[throwaway_isms]

If you are defined as an employee (under the current standard) it has do to with a number of factors, so if you are giving up all those factors to the employer but not receiving the employee benefits it by definition is against everyone's interest.

Basically imagine you have Job A all things being equal you can have the Job A and all the benefits of being an employee or you can have Job A and none of the benefits of being an employee. How is it possible it is in anyone's interest to take Job A and not receive the benefits they are legally entitled to?

[proc0]

Why would employers pay or reward two exact positions differently? Obviously if you don't get benefits, you are more on the outside of the company, and get to leave whenever you want without a problem. Full time employees can't just walk away like temp positions or gig workers, at least not without hurting reputation. The responsibilities of full-timers with all the benefits are way more than their temp counter-parts. At the end of the day it's just another type of exchange... a simple one where there is less commitment, and a complicated one with more commitments and responsibilities. Why force companies to only have one of those options, pretending people are so dumb they don't see what the exchange is? Most people understand, if they want benefits, you need to go through long process of hiring, and you become part of the company in a formal sense, and to many that is not appealing.