WHY THE SHARING ECONOMY IS HARMING WORKERS – AND WHAT MUST BE DONE - by Robert Reich

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------

In this holiday season it’s especially appropriate to acknowledge how many Americans don’t have steady work.

The so-called “share economy” includes independent contractors, temporary workers, the self-employed, part-timers, freelancers, and free agents. Most file 1099s rather than W2s, for tax purposes. (This "sharing economy" he dismissively puts in scare quotes is a creative way for people to exchange value, including bartering, co-ops, communal living, and various other independent ways of satisfying peoples' needs. So, a person who isn't interested in a 9-5 job, or who has a skill or service they want to market, or who has a product they think people will want, will embrace the "sharing economy" as a means to operate outside of the typical storefront, corporate economy.)
It’s estimated that in five years over 40 percent of the American labor force will be in such uncertain work; in a decade, most of us. ("Uncertain?" It seems that Dr. Reich disapproves of people operating independently for mutual benefit. However, this uncertainty, that is, not knowing if someone will actually choose to enter into a deal for what you have to offer, is precisely the allure of the sharing economy. 

These people want to take certain kinds of risks, they want to live a different lifestyle that doesn't depend on Walmart or CITI Bank. They don't want to be part of the system. They don't want to be under the thumbs of unions, corporate America, or office managers. They want a chance at a payoff by taking the responsibility for their own success by risking failure.)

Already two-thirds of American workers are living paycheck to paycheck. (Topic change, unrelated to the matter at hand. These particular people are in the system, there is nothing Dr. Reich cites that these are "sharers." And incidentally they're as "uncertain" as those participating in the sharing economy.)

This trend shifts all economic risks onto workers. (No, this is people CHOOSING to take on particular risks in exchange for potential rewards, whether they be economic or lifestyle rewards.)

A downturn in demand, or sudden change in consumer needs, or a personal injury or sickness, can make it impossible to pay the bills. (A risk businesses face every day.)

It eliminates labor protections such as the minimum wage, worker safety, family and medical leave, and overtime. (Ahh, here we get to the issue. Dr. Reich doesn't like people making their own choices apart from the entrenched systems of the corporate/government economy. He thinks that people are making bad choices, and he wants something done about it. 

He apparently doesn't understand that many people don't want minimum wage protection, they are fine without government nannies worrying about their safety, and that they want to choose for themselves when and if they take leave from their work.)

And it ends employer-financed insurance – Social Security, workers’ compensation, unemployment benefits, and employer-provided health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. (He writes as if this were a bad thing. But again, people don't want to pay more than 15% of their income to SS, they don't want a government unemployment handout, and they certainly don't want to be forced to buy things like healthcare.)

No wonder, according to polls, almost a quarter of American workers worry they won’t be earning enough in the future. That’s up from 15 percent a decade ago. (Dr. Reich draws a specious conclusion by bringing in a factor that doesn't apply to "sharers.")

Such uncertainty can be hard on families, too. Children of parents working unpredictable schedules or outside standard daytime working hours are likely to have lower cognitive skills and more behavioral problems, according to new research. (Waaait. This is the complaint typically lodged against eeevil corporations! Dr. Reich continues to conflate separate issues.) 

What to do? (Can't wait to read what his recommendations will be. Anyone willing to bet me it will be a government solution, a bunch of laws keeping people from doing what they want to do without government "help?")

Courts are overflowing with lawsuits over whether companies have misclassified “employees” as “independent contractors,” resulting in a profusion of criteria and definitions.
 (A semi-related issue that does not argue against the sharing economy.)

We ("We," as in government. Notice that because of government's failure to provide uniformity in employee definitions, that there is a problem for which "we" need more government?)

should aim instead for simplicity: (A factor rarely considered when government intervenens.)

Whoever pays more than half of someone’s income, or provides more than half their working hours should be responsible for all the labor protections and insurance an employee is entitled to.

In addition, to restore some certainty to people’s lives, we ("We" again. "We" never means you and me. "We" is always government.)

need to move away from unemployment insurance and toward income insurance. (As we surmised. A new government "solution.")

Say, for example, your monthly income dips more than 50 percent below the average monthly income you’ve received from all the jobs you’ve taken over the preceding five years. With income insurance, you’d automatically receive half the difference for up to a year. (What would be the source of this money? And who pays the cost of this "insurance?")

It’s possible to have a flexible economy and also provide workers some minimal level of security. (Not "provide," impose. Dr. Reich wants more government intervention into peoples' private choices, whether they want it or not.)

A decent society requires no less. (Emotional appeal. A society isn't an entity, it has no feelings, no desires, no consciousness. It isn't decent, people are decent. It isn't compassionate, people are compassionate. Dr. Reich is imputing human characteristics to a system, a collection of independent parties who have a loose association based on their own needs. 

It isn't possible for us to have a "decent" society. Nor is it desirable. People choose for themselves how they want to lead their lives, and they don't much care what Dr. Reich thinks about it.)