...where the "better" (FTE), is getting replaced by the "worse" (irregular labor such as Uber/1099's/agency).

If anything, it's Uber and the like responding with the call of "Individuals have too much stability, KILL THEM."

Correct.

Such arrangements discourage stability and destroy the option for those that thrive best on conventional, FTE arrangements.

Incorrect.

The only innovation that it "creates" is by creating more "broken windows". The loss in stability is not a positive factor, as it transfers the advantage to the broker/agency/etc, not individuals in general.

No thank you, but the casualization of labor does not lead to anywhere good or sane.

The only way an FTE job loses is when someone has enough ability to deflect the negative consequences of turning down work. These people are few, rare, and have the luxury that nearly everyone else doesn't have.

An FTE job provides the necessary stability. Your arrangements do not.

The idea of promoting unstable work arrangements is one that needs to DIAF. Promoting it as "flexibility" with a Potemkin Village doesn't make it true - it only serves to show that the "on-demand" economy cannot stand on merit, but on deception.

Perhaps you might want to read up on your historical friend, the company town, and wonder why we don't want to head back to the vagaries of the 19th century.

The only person that would be happy is a person that has the rare luxury of being able to turn down any form of work.

Uber drivers are not of that set, but of a set that would choose more stable arrangements if offered them.

You leave out the details of how someone gets there or that others do well with an established company.

Such lines of work do not show any net benefit - unless you have the luxury of being able to turn down any line of work.

N/T

No thank you, but you're asking to make the problem worse.

Default to FTE's, and make any lesser form (contract work, third party, and/or combinations) be strictly on no-duress consent.

In more cases than not, contract work (fixed term) only exists to dodge benefits laws.

Instead of trying to cram-down "flexibility" from above to dodge benefits laws, why not make it compete with first-tier FTE work and benefits.

That is, an employer cannot make someone accept less than FTE as a condition of accepting work, nor be required to accept employment through a third party - for all skill levels.

That's not me that calls them "Asians", it's the BBC that wants to obfuscate their backgrounds. Never mind it's also the BBC that's willing to stand up for government officials caught committing similar acts of abuse.

Then again, the UK makes it a crime to actually be British, stand up for yourself, defend other culturally non-protected groups, or make any factual objections regarding Mohammedans.

Why yes, I am. I do recall it being at least FCC certified to operate, but nothing else.

At least with the 9500 Communicator and other models, there was a willingness to ship across borders. On the other hand, Jolla goes out of its way to make sure that it is a PITA to import one, much like how Nokia's high-end Harmattan device was released to the middle-of-nowhere.

Rotherham: a certain set of BBC-defined "Asians" from the Middle East avoid prosecution for fear of offending their culture.
In the government: If you're high enough up in the government (individuals such as Mr. Savile), you get a pass.

In both cases, the accuser is more likely to be the target of government-protected retribution.

Given that it's been associated with people that harass under the banner of "anti-harassment", their claims are impossible to believe. The only reason that such "anti-harassment" groups exist is for the coordinated silencing of individuals that present uncomfortable, narrative-breaking facts.

The bulk of their harassment claims end up being disproven, while their harassment of individuals is well-proven (see Chelsea "ZQ" van Valkenberg, R.H., and others).