But why would a better fix not be to require ZZP contractors to pay into government-matched/supported funds for healthcare, retirement, etc?
Many people really prefer to not be an employee. Why tether their health and old age to a big employer with a ball and chain?
The types of zzzp'ers I'm most familiar with are in construction and they are cheaper than traditional businesses. They're outcompeting traditional businesses because they don't have to pay retirement and insurance and all that.
It's been a topic for years here what to do about ZZP'ers because if something _does_ happen to one at work (ie an accident to their health or to the house they're working on it whatever) they typically don't have insurance which leads to big personal problems for them.
It's like a high risk high reward type of thing, but the issue is that they're also outcompeting traditional workers all over the place.
Otoh, if you were to require them to pay for stuff like insurance and retirement, the whole idea of being a zzp'er will cease to make any sense. You don't earn any higher any more, you will need to charge more so people have no reason to prefer your services over traditional ones.
Zzp'er just means that you work alone and have no personnel. Ie, similar to a freelancer basically.
Also sadly enough, often zzp'ers are less skilled than traditionally employed individuals. Not exactly sure why that is but might be related to how they were trained and a lack of institutional knowledge due to not working with an established workplace/having regular colleagues etc
If ZZP outcompetes more "socially responsible" options, it's a buggy system and should be fixed. Freedom as a freelancer should probably be the only/primary benefit of such a designation, not the ability to dodge responsibilities.
Thank you for the color!