What is the author's main conclusion?
Gig platforms present themselves as marketplaces: independent workers choose when to work and for whom. Many workers value the flexibility, and surveys in which they say so are often cited in defence of the model. But the freedom to log on when one likes is not the freedom to negotiate. The platform sets the rate, rates the worker and can remove access without explanation. Flexibility and security are not opposites, and the choice between them is a false one. Workers can be given minimum protections, such as a minimum rate per hour worked and a route to challenge removal, while keeping the freedom to choose their hours. If the platforms' business could not survive such modest protections, that would tell us something about how much of its profit rested on shifting costs onto others.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: B. Gig workers can be given basic protections without losing their flexibility
- Step 1: The passage says flexibility and security are not opposites and lists minimum protections that keep hours free.
- Step 2: The only choice consistent with this is "Gig workers can be given basic protections without losing their flexibility".
Answer
Gig workers can be given basic protections without losing their flexibility.
Why not the others: The author accepts that workers value flexibility, does not distrust the surveys and does not propose closure or ownership.
Practise more Employment.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.