesses; both of whom still have to pay normal costs.

-- edit --

I forgot one other critical feature. Just like employees might take an employee though any of the unions, so to can the employee switch unions (I assume seniority and compensation offers would be favorable to prompt such a switch.)

Strongly disagree. Waiting tables or bartending at high-end restaurants could be considered gig work. Wedding photography is gig work. I have a friend who runs a stationary side business as a "gig". These jobs, if you are able to market yourself effectively and gain a good reputation and some solid contacts, can pay extremely well. I have a nice 9-5 with benefits and stability, but my friends in the above positions earn about the same I do and work close to half of my hours.

That obviously isn't the case for everyone who does these, but I don't think you can make the claim "the pay sux" for all gig work.

Talking on the phone is a unique thing, and takes more skill than talking in person. Not only does sound get somewhat distorted on the phone, but you don't have as many cues to take from when speaking. You can't see their facial expressions, for example. These help you understand words you aren't as familiar with. Not only that, but most folks are less patient on the phone than in person. You can be at an intermediate level of language and still have problems on the phone.

Not only that, but he's talking job-interview skill level phone-talking. Speaking in a second language is much more difficult under stress. This is exactly why I tend to use English instead of Norwegian with doctors and dentists.

In person, folks are more relaxed. If you forget a word, people fill it in. And with his job, he could easily learn the lingo he needed to do the job. He would have a limited context of things he actually knew, small talk isn't so bad, and for everything else you can ask.

It would be nice if Governments properly recognized the value businesses provide with long term stable jobs, and aligned the incentive in a way that creates more stable and happy communities in the distant future.

Right now governments will give anything to Amazon to get them to move to town and bring all those jobs with them. But how much will we incentive McDonald's to keep jobs, and not to replace all their employees with perfect hamburger vending machines?