But remember that is because these companies were exploiting the use of contractors to deny them employee protections.

True contractors won’t care: they work for themselves and have multiple clients anyway. These people are employees in all but name, so that the companies can save money and other protections. A small slip up by Google (Apple/FB/MS/tons of others) and these folks get the protection they deserve.

Exactly. The mistake was thinking that the responsibility stemmed from the employeeing entity.

It shouldn't.

It's clearly more linked to the type and structure of work performed.

Yeah being an actual contractor/consultant should feel GOOD. You should not be married to a single company for too long. You should have a sense of freedom.

There should be a simple test that if a person is working at only one client for too long (3 mo?) then they are to be converted to an employee. There's no reason for these middleman employers to exist except to make people disposable to companies. If that's the case, then they should be cycled in and out with a higher frequency. Nobody should remain a "red badge" at Google for any significant length of time.

Yes the reason is high risk high reward for the contractor - much higher salary.

> True contractors won’t care: they work for themselves and have multiple clients anyway.

Some companies will even go as far as to prevent you from having multiple clients. Try asking anyone who contracts for Apple if they have any side work…

It's not illegal - they'd just have to provide them employee-like benefits which would be expensive. So it's just costly to treat contractors too well.

I think the way it works is that if they provide some benefits, then they would have to make them into FTE and give them all the benefits.

Exactly. And that's perfectly legal to do.

Sure, but then those folks wouldn’t likely be employed.