Summary of Key Points
A view expressed by Professor Zhang Dandan from Peking University, which suggests that "flexible employment is trading social security for freedom," has been misinterpreted in short videos, leading to criticism from netizens who questioned the rationale behind such a trade-off. The essence of the controversy is not about the correctness of the theory itself, but rather the practical anxiety of 240 million people in flexible employment (such as delivery riders and online car-hailing drivers) who lack the security provided by social security. Most of these individuals do not actively choose this lifestyle; rather, they are forced to accept a state of lacking protections. The incident also exposes issues such as platforms shifting the cost of employment and the inadequacy of the social security system. The core issue is clear: reforms are needed to ensure that the "freedom" associated with flexible employment is accompanied by proper safeguards, rather than being a last resort with no other options.
The Truth Behind the Controversy: Whose Pain Does the Misinterpretation Hit?
Professor Zhang Dandan's view is actually quite comprehensive. She distinguishes between "voluntarily flexible" workers (such as freelance writers and independent designers who choose this path) and "involuntarily flexible" workers (such as delivery riders and hourly workers who cannot find stable jobs) and calls for social security reforms. However, the short videos only highlight the phrases "flexibility itself is a benefit" and "trading social security for freedom," ignoring all the underlying conditions.
What angers netizens is not the statement itself, but the fact that it ignores the reality of 240 million people in flexible employment. Most of them are "involuntarily flexible"—they seem to have freedom in terms of time, but are actually forced to accept orders by platform algorithms (for example, riders may be fined for being late, and car-hailing drivers must meet certain driving hours to earn rewards), and they often cannot even take time off when sick (lacking medical insurance and sick leave). This so-called "freedom" is tied to their means of making a living and is not a true benefit, which is why netizens feel that the professor is speaking from an arm's length.
The Freedom of Flexible Employment: Voluntary or Forced?
The group of people in flexible employment can be divided into two categories:
- Voluntarily flexible: Those with skills and choices, such as content creators and independent photographers, who are willing to trade social security for more time freedom (and can afford to pay for their own social security).
- Involuntarily flexible: Those who cannot find stable full-time jobs and are forced to do casual work. Platforms often use tactics such as registering them as individual businesses, turning the employment relationship into a "business partnership," which allows the platforms to avoid paying social security and work-related injury insurance.
For those in the latter category, "trading social security for freedom" is not a voluntary transaction; it's a matter of having no other choice—either do casual work for immediate cash or face no income at all. This "freedom" is a trap, not a benefit.
Why Does Theory Diverge from Reality?
Economically, the idea of having to choose between "freedom and social security" makes sense if workers have equal bargaining power (for example, if they can negotiate terms with their employers). However, in reality, casual workers have little leverage:
- Riders who want the platform to provide social security are told they are individual businesses, not employees.
- Car-hailing drivers seeking stable income are at the mercy of the algorithm, as fewer orders mean less income.
Thus, the theoretical "voluntary exchange" in reality turns into a "forced compromise," where workers have no real choice but to accept jobs with no protections.
How Should Social Security Reforms Address These Shortcomings?
The government is already piloting new work-related injury insurance programs for different types of employment (available nationwide), where fees are charged based on each order (for example, a few cents per order). However, pension and medical insurance have not kept up. The problem lies in interests:
- Platforms are reluctant to increase costs.
- It is too expensive for workers to pay for their own social security (for example, the cost for flexible employment can amount to several thousand yuan per month, which many cannot afford).
The key to solving this is:
1. Clarifying platform responsibilities: Regardless of whether the worker is registered as an individual business or not, if they are actually working for the platform, the platform should bear part of the social security costs.
2. Learning from the work-related injury insurance pilots: Pension and medical insurance should also be based on orders, with both the platform and the worker contributing (for example, the platform contributing a larger portion).
3. Making social security more portable: Social security should be transferable across platforms and cities without interruption.
A Warning for Academic Expression: Don't Talk Out of Touch with Reality
This controversy serves as a reminder to scholars that when explaining professional views to the public, one cannot simply copy from textbooks. For instance, the situation of a small number of voluntarily flexible workers should not be generalized to all those in flexible employment, nor should the lack of social security protections be seen as a price that workers must pay for freedom.
Academic research can discuss the pros and cons, but public policies must ensure that flexible workers have the necessary protections. Only then can "freedom" truly be a benefit, rather than a helpless choice.
In Conclusion: Provide Protections First, Then Discuss Benefits
Flexible employment is not necessarily a negative thing, but only if it is accompanied by adequate protections. Only when social security is no longer a privilege of full-time employees can the "time freedom" associated with flexible employment truly be a benefit. After all, a sense of security is essential before one can make meaningful choices. The ultimate goal of this controversy is to raise societal awareness of the difficulties faced by these 240 million people and to promote real reforms that address their needs.