I've met quite a few grad student interns from Europe. Was very surprised when they told me. Quite an unintended consequence of a well-meaning policy.
As for flexibility of hours on interim contracts, it's nonexistent, because employers don't want to give that. They'll hire whoever just complies with their hours and usually not even allow for swaps.
I've even been on the other side of this. Allowing hour swaps leads to first the impression of preferential treatment, then actual preferential treatment (because "he's doing it"), then fights, then a total disaster.
The fundamental problem is that employment law tries to treat the employer as a nasty exploiter, not as a provider of something good to those to whom it pays salary. The law often starts from confrontation and zero-sum game, not from having shared goals and interests.
So you wind up getting laws designed so that employers need to be fair when firing, allowing folks time off after pregnancy (including men), allowing folks to stay home when they are sick, and making sure folks can try to correct their ways before getting fired.
And contrary to your belief, enforcement of laws seems to happen here (norway). Temp agencies seem to be much more used than they were in the US.. and weirdly less predatory to the worker. It still sucks only having a temp job, but that's how a lot of folks get started working here.
There aren't remedies for these folks in the states Now. If all people had that power, they'd be more likely to use it. Unfortunately, you have to have a bit of privilege to pull it off when there aren't laws to protect you (and sometimes when there are).
And while I realize that this is controversial, but in order for this to work 2 other conditions are necessary:
1) limit immigration
2) throw the book at any employer caught employing illegal immigrants (because they're not doing it to help the illegal immigrants)
Sans the (many) inefficiencies, the government is basically an expression of the collective will.
However, treating all employers as nasty exploiters then means that more of them will have to act such. A better recourse would be to ensure the labour market works, so that the nasty exploiters lose employees and have to start behave themselves.
> The fundamental problem is that employment law tries to treat the employer as a nasty exploiter
Because they are, almost inevitably, if left unchecked.
Is slightly more convenience for the rich (if you use uber and deliveroo, that means you) worth allowing exploitation of the poor ? If so, how much ?
Do only "the rich" use taxicabs? Uber is generally cheaper than a cab, so if middle class uses cabs (and overwhelmingly has smart phones), why wouldn't they also use Uber?
Also, poor people generally would rather be "exploited" and employed than on the dole.