> They're an actual mode of labour. You can find analogies in the past. Well, indeed, day labouring and precarious work nothing new under the sun. And the past

> They're an actual mode of labour. You can find analogies in the past. Well, indeed, day labouring and precarious work nothing new under the sun. And the past experience with those is why societies have laws that limits them to various extent. I mean, employers could've just called people on their phones and said it was necessary due to the spread of phones to abandon the now obsolete labour laws. But back then people (and a stronger labour movement) would've just laughed it off and businesses knew that they couldn't pull that trick off. But atm the times are more ripe for this. > But, the scale, implications and context is not the same. What implication and context? That suspiciously vague. Why is scaled-up day labouring suddenly not the same? If any thing it's even more obvious - and important - that it breaks the rules. > if you want to play thick A bit cocky for someone that seem to ignore history. You've said nothing to answer the question what's fundamentally different to justify the regression. The dread of day labouring what one of the very reasons for the existence of these laws in the first place! Now you come along with an app and say that day labouring is henceforth necessary? That makes no sense whatsoever. > Create some. They are already there? One of their very purposes is to protect against exactly this. > App-work exists > it exists What kind of an argument is that even? Still doesn't mean it's legal, just that corps feel the times are ripe enough to try to challenge them by just refusing to comply and spend vast resource on lobbying and taking it to court. > I agree that it shouldn't be a workaround to paying pensions To avoid paying proper benefits/pensions is the very reason of their existence.