Summary of the Key Points
The article uses the analogy of standing in for having no seat on a train to criticize the notion that “flexibility itself is a benefit.” Many people choose flexible employment not because they actively prefer it, but because they have no other choice—because they cannot find a stable job with social security. The real needs of flexible workers go far beyond just having control over their time; they urgently require healthcare, pension benefits, and housing subsidies. Flexibility and security are not mutually exclusive options; rather, the current system binds them together, forcing workers to trade security for “freedom.” The article calls for attention to the actual difficulties faced by flexible workers and urges us not to romanticize these passive choices as benefits.
Detailed Analysis
The Metaphor of Not Having a Seat: Standing—is it a Choice or a Necessity?
The author draws on her own experience of buying a ticket without a seat: standing is not because she enjoys “walking around freely,” but because all the seats were sold out. Later, she tried buying a plastic stool for extra comfort, but gave up because it was considered “illegal” or because seats were more readily available. This situation closely resembles that of flexible workers—他们的 flexibility is not a result of a love for freedom, but a lack of stable jobs with benefits. Zhang Dandan herself acknowledges that “some people make this choice voluntarily, while others have no other option,” just as passengers without seats are not unwilling to travel, but simply have no seats available.
The Misconception That “Flexibility Is a Benefit”: Confusing Voluntary Choice with Compulsion
A statement by a Peking University professor has sparked controversy, as it portrays “passive acceptance” as a “voluntary benefit.” The article uses Amartya Sen’s example to illustrate this point: fasting and starving may seem the same, but fasting is a voluntary choice (not eating when one can), while starving is a result of having no food available. The “freedom” associated with flexible employment also comes in two forms: university teachers not clocking in in the afternoon may be a voluntary arrangement, but ride-hailing drivers not clocking in is due to the lack of orders, which means no income. Behind this “freedom” lies the pressure of rent, car loans, and children’s tuition fees. This kind of “freedom” is not a benefit; it is a result of survival pressures.
The Real Needs of Flexible Workers: Security Is More Urgent Than Freedom
Zhang Dandan’s research team surveyed 30,000 food delivery riders. The average age was 34, and 70% of them came from rural areas. Only half of them stayed in their jobs for more than six months, and 60% also took on other part-time jobs. Their top concerns were not about flexibility; more than half were concerned about pension plans, and one-third were worried about their children’s education. Housing subsidies and healthcare were among their top priorities. Only 28.8% of the riders wanted to maintain their “autonomy.” This shows that for most flexible workers, “surviving” and “having support in old age” are more important than “when to receive orders,” and these goals are not contradictory—they want to be able to manage their time while also having access to necessary healthcare in case of injury.
Flexibility and Security Are Not Mutually Exclusive: The System Can Provide Both
The article argues that there is no inherent conflict between flexibility and security. For example, traditional jobs can offer flexible working hours, and flexible employment can include social security that can be transferred to other locations. The problem lies in the current system, which links security to a “fixed employment relationship.” Platforms use flexible labor to reduce costs (hiring more workers when there are more orders and fewer when there are fewer), but they shift the risks to the workers (unstable income, lack of work-related injury benefits). Solutions are clear: social security should be made portable across regions (just like a mobile phone card), platform responsibilities should be clarified (providing insurance for riders), and subsidies should be provided for low-income workers. These measures would allow flexible workers to have both time autonomy and basic security.
The Traps of the “Flexible Employment” Label: Overlooking the Diversity of the Group
The term “flexible employment” was originally created for statistical convenience, but over time, it has become a tool for generalization, lumping together different groups of people—freelancers who choose this lifestyle, riders who are forced to work part-time, and those who are temporarily unemployed—under the assumption that they all value freedom. However, the reality is more complex: some people with high incomes choose flexible employment voluntarily, while others with low incomes have no choice but to accept it; some care about autonomy, while others simply want a stable job with benefits. Labeling these workers as “flexible” can lead us to ignore their difficulties and even to treat their situation as a benefit, hindering the resolution of real issues.
Conclusion
It’s easy to reframe “no seat” as a “freedom benefit,” but providing a chair for those standing (i.e., solving their security issues) is what truly matters. Flexibility can be a benefit, but only if workers have the right to choose whether to sit down or not.