I agree thoroughly with your sentiment and am a strong believer in the welfare state as a way of addressing social imbalances. I also like the economics of the state providing better stability to those in the gig economy because, in theory, it will mean that they feel less pressure to work unhealthy hours (as in the article) and this, in turn, should increase the minimum amount they will work for. However, my objection to this as solution is the situation of non-domiciled, largely un-taxed multinationals not contributing fairly to the pot that keeps the welfare working. As far as I can see, that amounts to a wealth transfer from the state to the shareholders and high-level managers of these companies.

Of course the solution would be to tax these companies fairly (which at least in the UK, is slowly beginning to happen), but eventually when taxed fairly enough, doesn't the burden for the companies end up being the same? The only difference is that the state would be footing the bill for the admin overhead of supporting these workers.