You know, all the occupations in EPI's table are wage-earning jobs that usually don't pay well. If EPI and the others want to cherry pick those low-paying jobs, I'm willing to let them do it. The jobs usually don't pay to risk independent work, anyway. I think they're a drag on our lobbying because our opponents focus on those jobs and not our higher-paying ones. Actually, the jobs are a persuasive argument for unionization, to tell he truth. So, fine. Let the unions have those workers, if they'll leave the rest of us alone.
We can cherry pick, too, by focusing on the higher paying work that most of us do. We can concentrate on our professional, creative and administrative work, which I've read is about 80% of independent contractors. This would undercut the argument that all of us are superexploited and must be "rescued" by being employees. We can demonstrate that we're paid well enough that we don't need the benefits of employee jobs and that we're clever enough to made reasonable decisions about our careers.
The freelance busters have made clear, for years now, that they want as many independent contractors reclassified as unionizable employees as possible. They do not give a damn if we currently earn $100,000, $200,000 or more. Our success and happiness are irrelevant to them. They want more unionizable employees. Period.
You know, all the occupations in EPI's table are wage-earning jobs that usually don't pay well. If EPI and the others want to cherry pick those low-paying jobs, I'm willing to let them do it. The jobs usually don't pay to risk independent work, anyway. I think they're a drag on our lobbying because our opponents focus on those jobs and not our higher-paying ones. Actually, the jobs are a persuasive argument for unionization, to tell he truth. So, fine. Let the unions have those workers, if they'll leave the rest of us alone.
We can cherry pick, too, by focusing on the higher paying work that most of us do. We can concentrate on our professional, creative and administrative work, which I've read is about 80% of independent contractors. This would undercut the argument that all of us are superexploited and must be "rescued" by being employees. We can demonstrate that we're paid well enough that we don't need the benefits of employee jobs and that we're clever enough to made reasonable decisions about our careers.
What do you think?
The freelance busters have made clear, for years now, that they want as many independent contractors reclassified as unionizable employees as possible. They do not give a damn if we currently earn $100,000, $200,000 or more. Our success and happiness are irrelevant to them. They want more unionizable employees. Period.