The Competitive Enterprise Institute has weighed in on our debate over flexibility in the gig economy with a new piece by Trey Kovacs. Their bottom line: they agree with my analysis of the law but object to the “burdens” (what I’d call minimum basic protections) that employment law imposes on employers:

If government did not impose so many added costs and liabilities on the employer-employee relationship, Sachs’ argument would be more convincing. As long as employee status saddles employers with massive burdens, companies will be reluctant to offer the kind of flexibility rideshare drivers enjoy today as independent contractors.

The opening post in this debate, Enough with the Flexibility Trope, is available here. Professor Estlund’s response is here, and my reply here.