The first type, is contracting because they have a set of valuable skills that they can charge a premium for. Because of this, employers will hire them on and pay a premium for it, the contractor has to consider all the extras that are involved, lack of holiday pay, ACC levies, as well as ensuring their own future. It's a choice to forgo job security and in return they can live much more comfortably.

The second type, is contracting because the employer is forcing the issue, or a contracting job is the only thing this person can find, these roles are usually not paid a premium, and these people aren't making a choice of forgoing job security. Instead, they are being short-changed by the employer, who is taking advantage of this arrangement, to avoid having to have these employees on payroll.

ACT mention in the article that this results in lower prices and more choice, the only way this can happen is that the employee gets shafted. In my industry, real contractors are much more costly than FTE's, and is usually only done because they are offering a particular set of skills, or a way around headcounts when the work just needs to get done.

[–] syphe@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

To add, I once worked in a company that had "contractors" working next to me, it was eye opening chatting to them, as they were not doing this by choice, and were desperate to be made full time employees, they were certainly not living the lavish life that all my previous contractor colleagues were afforded, and it was sad to see people being taken advantage of like that.

[–] Dave 5 points 1 year ago

Yes, and the first type of contractor is not arguing to the courts that they are an employee. Only the ones getting taken advantage of do that.