It is up to the government, in certain political philosophy, to make sure that its citizens have a livelihood. How do those government pay for it is the object

It is up to the government, in certain political philosophy, to make sure that its citizens have a livelihood. How do those government pay for it is the object of taxation: hardly any government extract enough value from the service it provides to pay for them, so they never “pay for it”; they organise transfers. Sanders point is that the current system is de-facto redistributive, in favour of companies who use temporary workers at a large scale and with patterns that appear to be designed to evade regulations on employee protection. Say, there are obligations that kick in when an employee works for more than 40 hours per week; employers who have thousands of employees tasked to work only 39 hours could obviously hire almost as many and be responsible for sick pay, holidays, health insurance. You response is probably that this means the union decision was badly designed, and no one who knows anything about labor negotiations would disagree with you. It is a case of the spirit of the law versus its letter. I’m sure you want to say that this is not the company’s role to write the law. That would make their lobbyist laugh a bit, but let’s assume this is true. Sanders is precisely trying to fit one to the other. What constitutes a clear breach (and how the numbers quoted in the project are established) is probably a nightmare of analytical ad-hoc decisions, but it’s probably more honest than refusing to support financially basic human needs from people who, de-facto, work full time for you.