Write about the topic below for 5 minutes
Some people think gig workers should receive the same benefits and protections as full-time employees. Others think flexibility is the main advantage of gig work, and adding those protections would take that away. Which do you agree with?
A follow-up question based on your answer will appear here.
Useful Expressions
Show Model Answer · Step 1
I agree that gig workers should receive stronger benefits and protections, even if the exact form differs from a traditional employee package. Many gig workers rely on this work as their primary income, so denying them protections like injury coverage or a minimum earnings guarantee leaves them with real financial risk.
Flexibility and basic protection are not mutually exclusive. Several regions have already introduced portable benefits systems, where protections follow the worker across platforms rather than being tied to a single employer, preserving flexibility while still offering a safety net.
A gig economy that treats workers as fully disposable ultimately shifts risk from companies onto individuals, which is not a sustainable or fair way to structure an entire sector of the economy.
Show Model Answer · Step 2
That trade-off is possible, but it is not inevitable. Portable benefits systems mentioned earlier were designed precisely to avoid this outcome, spreading the cost of protections across the platform and the broader market rather than making each individual job unaffordable to offer.
If reclassification did reduce the number of gig jobs somewhat, it might also filter out platforms that were only profitable because they externalized risk onto workers. That is not necessarily a loss for the economy overall, even if it changes for a specific company's business model.
The number of gig jobs available matters less than whether the jobs that remain actually support the people doing them. A smaller but more sustainable gig economy may serve workers better than a larger one built on minimal protection.